You are wrong chirps, it didn't start out as a joke, i don't and have never rated him, i don't love football, or proclaim to know anything about football (i'm a Cricket man dude you should know that), i love Charlton FC which has nowt to do with Giggs in any way shape or form. I do not understand why people cant just understand when i say he's crap, thats my opinion and thats that. End of, no need for digging me out, or calling me clueless (which could possibly be true just don't want some jumped up muppet internet poster who is probably about 12). Plus Giggs is a big headed cock!
"Anyone who knows anything about football, or anyone who knows nothing about football but loves it, knows that Ryan Giggs is a top quality player. A consummate professional and a great ambassador for football and Manchester United. "
Anyone who has read this thread knows he is neither of the last two things. Unless you define being a great ambassador for sport as simply being very good at it.
[cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]The US most certainly do go in for this stuff, just not so much in their newspapers. They do have stacks and stacks of magazine weeklies full of it though. The difference is it is almost impossible to sue or get a retraction from the press in the US. Therefore they can basically say whatever they like and those in question can do nothing abou it. This in turns leads to so many far-fetched stories that the US public don't always know what is true and what isn't, so half believe everything.
The reason so many celebs sue through Britain is because we have the toughest libel laws in the world. Maybe if we followed everyone elses example and had little more press freedom we wouldn't be in this position.
Hence the different impressions of Michael Jackson between the UK & USA.
Tendulkar is no Viv Richards but is still a quality batsman! ;-)
[cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]The US most certainly do go in for this stuff, just not so much in their newspapers. They do have stacks and stacks of magazine weeklies full of it though. The difference is it is almost impossible to sue or get a retraction from the press in the US. Therefore they can basically say whatever they like and those in question can do nothing abou it. This in turns leads to so many far-fetched stories that the US public don't always know what is true and what isn't, so half believe everything.
And only in US would the President have to yet again promise the nation that he WAS born in the USA as he did today. What a godforsaken country that is.
Unfortunately it is a result of their weak libel laws. Political debate in the US seems to be about throwing as much mud as possible at your opponent and seeing what sticks. I was over there last autumn and it was coming up to election time, so the TV was full of political adverts. I can summarise them basically as a mixture of bad mouthing the opponent, and taking what's he/she's previously said out of context, or straight up mis-representing your opponent. Drove me crazy, wanted to throw things at the TV. No wonder voting numbers are so low, every politician is made to look like an arsehole by their opponents and are proved to be arseholes by running these ads themselves.
[cite]Posted By: carly burn[/cite]Love the way Giggsy was the consummate professional during his peak and now,in the twilight of his career,he's finally 'fillin his boots.'
RG has never to my mind invited the media into his house and done a "Hello" photo-shoot or courted publicity in any unreasonable manner. Consequently what right have the media got to get involved in his life? Wayne Rooney and Beckham (amongst others) have courted publicity and gone out of their way to attract publicity. That makes them objects of interest to the gossip columnists and was the reason why Rooney's attempt at a super-injunction was refused.
I'm with BFR on this. Media hungry people like the Beckhams and Rooneys can't have it both ways. They court publicity most of the time and so can't complain if it comes back occassionally to bite them on the arse. Others like Giggs are not at all interested in that and I think it's wrong for the media to run these sort of stories. To be frank I'm amazed that this stuff sells papers. People who are interested in who Giggs is or isnt shagging are just sad bastards with no life of their own. It wouldnt bother me if Giggs were shagging the Queen as it doesnt make one iota of difference to my life.
I find myself agreeing with you BFR, there's a first! However is it not the gold digging slapper who was touting herself rather than the media digging? Ok The Sun could have turned her away but someone would have bought the story.
Having held Giggs so highly as a sportsman I am disappointed, like I was with Tiger initially.
Its very sad and his lawyers have given him bad advice. He would have been better to own up to dropping his pants and taking the flack for a very brief period. Instead its been ongoing for ages , cost him loads of dosh and his family(who where supposed to be protected from this) are getting it day in and day out.
As for the judge saying he gave the gag as he thought there was an"implication" of blackmail--- just where in UK law does "implication" mean GUILT ?
I find myself agreeing with you BFR, there's a first! However is it not the gold digging slapper who was touting herself rather than the media digging. Ok THe Sun copuld have turned her away but someone would have bought the story.
Having held Giggs so highly as a sportsman I am disappointed, like I was with Tiger initially.
But why are you disappointed ? You'd have to be insane to base a moral judgement of a person on their sporting ability. It's a bit like when parents complain that professional footballers aren't good role models for their children, it makes no sense at all why they should be.
It doesn't change my opinion of him as a footballer in the slightest. Why would it?
This is the only way it was ever going to come out - with someone publicly naming him. I do believe in freedom of the press and speech. However I'm not sure Hemming has goen about things the in right way here. It will be interesting to see how far the media are allowed to go with this now i.e whether they can say "yes it is Giggs" or "MP John Hemming has named Giggs." It is opportunistic from Hemming and he has abused his parliamentary privilege. Why he hasn't he named the actor with the Rooney hooker as well? Why single out Giggs?
Another interesting point is that if he were to to serve Twitter with a writ, which they would then refuse, as they do not have to accept one from a British court. In that case he would have to take them to court in the USA as Twitter are based in San Francisco. He would then be named in court over there and it would be freely reported in the US media. Bizarre.
Really he should just drop the injunction, let it out, summer coming up everyone will have forgotten about it in a few months, just like Rooney last summer.
You have to love the Sun moralising about this - their sister paper the NoTW is currently half-way through apologising and having to cough up large amounts of cash for their part in the illegal phone tapping of numerous celebrities. All the while News International are claiming innocence and blaming it on rogue reporters.
I instinctively feel the press should have the right to investigate and, if necessary, name and shame our supposed rulers and masters. I see it as part of democratic accountability as if somebody is dishonest and immoral in their private life, whilst that in itself does not affect me, the chances are that same lack of morality will be applied in public or professional life which may well affect me and other ordinary people. How that scumbag Goodwin got one of these injunctions I'll never know as a case in point.
The question is whether it is possible or deirable to examine these things on a case by case basis or not. If we take the "bus lane" argument propounded by some on here on another thread then there is no discretion whatsoever and Mr Giggs being caught with his trousers down is simply collateral damage in the interests of an open and accountable society given that, as BFR and others mention, he has never courted publicity in his private life. However whether by her own fault or that of others (I don't know as I've not really followed it) Imogen Thomas appeared to be attracting public opprobium and surely there comes a point where she deserves a right to correct / refute allegations made against her. Once again the trouserless Mr Giggs is collateral damage.
I am conflicted about this as the media want to present the celeb wannabe as a victim and heroine type, but she had an affair with a married man and now wants to cash in on it. She probably needs money for more surgical enhancements. The lovely lady is also rumoured to have leaked her own sex tape onto the web.
Giggs is obviously no angel and has done wrong, but he may just be trying to protect his kids from seeing all this in the media, as any parent would
It doesn't change my opinion of him as a footballer in the slightest. Why would it?
This is the only way it was ever going to come out - with someone publicly naming him. I do believe in freedom of the press and speech. However I'm not sure Hemming has goen about things the in right way here. It will be interesting to see how far the media are allowed to go with this now i.e whether they can say "yes it is Giggs" or "MP John Hemming has named Giggs." It is opportunistic from Hemming and he has abused his parliamentary privilege. Why he hasn't he named the actor with the Rooney hooker as well? Why single out Giggs?
Another interesting point is that if he were to to serve Twitter with a writ, which they would then refuse, as they do not have to accept one from a British court. In that case he would have to take them to court in the USA as Twitter are based in San Francisco. He would then be named in court over there and it would be freely reported in the US media. Bizarre.
I don't think he has abused Parliamentary privilege. Surely that is what it's for - to expose things to the public that vested interests want to hide. Goonerhater makes a very good point that he was poorly advised by his lawyers - whatever the outcome they were bound to win and Giggs was bound to pay for it.
On the point of superinjunctions, I'm not sure how anyone can be sued for breeching them unless it's the people who are subject to the injunction. Superinjunctions are supposed to be secret between the court and the injunctees. Therefore if you breech it on Twitter or wherever else, how do you know you've breeched it unless you were at court? How would they prove that you deliberately breeched something of which you had no knowledge? It sounds like some medieval witchcraft law. The whole thing is a shambles.
Finally,English law has always allowed "fair comment" as a legal defence i.e. you can publish the truth without fear. What the superinjunctions appear to do is stop people publishing the truth. If Imogen is telling a porky, then Ryan can sue her for libel or slander. But if she isn't, then he can't.
Personally I couldn't give a stuff about anyone else's private life, but the thought of a rich person being able to suppress free speech is abhorrent.
But these injunctions are a hastle for the WAGS, so they will be pleased tonight that the Government are looking to relax the gagging law. Then the WAGS can have it both ways (ooh ah!). They might get a ring on their finger or a few £k in the bank thanks to kiss and tell to the likes of the NOTW.
No Sympathy due to Ryan Giggs as he gets his just deserts.
Hope he plays well on Saturday.
Oh, and the Liberal bloke should be thrown to the crowd at Old Trafford.
It doesn't change my opinion of him as a footballer in the slightest. Why would it?
This is the only way it was ever going to come out - with someone publicly naming him. I do believe in freedom of the press and speech. However I'm not sure Hemming has goen about things the in right way here. It will be interesting to see how far the media are allowed to go with this now i.e whether they can say "yes it is Giggs" or "MP John Hemming has named Giggs." It is opportunistic from Hemming and he has abused his parliamentary privilege. Why he hasn't he named the actor with the Rooney hooker as well? Why single out Giggs?
Another interesting point is that if he were to to serve Twitter with a writ, which they would then refuse, as they do not have to accept one from a British court. In that case he would have to take them to court in the USA as Twitter are based in San Francisco. He would then be named in court over there and it would be freely reported in the US media. Bizarre.
The irony behind all this is that the bloke who outed him, has had 26 extra marital affairs according to his wife!
I don't think he has abused Parliamentary privilege.
I disagree, why did he need to mention Ryan Gigg's name? We have a judicial system in this country who decide what is and what isn't law, it's the job of the legislative body to make law. If this MP wanted to make a point about the privacy laws then he could have done so without mentioning his name and that would have respected both the letter of the law and the decision. If Giggs had committed some heinuos crime then that would be another matter, but he hasn't. This MP was grandstanding.
Comments
Now don't even get me started on Tendulkar! ;-)
Anyone who has read this thread knows he is neither of the last two things. Unless you define being a great ambassador for sport as simply being very good at it.
Pah, not bad !
Tendulkar is no Viv Richards but is still a quality batsman! ;-)
And only in US would the President have to yet again promise the nation that he WAS born in the USA as he did today. What a godforsaken country that is.
If you can't beat 'em Giggsy............
Allegedly!
I have mixed feelings about this.
RG has never to my mind invited the media into his house and done a "Hello" photo-shoot or courted publicity in any unreasonable manner. Consequently what right have the media got to get involved in his life? Wayne Rooney and Beckham (amongst others) have courted publicity and gone out of their way to attract publicity. That makes them objects of interest to the gossip columnists and was the reason why Rooney's attempt at a super-injunction was refused.
I find myself agreeing with you BFR, there's a first! However is it not the gold digging slapper who was touting herself rather than the media digging? Ok The Sun could have turned her away but someone would have bought the story.
Having held Giggs so highly as a sportsman I am disappointed, like I was with Tiger initially.
Its very sad and his lawyers have given him bad advice. He would have been better to own up to dropping his pants and taking the flack for a very brief period. Instead its been ongoing for ages , cost him loads of dosh and his family(who where supposed to be protected from this) are getting it day in and day out.
As for the judge saying he gave the gag as he thought there was an"implication" of blackmail--- just where in UK law does "implication" mean GUILT ?
This is the only way it was ever going to come out - with someone publicly naming him. I do believe in freedom of the press and speech. However I'm not sure Hemming has goen about things the in right way here. It will be interesting to see how far the media are allowed to go with this now i.e whether they can say "yes it is Giggs" or "MP John Hemming has named Giggs." It is opportunistic from Hemming and he has abused his parliamentary privilege. Why he hasn't he named the actor with the Rooney hooker as well? Why single out Giggs?
Another interesting point is that if he were to to serve Twitter with a writ, which they would then refuse, as they do not have to accept one from a British court. In that case he would have to take them to court in the USA as Twitter are based in San Francisco. He would then be named in court over there and it would be freely reported in the US media. Bizarre.
You have to love the Sun moralising about this - their sister paper the NoTW is currently half-way through apologising and having to cough up large amounts of cash for their part in the illegal phone tapping of numerous celebrities. All the while News International are claiming innocence and blaming it on rogue reporters.
This is a difficult issue.
I instinctively feel the press should have the right to investigate and, if necessary, name and shame our supposed rulers and masters. I see it as part of democratic accountability as if somebody is dishonest and immoral in their private life, whilst that in itself does not affect me, the chances are that same lack of morality will be applied in public or professional life which may well affect me and other ordinary people. How that scumbag Goodwin got one of these injunctions I'll never know as a case in point.
The question is whether it is possible or deirable to examine these things on a case by case basis or not. If we take the "bus lane" argument propounded by some on here on another thread then there is no discretion whatsoever and Mr Giggs being caught with his trousers down is simply collateral damage in the interests of an open and accountable society given that, as BFR and others mention, he has never courted publicity in his private life. However whether by her own fault or that of others (I don't know as I've not really followed it) Imogen Thomas appeared to be attracting public opprobium and surely there comes a point where she deserves a right to correct / refute allegations made against her. Once again the trouserless Mr Giggs is collateral damage.
Giggs is obviously no angel and has done wrong, but he may just be trying to protect his kids from seeing all this in the media, as any parent would
I've just been leaked Manure's team for Saturday:
Van der Sar
Rafael
Ferdinand
Vidic
Evra
Valencia
Carrick
An unamed Premiership footballer
Park
Rooney
Hernandez
I don't think he has abused Parliamentary privilege.
I disagree, why did he need to mention Ryan Gigg's name? We have a judicial system in this country who decide what is and what isn't law, it's the job of the legislative body to make law. If this MP wanted to make a point about the privacy laws then he could have done so without mentioning his name and that would have respected both the letter of the law and the decision. If Giggs had committed some heinuos crime then that would be another matter, but he hasn't. This MP was grandstanding.