Jump to content

Ryan Giggs dirty little git.....


coco

Recommended Posts



lmfao

I can now say this without any reprisals, it's been read out on 5 live all aftrenoon.

Hes an idiot for still trying to sue twitter and all that, people have known it for months.

How big will this get compared to JT and Cole? not even close.

7 months behind her back, father of 2, dirty git

Edited by Andreas
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Mr Justice Eady rejected a fresh application by News Group Newspapers to discharge the privacy injunction relating to CTB on the basis that to continue it would be "futile", given recent widespread publicity about his identity.

The judge said: "It has never been suggested, of course, that there is any legitimate public interest, in the traditional sense, in publishing this information.

"The court's duty remains to try and protect the claimant, and particularly his family, from intrusion and harassment so long as it can."

Clearly the court had no such duty towards our captain when it overturned the injunction he had taken out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The Daily Heil has been referring to this unnamed (except in parliament) player as an "England footballer" in the last few days, which is a weird way of describing him. Do they refer to Tevez as an England footballer as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





must admit i've grown to dislike this tosser recently...noticed over the years he has never given credit to chelsea when they have beaten utd in games or for silverware, in fact he is usually one of the biggest moaners...yet always crows how utd deserve their wins etc...it's a small thing but when you have people saying what a classy example he is rammed down your throat, you just think it's not actually true...then he acts like an even bigger tosser in his private life...

read it and weep...hope you fcuk up in the champs league final as well

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Ryan-Giggs-kept-his-affair-with-Imogen-Thomas-such-a-closely-guarded-secret-even-his-agent-Harry-Swales-only-found-out-when-contacted-by-journalists-article740272.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

must admit i've grown to dislike this tosser recently...noticed over the years he has never given credit to chelsea when they have beaten utd in games or for silverware, in fact he is usually one of the biggest moaners...yet always crows how utd deserve their wins etc...it's a small thing but when you have people saying what a classy example he is rammed down your throat, you just think it's not actually true...then he acts like an even bigger tosser in his private life...

read it and weep...hope you fcuk up in the champs league final as well

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Ryan-Giggs-kept-his-affair-with-Imogen-Thomas-such-a-closely-guarded-secret-even-his-agent-Harry-Swales-only-found-out-when-contacted-by-journalists-article740272.html

That article certainly doesn't hold back at all. I've said time and time again that what they do off the field is there own business (within reason) and I'm only really interested in what they do on it. However after the amount of sh*t that has been flung at JT and Ash, I really hope the press run with this and he's hung out to dry and exposed for what an absolute w**ker he is. Extremely sad for his family I know, I hate the press for most of the Bullsh*t they print, but if they don't it'll be a huge double standard on there part. It would cap off a terrible week for him if he was to be sent off on Saturday or maybe he could miss the decisive pen in a shootout.

For now let's enjoy the jokes..

Ryan G!ggs Ryan G!ggs flying down the wing, Ryan G!ggs Ryan G!ggs shagging Imogen, He took her up the sh*tter, Now its all on Twitter, Ryan G!ggs Ryan G!ggs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about the coverage Cole & Terry got and to then hope Giggs gets the same treatment?

I get the point that you want consistency in reporting, but you can't have it both ways. You can't be in favour of Chelsea players' privacy being respected and then saying it's ok when a United player is involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about the coverage Cole & Terry got and to then hope Giggs gets the same treatment?

I get the point that you want consistency in reporting, but you can't have it both ways. You can't be in favour of Chelsea players' privacy being respected and then saying it's ok when a United player is involved.

Yes I can I'm a Chelsea fan and extremely biased :D.

Ok seriously now. I don't in anyway like the way the press operate. However consistency is the key word, as you've stated yourself. The bar has been set by the treatment of Terry and Cole, so why shouldn't Giggs be treated in the same way?

Of course I was not particularly happy with the way Cole and Terry were treated as it was negative press that impacted on the good name of the club. However Cole was an idiot and he should have known that the press would crucify him for his actions. In Terry's case, I still have doubts on what was true and what wasn't. Taking out an injunction certainly didn't help, but anyway that's a whole different story and several threads have discussed the whole saga in the past. They were given a lot of bad press and maybe some of it was deserved. I thought the JT story in particular was dragged out far too much. If they're still talking about Giggs in 3 months time I will say exactly the same.

Edited by Scooby Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Manchester United's preparations for the Champions League final will be hampered this week after Ryan Giggs was named as the footballer at the centre of the gagging order over his affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas.

As United count down to their meeting with Barcelona at Wembley, Giggs was named in the House of Commons by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemmings.

He used parliamentary privilege to name the star saying 75,000 people had already outed him on Twitter.

Naming Giggs he added that it would be 'impracticable' to prison everyone on the website who had previously tweeted his identity.

Speaker John Bercow immediately leapt out of his seat and rebuked Mr Hemmings in an effort to try and protect the Manchester United player's identity

During an extraordinary afternoon in Parliament, Mr Hemming named the star just minutes after the High Court refused to lift a ban on naming Giggs.

After the event Mr Bercow said sternly: 'Let me just say to the honourable gentleman, I know he's already done it, but occasions such as this are occasions for raising the issues of principle involved, not seeking to flout for whatever purpose.'

Following the revelation thousands of people once again took to Twitter to spread word Giggs had finally been outed.

The Prime Minister's spokesman this afternoon refused to comment on individual cases, although David Cameron had earlier admitted to knowing it was Giggs.

The Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who would be responsible for any prosecution for contempt, had earlier said during a Parliamentary debate on the injunction issue: 'It is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold the rule of law.'

The row provoked one of the biggest acts of civil disobedience in modern times and David Cameron branded the orders 'unsustainable' and 'unfair'.

Giggs had mounted a desperate campaign to keep his name secret, not only taking out an injunction but also threatening to sue Twitter users for leaking his name.

Earlier this afternoon Mr Justice Eady rejected a fresh application by News Group Newspapers to discharge the privacy injunction relating to CTB - the initials used to identify Ryan Giggs to the court - on the basis that to continue it would be 'futile', given recent widespread publicity about his identity.

The judge said: 'It has never been suggested, of course, that there is any legitimate public interest, in the traditional sense, in publishing this information.

'The court's duty remains to try and protect the claimant, and particularly his family, from intrusion and harassment so long as it can.'

Soon after the failed bid to have the injunction lifted, Attorney General Dominic Grieve announced that Mr Cameron would write to MP John Whittingdale to set up a joint committee to study the issue.

This morning speaking to ITV1's Daybreak, the Prime Minister indicated that he knew the identity of the footballer 'like everybody else' but stressed that there was no 'simple answer' and ministers needed to take 'some time out'.

Giggs's face was yesterday published by a Scots newspaper, the Glasgow-based Sunday Herald. Today, India's leading newspaper the Times Of India printed a picture of the footballer and used his name three times in a report about the injunction.

The Times of India also identified the British TV presenter and journalist who is facing a possible jail sentence after he allegedly breached a separate injunction.

The journalist is said to have named a second footballer trying to stop reports of an alleged affair. He was also named by the Indian paper.

The story was printed on the back page of the newspaper - the biggest-selling English language paper in India.

No reference was made to the story on its website, which is available to internet users in England and Wales.

The Times of India claims to be the highest-circulating English language newspaper in the world, selling 3.4million copies a day. It is read by around 7million Indians every day.

The paper was founded in 1838 and its first editor was an Englishman, Robert Knight, who ‘fought for a press free of government restraint or intimidation’.

Football fans in the UK yesterday mockingly chanted the footballer's name at a match with a worldwide audience. And he was mentioned more than 30,000 times on Twitter, helping to ensure that anyone still unaware of his identity can discover it with a few clicks of a mouse.

Mr Cameron said: 'It is rather unsustainable, this situation, where newspapers can't print something that clearly everybody else is talking about, but there's a difficulty here because the law is the law and the judges must interpret what the law is.

'What I've said in the past is, the danger is that judgments are effectively writing a new law which is what Parliament is meant to do.

'So I think the Government, Parliament has got to take some time out, have a proper look at this, have a think about what we can do, but I'm not sure there is going to be a simple answer.'

Mr Cameron suggested that one route might be to strengthen the Press Complaints Commission.

'It's not fair on the newspapers if all the social media can report this and the newspapers can't, so the law and the practice has got to catch up with how people consume media today,' he said.

'But I don't think there is an easy answer on this. Perhaps the way through is to look again at the Press Complaints Commission, the work it does. If people can have more confidence in that then we could have less of this current approach.

'But we are going to have to take some time out to really have a think about this.'

Labour leader Ed Miliband said he agreed that the privacy law situation 'does need to be looked at'.

'We have got a situation where we have these rulings on privacy, clearly many people are being able to break them through social networks, through Twitter and so on, and I don't think that's a good position to be in, when the law is clearly not working,' he told Sky News.

So I do think that Parliament needs to look at this. Parliament really needs to look at the balance between respecting the privacy of the individual and the freedom of the Press to report things which are in the public interest, and it's right that Parliament needs to look at it.'

The dramatic backlash took its cue from MPs and peers who have spoken against injunctions. It left judges facing an overwhelming task if they try to maintain the gagging order while preserving any shreds of respect for the courts and their privacy laws.

One MP suggested that only a minority of people have not now heard a name for the Premier League footballer, who was granted a privacy injunction in April which forbade publication of his name or allegations that he had a six-month affair with former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas.

Internet speculation on his identity began within a week, was fuelled by an MP who blurted out his name during the recording of a television programme, and was helped along by Miss Thomas, who has complained frequently that she can be named and her reputation has been traduced.

The Glasgow-based Sunday Herald yesterday published a picture of the player on its front page, clearly identifiable despite a bar placed over his eyes.

It named him inside the paper and added that his action against Twitter ‘raises questions over the future of free speech on social media sites’.

The paper has a circulation of just over 30,000, which means it is likely to be read by between 75,000 and 100,000 people.

The effect of English privacy injunctions in Scotland has been a legal grey area. Scotland has a separate legal system and in the landmark Spycatcher case in 1986, Scottish newspapers ignored English judges and published material from the banned book by a former MI5 agent.

But Scottish newspapers circulate in England and their editors have been careful until now to stick by the letter of privacy injunctions.

Paul McBride QC, the Sunday Herald's legal adviser, said it was unacceptable for unelected judges to make the decisions to grant injunctions in private.

Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr McBride said there needed to be a debate about the way forward over granting privacy injunctions.

He said: 'Parliament now have to look at this issue. We can't have unelected judges making these decisions in private when we have the internet out there where everyone can access the information they're trying to keep secret.

'We had the absurd position this week of even MPs in our democratically elected Parliament being threatened with potential contempt of court by using their parliamentary privilege to name people. That's not acceptable anymore.'

Mr McBride added: 'We're having this kind of surreal, parallel universe conversation where everyone with a mobile phone and access to the internet knows who the individual is but mainstream news organisations can't publish his name.

'In the case of the Sunday Herald, the decision was one of principle. The so-called super-injunction didn't apply in this particular jurisdiction and those representing the particular individual didn't take precautions to apply for an interdict in Scotland.

'In relation to the Sunday Herald article there was no discussion about the individual's private life it was simply to name him as the person who was using a tool of law which has widely now been brought into disrepute.'

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said it would be 'extremely foolish' for the Attorney General in England to try to start proceedings against a Scottish publication.

'I think it would be very, very unlikely that an Attorney General would be as foolish as to do so,' he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

'I think the political issue is whether it is tenable to pursue this sort of injunction.

'I would have thought there is an increasing view it is untenable to do so. There is a whole question of what is of interest to the public and what is in the public interest, which can often be different things.

'But the law essentially is a practical thing. It looks to me like English law and English injunctions are increasingly impractical in the modern world.'

Mr Salmond ridiculed the idea that English court rules on any subject 'should pertain across the planet'.

The alleged footballer’s name and a sexual allegation was chanted by his club’s supporters at a Premiership match yesterday. And he was mentioned in connection with the privacy case in the online reference site Wikipedia.

Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who has campaigned against privacy injunctions, said: ‘This is an oppressive and sinister farce.’

Mr Hemming, who first identified disgraced banker Sir Fred Goodwin in connection with a super-injunction in the Commons, said: ‘The judges are trying to reverse the tide of civil disobedience with draconian attempts to suppress the truth.

‘But this is now the biggest wave of civil disobedience anyone can remember. There are at least 30,000 people defying the judges on the internet.’

He added: ‘People are finding that the more you try to suppress something on the internet, the more it is published. Attempts to silence the internet are much more in the interest of the lawyers than the footballers.’

The open defiance of the privacy laws, developed by judges on the back of Labour’s Human Rights Act, has mushroomed to unprecedented levels thanks to the internet.

Last week Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, backed by Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, threatened to restrict reporting of Parliament in the attempt to shore up the effectiveness of secrecy injunctions.

The judges are to stage talks with Commons Speaker John Bercow and Lords Speaker Baroness Hayman to try to stop MPs and peers using Parliamentary privilege to name those who have been given injunctions.

Judges have also been told that in future privacy injunctions should ban anyone from gossiping about names involved, and newspapers should pass on the names of all journalists in the know to the lawyers of celebrities with injunctions.

Yesterday Tory MP Douglas Carswell said the law is ‘an ass’. He added: ‘Mr Bercow should remind the judges that the Commons is elected – and it is their Lordships’ appetite for self-aggrandisement that has left them looking asinine.'

Several celebrities, including XXXX XXXXXX, the broadcaster, author and XXXX XX XXXXXX columnist, XXX XXXXX, the singer, and the comedians XXXX XXXXXXX and XXX XXXX are among those who posted tweets at the weekend which either identified the star in connection to the relationship or heavily hinted at his involvement.

The attempt to silence Twitter may turn into an own goal because several of the celebrity tweeters have followings which far exceed the circulations of some of the newspapers the star is trying to silence.

Alan Stevens, who advises businesses on social media, said the attempt to silence Twitter was like ‘pouring petrol on the flames’.

He said: ‘It is like that famous scene in Spartacus where everyone puts their hand up and claims to be the hero of the piece.

‘Everyone on Twitter is now queuing up to name that footballer.

‘There are so many people out there talking about it, you might as well say you can’t talk on the phone or in the pub about something.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1390107/Ryan-Giggs-named-Commons-affair-Imogen-Thomas.html

Surely this is going to have a huge impact on uniteds CL final preparations. Is going to be very interesting to see how the media go about this considering he has always been a darling of theirs. Can only imagine the uproar had JT or Ashley been in this situation

Link to comment
Share on other sites


apparently a van of masked men have jumped out of a van and battered a load of paperazzi standing outside Giggs`s home, so some good has came of this after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up