Scott Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Is it not allowed to post his name on the forum? I won't post it just now just in case but he was named in parliament today, nullifying the injunction against his name. Of course "alleged" still applies Took long enough, I must admit I was sweating in the pub last week when I was talking about him. Looking over my shoulder constantly waiting on the MI5 swoop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Tfi8fT9oHkQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_have Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Ryan G? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty71 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 the Ryan G off the forum? the mapper himself.... get away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Parliamentary privilege finally being utilised, the Lib Dems have finally done something right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Parliamentary privilege finally being utilised, the Lib Dems have finally done something right Don't agree at all. Everyone has a right to a private life under European law and there is also a right for the freedom of information/freedom of press. The two rights often conflict and this is a perfect example. It is up to the judge considering all the facts (the facts that we the public and the MP don't 100% know) to determine whether the right to a private life or the freedom of the press should succeed in this instance. The fact that the judge has sided with Giggs** suggests to me that the judge was convinced that private life should come first in this instance. I ask what right does an MP or any person have to interfere with a law and a decision made based on all the facts when they know sod all about it. They are interfereing with the systems of democracy and effectively breaching the law, the law which the bloody MPs put there in the first place. The whole reason why the judiciary and parliament are seperate entities is to limit parliament changing the law to suit themselves. It seems to me that the MP seems to think he should contradict the decision of the judiciary despite having no understanding of the facts of the matter or even the law (I suspect). Furthermore, an injunction is a very very hard thing to obtain, irrespective of what the media says. The damage caused to the person must significantly outweight the damage that would be caused by the media not being able to report the story. Again this decision is based on the facts. Again the media and that stupid MP seem to think they know better. It seems like the media are arguing that there should be no right for a private life which is, in my opinion, a very dangerous thing especially if it means the media has even more power and can be even more invasive. I also wouldn't be sure that Parliamentary Privilege will protect the MP. It isn't an automatic and total shield and I am sure that a judge would be more than happy to assist a claimant in giving the MP a kicking for breaching the law passed by the judges. The way I see it, even if privilege protected the MP from being sued by Giggs (civil law) he could still face criminal charges, which I don't think privilege protects against. (**if thats who it is - everyone seems to trust Twitter which is also stupid IMO - chances are we will find it was Linaker again or something in due course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 The trouble is "getting a super injunction" is only open to those who can "afford it " so is that fair on everyone else who can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraDan24 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Can someone Pm me what this is about, i must be completely out of the loop here lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlliRR Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 whilst I agree to people having a personal life, I dont agree with people who make money from their personality - all be it a sports personality in this case. I'd say these people make a lot of money selling themselves with products and so on so its only right that we get to see the scumbag behind the glamour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Sachs Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 What's the deal anyway? Is that bint from big brother trying to cash in on being a bun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Don't agree at all..... While I agree with pretty much everything you say, the only reason this case is different is the fact that Giggs, despite being a well known public figure, has largely kept his life out of the media, unlike many other people in the same situation who court the press then cry intrusion when it all turns sour. It may be hard to get a 'super injunction' but its considerablyeasier when you have 50 grand spare and a team of top lawyers to fight your corner. Harry, the bint was initially trying to cover it up until the press hounded her and then Giggs got the injunction. Thats the gist I got from This Morning anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 The bint is worth a squirt though. Although I wouldn't be stirring "unknown Premiership footballers" porridge anyway...!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soopra Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 If he'd of kept it in his pants none of this would have happened... Maybe he should have thought of the consequences before he was unfaithful with some B list celebrity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 ...or she should have said no, knowing full well hes a married man with kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Raven Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 High profile player, shags z list celeb while he is married with kids. Paper gets hold of it...........He trys to hide it by throwing money at the problem............Couldnt happen to a nicer guy. With any luck Mrs G will take him to the cleaners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Did he actually sleep with her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Did he actually sleep with her? Ofcourse..!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted May 23, 2011 Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 I doubt it to be honest, probably just banging from dusk till dawn with no Zs inbetween. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 So well known footyballist sleeps with grasping Z-lister and then tries to use legal system to remain anonymous. Can't see anything going wrong with that plan at any point. Although there is the Streisand Effect to consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I doubt it to be honest, probably just banging from dusk till dawn with no Zs inbetween. There were vampires and zombies involved? Blimey, its another world for these celebs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathanc Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Did he actually sleep with her? Yup, he gently tucked her underneath a cost warm blanket, gave her a good night kiss and then proceeded to tuck himself into his sleeping back right next to her. Allegedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_have Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Yup, he gently tucked her underneath a cost warm blanket, gave her a good night kiss and then proceeded to tuck himself into his sleeping back right next to her. Allegedly. Then he gave her a damn good mapping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJames Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 the Ryan G off the forum? the mapper himself.... get away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny g Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 United team for Champs League final: Van der sar Rafael Ferdinand Vidic Evra Fletcher Scholes Nani an un-named premier league player Rooney Hernandez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Did he actually sleep with her? Well you might not, but I certainly would http://cdn.caughtoffside.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/imogen_thomas_2.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.