PDA

View Full Version : Ryan Giggs affair/ Lost idea of "privacy"


IceColdLaraCroft
23-05-11, 10:50
So what do you all think of this "injunction" Ryan Giggs has about printing his name in papers about his affair with Big Brother's Imogen Thomas?

Anyone can go online and search "Imogen Thomas+affair" and his name will pop up. So it's not in print, but how many people get their news from the paper and not from online? or some other electronic device?

Nothing is really private anymore. Especially once it's gone onto the internet.

Cochrane
23-05-11, 10:59
I think people, including famous people, still do have a right to privacy. What I don't think is that the british super-injunctions are the right way to go about it, because they restrict freedom of the press way too much.

I guess such an injunction can be justified when someone's life is at stake, or when little children are concerned. It is not appropriate when it is about a footballer's affair with some Big Brother person, though. Reporting about that is a normal fact of life, especially in the infamous british press. One can argue about whether that is a good thing or not, but a single judge or court should not have the power to decide that for himself.

What I find much more worrying is when this is about ill conduct of companies, like the one that dumped trash I think near Ivory Coast and got an injunction forbidding journalists from talking about that. That is a clear violation of freedom of press in cases where it really matters, and must not be allowed.

Finally, it's ineffective. I'm not sure we're allowed to discuss the issue on this forum, what with it being in Britain and all, but if it were posted on an american, german, belgian or whatever site, everyone would still be able to read it, british laws be damned. And by going to such extreme lengths to get the offending information removed, people just become much more interested in it and publish it more and more.

BrandonFlowers
23-05-11, 11:23
I have no sympathy at all for him, he should have kept his junk in his pants
rather than flashing it at some bimbo. Its his own fault. He should have thought about his family when he was doing the dirty.

jaywalker
23-05-11, 11:26
People really have short attention spans, going on about how he `couldnt possibly have done it as hes so good and clean`.. meh, he was well documented womaniser years ago, and was brought up on assault charges with one of his ex's.. he aint squeaky clean, he's just managed to be good long enough for the masses to forget.. not everyone forgets :)

Dennis's Mom
23-05-11, 11:53
Well, if it's not true, he can sue for libel.

Sadly, people just want to be the messenger, or maybe they really think they're doing the right thing. There's usually a lot of collateral damage in these things though, and I wonder how fair it is to everyone involved.

There's a big deal over here now about how Arnold Schwarzenegger has an illegitimate child ten years ago. Everyone's having a big old time jumping on the "Horrid Arnold" bandwagon (and I'm not excusing him,) but I wonder about that kid whose life has just turned into a circus. Or worse? What if he actually believed someone else was his father?

Personally, I simply resent being forced to be a party to stuff that really isn't my business.

xXhayleyroxXx
23-05-11, 11:55
I have no sympathy at all for him, he should have kept his junk in his pants
rather than flashing it at some bimbo. Its his own fault. He should have thought about his family when he was doing the dirty.

This >:I

Super Badnik
23-05-11, 12:04
Oh so it was Ryan Giggs? Should have guessed it was another footballer. :rolleyes:

disapearing-boy
23-05-11, 12:26
Well, if it's not true, he can sue for libel.

Sadly, people just want to be the messenger, or maybe they really think they're doing the right thing. There's usually a lot of collateral damage in these things though, and I wonder how fair it is to everyone involved. .

Well it's true apparently, but the injunction only protected him and not the girl, who had her name splashed all over the papers as a 'home wrecker' for the last few weeks but they couldn't publish his name. They both done a horrible thing and deserve what they get but the Court only protected the man, which is very, very wrong. Apparently though, it was revealed that the injunction doesn't apply outside Britain, so that's how he was caught out.

But honestly if an ordinary person had details of an affair put in the newspaper, it would be considered cruel, but if it happens to a celeb then it's hot gossip. It's nobodies business at the end of the day but theirs.

nick styger
23-05-11, 12:26
I used to be a cheat. It's not nice. Especially when it's a world famous role model. (no matter how you're found out)

jajay119
23-05-11, 12:45
A private life should be exactly what it says on the tin, but ufortunately for famous people this is sometimes not the case especially with the growing interest in celebrity culture these days.

At the end of the day, if he was that bothered about it he shouldn't have done thie dirty in the first place and there wouldn't have been anything to report.

Another Lara
23-05-11, 12:56
Meh, he deserves any crap he gets over this! Complete scumbag!

moodydog
23-05-11, 13:16
meh, he'll still be celebrating... like me :D

Mad Tony
23-05-11, 13:45
Oh so it was Ryan Giggs? Should have guessed it was another footballer. :rolleyes:Footballers aren't the only ones taking out super-injunctions you know.

I agree with Cochrane on super-injunctions. They're not always necessary, certainly not in this case.

Lemmie
23-05-11, 15:07
Not all that interested in his private life, but not a fan super-injunctions in the least.

jackles
23-05-11, 16:29
He has just been named in the House of Commons as part of an injunction debate.


It would have been more dignified for him to put his hands up and behave more like a gent. What I find distasteful is that it is the preserve of the rich. Why should the fact that you can pay for silence make it right?

Spong
23-05-11, 16:35
Could not care less about this. The papers and TV media being so desperate to announce his name is all rather pathetic. What aspect of this story is in the public's interest?

larson n natla
23-05-11, 16:37
I'm really not concerned about some footballer having sex with a reality TV reject.

It all smacks of desperation and seediness. :pi:

Archetype
23-05-11, 17:17
kMAz85c3blc

2.23 onwards sums it up.

Spong
23-05-11, 17:21
^You can always rely on Ian Hislop to say it like it is :tmb:

Super Badnik
23-05-11, 18:02
Footballers aren't the only ones taking out super-injunctions you know.I was kind of thinking about the whole affair bit.

Mad Tony
23-05-11, 18:05
I was kind of thinking about the whole affair bit.And you think affairs are exclusive to footballers?

Super Badnik
23-05-11, 18:20
And you think affairs are exclusive to footballers?No. Sometimes other people have affairs too. :p
In all seriousness though, no, it was a joke.

ggctuk
23-05-11, 21:26
I think for him it all fell apart when he targeted Twitter.

FloTheMachine
23-05-11, 22:36
Feel sorry for Imogen Ryley tbh. She's been branded a whore and a blackmailer by tonnes of media, tbh I think Ryan Giggs got what he deserved.

!Lara Croft!
24-05-11, 00:39
People have affairs all the time, and they are private. I see no reason why being famous should make it any different.

Spong
24-05-11, 01:12
Feel sorry for Imogen Ryley tbh. She's been branded a whore and a blackmailer by tonnes of media, tbh I think Ryan Giggs got what he deserved.

I feel sorry for Imogen Ryley too, because it's Imogen Thomas who should be branded a whore and a blackmailer by tonnes of media.

herothing
24-05-11, 12:59
I think, even if what he did was wrong, he should still be entitled to a certain level of privacy. Even if people do take a certain interest in celebrity culture, is it the publics right to know what these people do all the time, is it our right to demand to know about the action of each and every celebrity we hear about. I think not.