The Gimp did try to attack freedom of speech.
Tooling some gadji is second rate, Giggs asked for the rest when he assumed he could silence the world.
There in lies the real issue of this farce.
If Giggs thought for one minute none of give a jot about his private life (and most probably don't) then why spend millions on some pointless super injunction?
The fact is Giggs was desperate to protect his god-like squeaky clean status as the wonderful faultless professional role model, and now his reputation and standing is in tatters. At least Rooney is openly brash and thoughtless about his misdemeanors. Giggs has lost all respect and credibility trying to cover up his deception and dishonesty.
Whilst I'm not actually that bothered about his actual antics these superinjuctions are a dangerous thing, not least because I'll bet the sleazy pondlife that call themselves politicians are probably looking at them and licking their lips. Its one thing for a football player to keep their dirty habits under wraps thanks to an injunction, its another for an elected servant of the public.
On the other hand had Giggs not attempted to begin legal action against everyone that mentioned him on twitter his name probably would never have been mentioned. And I'd wager that list included a fair few Utd fans that he was willing to take action against.
The Gimp did try to attack freedom of speech.
------------------------------------
What about the right of the individual to a private life
If Giggs thought for one minute none of give a jot about his private life (and most probably don't) then why spend millions on some pointless super injunction?
-------------------------------------------
Maybe to protect his wife from the media intrusion we all know will happen now. Noone but Ryan Giggs will know his true intentions with the super injunction. They may have been noble and they may have been selfish but we will never know what he was thinking.
Who cares what famous people do in their private lives anyway? They are human beings who make mistakes like the rest of us and they are entitled to a bit of privacy. This thing where the media pick apart every little thing they do is a joke. They do not do it for anything as noble as freedom of speech, they do it to make a buck.
I thought Terry was a scumbag long before last year's scandal and wrote at the time that his having an affair wasn't really any of our business, although the fact that he did it with his England team-mate's ex (and the mother of his child) put his committment as England captain into perspective.
I don't think Giggs' affair is any of our business either. He hasn't tried to make a living from sharing his private life, nor made money on the basis of being a great family man. Therefore, even less relevant to us than the Terry saga.
I still believe that there has to be a distinction made between The Public interest, and the Public Curiosity, or titillation.
For me, this is clearly the latter. Why should a guy, who just happens to be well known, have his private life publcly exposed, and ruined, just to sell newspapers?
O.k. Giggs has been viewed as Mr Goody Two-Shoes ; but, as far as I'm aware, it's a mantle that's been thrust upon him - not one he has claimed.
If the guy claimed to be a saint, and was exposed as otherwise - fine. But, if he's not claiming to be a saint, why crucify him?
Nowsufferingin spain
Moral of the story is "They who live on publicity, die on publicity"
I still believe that there has to be a distinction made between The Public interest, and the Public Curiosity, or titillation.
For me, this is clearly the latter. Why should a guy, who just happens to be well known, have his private life publcly exposed, and ruined, just to sell newspapers?
------------------------
Couldn't agree more. It is a private matter between that man and his wife and the media have no business sticking their nose in. I said the same when it was John Terry, Ashley Cole etc. As much as I dislike them, their private lives are their business and noone elses/
Giggs doesnt live on publicity though. In fact for a footballer with his career hes very private when it comes to media. Hes hardly in the same bracket as some other footballers is he.
This is completely harsh on the man and the only reason for this being made public is to make money for the media. Who else benefits?
messiaharry
Thats what I meant he doesnt live on publicity so he shouldnt die on publicity, were as other people do.
no probs mate, completely agree with you on that
Giggs is a tool for trying to cover it up.
It's not like his wife doesn't read twitter is it? She's on there.
Giggs has profited from endorsements related to his image in the public eye.
He makes money from being in the public eye. Yes the football fan on the street isnt bothered, most people probably are not bothered and the majority of people interested are probably the same sad acts that watch Peter Andre and Jordan on ITV. But at the end of the day he has profited greatly from building a positive image in the public backed by the likes of Nike amongst others. I fail to see how he thinks he has a right to maintain this false image and continue to profit from it.
As a side note however I'm off to the shops to buy his dvd apparently containing the secret to his excellent recent form.
As a side note however I'm off to the shops to buy his dvd apparently containing the secret to his excellent recent form.
------------------------------
a dvd of big brother highlights?
Virtually ALL footballers make money from advertising merchandise. Giggs, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be a paragon of virtus. Had he done so, I might think otherwise; however, I would repeat, this is ALL about some low-life rag making money;and nothing to do with public interest.
this is ALL about some low-life rag making money;
--------------------------
Oh,thanks for clearing that up.Here was I think it was about a cheap tart sleeping with a footballer to get her face in the paper and the footballer trying to keep it from his wife.
Well, you got it wrong again then, didn't you? This is all about that rag making money, and sod the consequences for anybody else. Yes it's also about some t^rt getting her face in the paper. But if the aforementioned "newspaper" wasn't so keen on printing prurient rubbish, masquerading as being in the public interest; she wouldn't be able to, would she ?? .
Sign in if you want to comment
sit back and watch the hypocrites defendhim
Page 2 of 2
posted on 24/5/11
The Gimp did try to attack freedom of speech.
Tooling some gadji is second rate, Giggs asked for the rest when he assumed he could silence the world.
There in lies the real issue of this farce.
posted on 24/5/11
If Giggs thought for one minute none of give a jot about his private life (and most probably don't) then why spend millions on some pointless super injunction?
The fact is Giggs was desperate to protect his god-like squeaky clean status as the wonderful faultless professional role model, and now his reputation and standing is in tatters. At least Rooney is openly brash and thoughtless about his misdemeanors. Giggs has lost all respect and credibility trying to cover up his deception and dishonesty.
posted on 24/5/11
Whilst I'm not actually that bothered about his actual antics these superinjuctions are a dangerous thing, not least because I'll bet the sleazy pondlife that call themselves politicians are probably looking at them and licking their lips. Its one thing for a football player to keep their dirty habits under wraps thanks to an injunction, its another for an elected servant of the public.
On the other hand had Giggs not attempted to begin legal action against everyone that mentioned him on twitter his name probably would never have been mentioned. And I'd wager that list included a fair few Utd fans that he was willing to take action against.
posted on 24/5/11
The Gimp did try to attack freedom of speech.
------------------------------------
What about the right of the individual to a private life
If Giggs thought for one minute none of give a jot about his private life (and most probably don't) then why spend millions on some pointless super injunction?
-------------------------------------------
Maybe to protect his wife from the media intrusion we all know will happen now. Noone but Ryan Giggs will know his true intentions with the super injunction. They may have been noble and they may have been selfish but we will never know what he was thinking.
Who cares what famous people do in their private lives anyway? They are human beings who make mistakes like the rest of us and they are entitled to a bit of privacy. This thing where the media pick apart every little thing they do is a joke. They do not do it for anything as noble as freedom of speech, they do it to make a buck.
posted on 24/5/11
I thought Terry was a scumbag long before last year's scandal and wrote at the time that his having an affair wasn't really any of our business, although the fact that he did it with his England team-mate's ex (and the mother of his child) put his committment as England captain into perspective.
I don't think Giggs' affair is any of our business either. He hasn't tried to make a living from sharing his private life, nor made money on the basis of being a great family man. Therefore, even less relevant to us than the Terry saga.
posted on 24/5/11
I still believe that there has to be a distinction made between The Public interest, and the Public Curiosity, or titillation.
For me, this is clearly the latter. Why should a guy, who just happens to be well known, have his private life publcly exposed, and ruined, just to sell newspapers?
O.k. Giggs has been viewed as Mr Goody Two-Shoes ; but, as far as I'm aware, it's a mantle that's been thrust upon him - not one he has claimed.
If the guy claimed to be a saint, and was exposed as otherwise - fine. But, if he's not claiming to be a saint, why crucify him?
posted on 24/5/11
Nowsufferingin spain
Moral of the story is "They who live on publicity, die on publicity"
posted on 24/5/11
I still believe that there has to be a distinction made between The Public interest, and the Public Curiosity, or titillation.
For me, this is clearly the latter. Why should a guy, who just happens to be well known, have his private life publcly exposed, and ruined, just to sell newspapers?
------------------------
Couldn't agree more. It is a private matter between that man and his wife and the media have no business sticking their nose in. I said the same when it was John Terry, Ashley Cole etc. As much as I dislike them, their private lives are their business and noone elses/
posted on 24/5/11
Giggs doesnt live on publicity though. In fact for a footballer with his career hes very private when it comes to media. Hes hardly in the same bracket as some other footballers is he.
This is completely harsh on the man and the only reason for this being made public is to make money for the media. Who else benefits?
posted on 24/5/11
messiaharry
Thats what I meant he doesnt live on publicity so he shouldnt die on publicity, were as other people do.
posted on 24/5/11
no probs mate, completely agree with you on that
posted on 24/5/11
messiaharry
Cheers
posted on 24/5/11
Giggs is a tool for trying to cover it up.
It's not like his wife doesn't read twitter is it? She's on there.
posted on 24/5/11
Giggs has profited from endorsements related to his image in the public eye.
He makes money from being in the public eye. Yes the football fan on the street isnt bothered, most people probably are not bothered and the majority of people interested are probably the same sad acts that watch Peter Andre and Jordan on ITV. But at the end of the day he has profited greatly from building a positive image in the public backed by the likes of Nike amongst others. I fail to see how he thinks he has a right to maintain this false image and continue to profit from it.
As a side note however I'm off to the shops to buy his dvd apparently containing the secret to his excellent recent form.
posted on 24/5/11
As a side note however I'm off to the shops to buy his dvd apparently containing the secret to his excellent recent form.
------------------------------
a dvd of big brother highlights?
posted on 24/5/11
Virtually ALL footballers make money from advertising merchandise. Giggs, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be a paragon of virtus. Had he done so, I might think otherwise; however, I would repeat, this is ALL about some low-life rag making money;and nothing to do with public interest.
posted on 24/5/11
this is ALL about some low-life rag making money;
--------------------------
Oh,thanks for clearing that up.Here was I think it was about a cheap tart sleeping with a footballer to get her face in the paper and the footballer trying to keep it from his wife.
posted on 24/5/11
Well, you got it wrong again then, didn't you? This is all about that rag making money, and sod the consequences for anybody else. Yes it's also about some t^rt getting her face in the paper. But if the aforementioned "newspaper" wasn't so keen on printing prurient rubbish, masquerading as being in the public interest; she wouldn't be able to, would she ?? .
Page 2 of 2