permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/2647117
Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 18:17
Giggs lawyers back in court now

applying for further injunction to prevent media harassing their client. [^]

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 18:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

What a douche

Starbuck Posted on 23/05/2011 18:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Have they said who "TSE" is ?

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 18:29
Giggs lawyers back in court now

No, Starbuck.

The Giggs injunction has been upheld. He can be named in reporting proceedings in Parliament but cannot be linked to the details of the injunction. Not sure how that works.

Starbuck Posted on 23/05/2011 18:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Probably just means they can state his name but no details of the "relationship"

7_The_Informer Posted on 23/05/2011 18:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I guess they can report what the MP said, but can't go into further details.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 18:34
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Doesn't the coward realise he's just dragging this whole thing out longer and longer

oooooo Posted on 23/05/2011 18:37
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So he should just roll over and let the press make money off the back of his private life? Him and hus wife will know about itm he probably doesn't care if anyone else knows about it but he has a right to shield his kids from it. Plenty of 'ordinary' people have marriGe problems but hide it from their kids. I guess that is only allowed if the press can't make money from you.

Manfriday Posted on 23/05/2011 18:40
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Itv news just spent 10 minutes reporting on his, the injuction, the MP revealing it, the mistress and the affair, then said the courts still won't lift the injuction. Does that mean that Itv (plus other channels and papers) are in breach of the injuction and can now be sued?

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 18:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Nobody can be sued for breaching an injunction. They can, however, be found to be in contempt of court and sent to prison.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 18:42
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"So he should just roll over and let the press make money off the back of his private life? Him and hus wife will know about itm he probably doesn't care if anyone else knows about it but he has a right to shield his kids from it. Plenty of 'ordinary' people have marriGe problems but hide it from their kids. I guess that is only allowed if the press can't make money from you."

Rightly or wrongly it comes with the territory of been a multi-millionaire sportsman and public figure.

If you don't like it keep it in your trousers

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 18:44
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Absolute bollox. Why should somebody's profession make a difference to their human rights?

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 18:45
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Human Rights [:D]

Poor dove

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 18:46
Giggs lawyers back in court now

You'll have to explain what's amusing you.

borodavey Posted on 23/05/2011 18:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Do we not have freedom of press in this country. Surely that would mean they should be allowed to publish anything so long as it's not a national security risk. Which this is not. As for making money off this story, has giggs not made millions from the media for sale of image rights. When the press make him millions by publishing pictures of him wearing Adidas boots or whatever he doesn't complain

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 18:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

The 'Human Rights' of a multi-millionaire sportsman who cheats on his family with some large chested bimbo is more important than freedom of speech in this country? Then there's the farcical situation where everyone round the world can discuss it online and foreign media can report it but ours are gagged.

F*** Giggs and F*** this human rights rubbish, he was keen to use the media to plug his Yoga DVD and tell at every opportunity them what a wonderful year he's having.

If he didn't want mocking and people reporting about his family he should have thought twice before sleeping with that tart. If he'd have just kept his head down when this was revealed it would probably be over by now, he's just making a fool of himself dragging this out longer and longer.

gravyboat Posted on 23/05/2011 18:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

What level of salary do you have to stay under to ensure your private life isnt fair game?

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 18:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Under your definition of freedom, no, we don't, and nor should we. And I still don't see how somebody's method or size of income governs their right to a private life.

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 18:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

PAMH - can you stick up a copy of your pay slip please? I need to judge whether you deserve any privacy.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 18:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Didn't Max Mosely try the old 'Human Rights' trick to block the press reporting this sort of thing?

and it was ruled it wasn't a breach of his Human Rights

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 23/05/2011 18:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I agree with that [rle]

Footballers, including Giggs, make a living from their image and whats good for the goose is good for the gander, if you exploit the media to your advantage, you also run the risk of adverse publicity.

foggysfplandiet2 Posted on 23/05/2011 18:59
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So Giggs is seeking an injunction to protect his kids?

Oh yeah, I'm sure he is. [:D]

If the daft bar steward didn't want all this to happen he should have behaved himself.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 19:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

But the thing is Buddy I don't use the media to enhance my earnings

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 19:03
Giggs lawyers back in court now

No, Mosley won his privacy case. The only thing he lost was the case to enforce prior notification.

gravyboat Posted on 23/05/2011 19:03
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Also, why do people keep talking About 'freedom of speech' regarding this? Are you suggesting this basic right that were all so lucky to enjoy in Britain is there so rabid tabloids can sell their tatty rags to brainless morons who have nothing better to amuse themselves with than reading about the sex lives of people they've never met?

It's nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with the NOTW peddling their filth.

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 19:06
Giggs lawyers back in court now

This business about using the media to enhance earnings is also bollox.

ExiledInBolton Posted on 23/05/2011 19:12
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"But the thing is Buddy I don't use the media to enhance my earnings"

No, you just use this board to show what a pr!ck you are.

The argument is that anyone who dares put their head above the parapet is fair game. Well, given your pronouncements on here, I take it you wouldn't mind if we reveal your real name, address and bank details? After all, it would just be freedom of speach, wouldn't it?

[:o)]

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 19:17
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy you've not put up one credible argument yet.

Everytime he's snapped playing football and splashed over the papers wearing Reebok boots he's raking it in. If the media stopped showing his image he wouldn't get anything because it would be worthless.

He needs the media, but he only wants the nice bits.

oooooo Posted on 23/05/2011 19:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So if you make money in business then your private life is fair game? I've never seen him endorse a product on the basis of his family life being perfect.

His personal life is none of your business or mine. But carry on with the gossiping, you bloody fishwife.

japsterboro Posted on 23/05/2011 19:22
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Endorsement bring a whole new income for all sports stars.

If you don't behave yourself, the sponsors will 'drop you like a stone' ...

And who can blame them ... hardly great marketing when your product is endorsed by a man who's portrayed as a nice bloke when really he's out shaggin out with a pulse. Of course, in this case I'm referring to Tiger Woods ...

superstu Posted on 23/05/2011 19:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I don't like these super injuctions one bit. Why should this girl Imogen not be allowed to talk to people about her life? Totally wrong that someone can splash a bit of dosh and legally control what somebody else is allowed to say.

P_A_M_H_ I agree with your sentiments about freedom of speech being more important but what has she done to be described as a "big chested bimbo". Seems like a nice enough lass to me.

superstu Posted on 23/05/2011 19:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I don't like these super injuctions one bit. Why should this girl Imogen not be allowed to talk to people about her life? Totally wrong that someone can splash a bit of dosh and legally control what somebody else is allowed to say.

P_A_M_H_ I agree with your sentiments about freedom of speech being more important but what has she done to be described as a "big chested bimbo". Seems like a nice enough lass to me.

gravyboat Posted on 23/05/2011 19:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Pogotetz,

Are you actually interested in what this girl has to say?

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 23/05/2011 19:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"This business about using the media to enhance earnings is also bollox"

So Giggs' agent and publicist have never used the media to their advantage?

The reality is they will have put together 100's of press releases during his career.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 19:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Not in the slightest

But Iam interested to see that someone who for years has been 'squeaky clean' actually isn't.


viv_andersons_nana Posted on 23/05/2011 19:40
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Why do you care what Giggs may or may not get up to when he isn't playing football? Why does anyone care? A man cheating on his wife isn't news. It doesn't matter whether he is a multi-millionaire footballer or a window-cleaner. The fact remains that it is none of our business, nor the business of the press.

You could remove 90% of the content from tabloid publications and nobody would miss any of it. If there is one good thing to come out of this whole frenzy, well, hopefully it might mean an end to the kind of sordid rubbish that a massive section of our media fascinates itself with.

Muttley Posted on 23/05/2011 19:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"It doesn't matter whether he is a multi-millionaire footballer or a window-cleaner."

Ah but it does matter a great deal.

Image rights, used to be a little sub paragraph on a players contract. Now with someone with the right profile it could be (and often is) worth more than their wages. All those Ryan Giggs posters in the Mega Store, the Ryan Giggs coaching DVDs and what he can demand for a personal appearance. It matters to the tune of several million quid. By now Giggs family will know pretty much all there is to know about his dalliance. This is the unedifying spectacle of product protection don't pretend it's anything to do with his kids. Do you think his kids go to a school where the Internet is banned? The poor little fukkers will be getting it both barrels already from their peers. You know how understanding kids are over this sort of thing.

Remember how quickly sponsors dropped Tiger Woods?

It's future earnings down the pan, that Autobiog to feather the nest when he retires might sell a few more though.

gravyboat Posted on 23/05/2011 19:48
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Why are you interested in that?

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 19:54
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I find this tabloid echoing aproach to those pesky human rights pathetically predictable pog.

Everyone, be they poor, be they rich, be they famous or be they unknown, is entitled to those basic human rights.

This issue is far from as straightforward as you would like it to be.

My view is as follows:

1. These people are being denied a private life by publication of stories that don't pertain to their profession.

2. The question that arises is whether their right to privacy ought to be impinged upon because the freedom the press ought to be given and by the wider 'public interest' test.

3. It is entirely wrong to say that because someone is famous or is in the public eye every sin they commit is public property. That would be a very dangerous and most disagreeable stance to adopt in my view.

4. The test to be applied as to whether the freedom of the press ought to take priority over the individual's right to freedom is, at present, unsatisfactory at best and open to interpretation.

5. The question as to who ought to decide is an important one. Currently, most of the law comes from Europe and is interpreted by the judiciary with a heap of responsibility also on newspaper editors. Who ought to make those decisions is open to debate but for what it's worth, I believe parliament ought to legislate properly on it and give proper guidance.

6. As I've already said, if someone gains an income by relying on a wholesome image to, for example, endorse products then it is absolutely right and in the public interest to reveal their misdemeanours that undermine that wholesome image. The counterbalance is that the court must take account of other factors such as, for example, the impact on that person's family.

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 19:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Justice, power to evade the press and retrospective gagging orders should be based on equality and not wealth.

Superinjuctions are a tool for celebrities eager to protect their image rights and the truth.

If he was that eager to keep his bit on the side quiet he should have arranged for his lawyer to issue a carefully crafted 2-way confidentiality agreement for both parties to sign and before the devlopment of an angry stiffy on.

This extravagent expenditure on legal representation is pathetic and even more damaging to a tarnished image.

keelo Posted on 23/05/2011 19:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I do not fkng believe this.....I DO NOT FKNG BELIEVE THIS!!!!!


I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH PAMH.....AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHH[:(!]

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 19:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So you think the decision to grant the court order was based on wealth joseph?

You believe that the judge had that in mind when granting the order?

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 19:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Comon Keelo you know it makes sense [:D]

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants Posted on 23/05/2011 20:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So when are we getting started on Gareth Barrys super injunction?

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 23/05/2011 20:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"Superinjuctions are a tool for celebrities eager to protect their image rights and the truth."

That's as maybe, but seeing as this case isn't about a 'super-injunction' it doesn't really matter.

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 20:02
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Not directly, but the typical salary on Teesside, for instance, would be a major obstacle in appointing a lawyer for this purpose.

SidSnot Posted on 23/05/2011 20:02
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I'm unsure whether this player has promoted himself as being squeeky clean or that's a label the media has given him. Generally, I think it's absolutely right that matters outside one's profession (unless you're being paid out of taxpayers money) are private. I would though agree with Adi about the fact that your right to privacy is compromised if you use your "image" for commercial gain.

captain5 Posted on 23/05/2011 20:05
Giggs lawyers back in court now

As I said yesterday prior to today's farce...



Got to say, I think the newspapers have not done themselves any more favours than the footballer has himself with this story.

The law protects freedom of expression and speech, but it's not just a right, it's also a responsibility. We have a well defined legal and parliamentary framework; it's not up to the media to circumvent it just because they can't have their own way.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 20:08
Giggs lawyers back in court now

If its journalists snooping on your family/friends for no reason or something geniunley private like a member of families medical problems, etc the law should protect them.

But come on, a world-famous footballer having an affair with a glamour model in sXXXXXXy hotels is not something that should be covered as he's brought it on himself.

captain5 Posted on 23/05/2011 20:09
Giggs lawyers back in court now

That's fine but don't use the 'in the public interest' argument to justify the reporting as well.

Of interest to some of the public is not the same thing.

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 20:09
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It's developed from a failed super injunction

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 20:10
Giggs lawyers back in court now

As I have said before joseph that is more of an access to justice point than it is on the merits of the case. It just so happens that most who require such injunctions will be famous and wealthy.

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 20:12
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"But come on, a world-famous footballer having an affair with a glamour model in sXXXXXXy hotels is not something that should be covered as he's brought it on himself."

That's not the right approach. The real question is why on earth that should be in the media. What possible purpose does it serve?

What if it damages the kids?

What if his wife doesn't want it all over the papers?

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 20:13
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Does your argument apply to evading speeding tickets, the super rich seem adept at via application of their excessive wealth.

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 20:14
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I don't understand the point you're making joseph.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 23/05/2011 20:16
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"What if it damages the kids"

Wonder who's fault that is

The Media or Their Father [rle]

captain5 Posted on 23/05/2011 20:17
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So, make it worse for them anyway??

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 20:19
Giggs lawyers back in court now

My point is that access to justice should not be wealth dependent.

Using the term "access to justice" in this context is a slick euphamism for the manipulation of the law to protect the flithy rich.

BigCasino Posted on 23/05/2011 20:20
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It has everything to do with freedom of speech and the press. If you're missus screws around, untasteful as it might be, she has the right to take an add in the Gazette and let everyone know if she wants. 90% of what the rags write is sewer journalism, it's not the content, it's the freedom of the press that's the issue. Just like the NF it's abhorent but they have a basic right to their views and to air them.

Injuctions were invented by the priviledged for the privileged. I still don't think they were initially brought out to protect swingin-dick footballers mind.

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 20:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So it's a punishment Pog? Sod the kids?

You're wrong actually joseph. I am a keen advocate of access to justice for all but it is a discreet argument of it's own. You can't simply say that the granting of an injunction is wrong because of the wealth of the applicant.

expat_smoggie Posted on 23/05/2011 20:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

If this is upheld then you can forsee an even bigger divide from the so called celeb superstar brigade-- as those companies who put the likes of Tiger Woods and Rooney etc on such a pedestal really need to ensure that their prized assets are coining it in for them until the bitter end-- for me this facade is all about the coporate sponsors worried that their bottom line will take a huge hit and they will be forced to cut Giggs from their pay-roll...they couldn't give a damn about the player or his family--- espcially his family-- what do they bring to the table..

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 20:27
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Where did I say it was wrong? Stop twisting the debate. Personal wealth would prevent normal people being granted one. Or are you suggesting they're cheap as chips or even free if you qualify for legal aid?

Muttley Posted on 23/05/2011 20:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It's got nothing to do with his kids. They already know and his family already know. It's about the super wealthy abusing the system to protect their income stream. If he cared that much about his kids he'd have faced up and it would be chip wrappers by now.

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 20:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

You said that it was granted because of wealth and that It was a manipulation. That suggests you felt it was wrong.

I'm not suggesting anything. Firstly, I agree that the system should be equal and that it isn't currently but secondly I don't believe that means it is automatically a law for the rich or that it is a manipulation.

It is absolutely right to have this protection in the legal system.

Mavrick Posted on 23/05/2011 20:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

All this case is showing is that we have a law that is unable to keep up with modern media and society. You can't gag everyone from talking to each other about a particular subject.

Muttley Posted on 23/05/2011 20:37
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Would you not accept that Rolls Royce is a car for the rich? What difference then between a car that only the rich can afford and an injunction that only the rich can afford?

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 20:37
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Muttley, I wasn't specifically talking about this case, making more of a general point about the types of factors a court ought to consider. I have no idea whether this injunction was justified or which factors were taken into account. What I do know is that it could be and generally there can be good reason to stop what is essentially gossip.

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 20:38
Giggs lawyers back in court now

The inference was that it was granted only because he can actually afford one.

I do think there is evidence that the rich can manipulate the law in their favour if they're prepared to throw a load of cash at a lawyer. ie speeding tickets/bans etc

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 20:38
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Muttley I don't think you're reading my posts correctly.

no_user_name Posted on 23/05/2011 20:39
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Is giggs better then all the other celebs that have had their private lives spread over the media?

This stuff about protecting his kids is rubbish, if he was any kind of father then he should be out fronting up to the media making damn sure the he is the only one taking the flack and very publically saying sorry to his family and his fans who see him as an idol. This whole thing would of blow over long ago.

The fact that he tried to hide behind his kids is what makes me sick.


Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 20:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

No argument from me Joseph. That doesn't mean that the injunction wasn't right and that's my point.

SidSnot Posted on 23/05/2011 20:42
Giggs lawyers back in court now

no user name - if you cheated on the Mrs would you think it appropriate to walk around town with a sandwich board on apologising for it?

The man in question has a lot to apologise for, but only to his wife and kids. No one else.

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 20:45
Giggs lawyers back in court now

His kids may not have been part of the decision!!!!!!!!!!! That was just something that I thought might have been part of the consideration.

no_user_name Posted on 23/05/2011 20:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

If I was in the media spotlight earning millions from media exposure and people who are my fans who see me as an idol the I would make a very public sorry statement.

Is that not what Tiger Woods done?

Muttley Posted on 23/05/2011 20:49
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Sorry, but in such a case I can see no validity for such an injunction. He should have simply fronted up or gone something like "we're dealing with it privately".

It is an abuse of wealth. According to the press a "super injunction" (though we know this wasn't a true SI) costs in the region of £100,000. It's nothing to do with protecting his kids, his family will know and probably all the kids that go to school with his will know. It was to try and protect his reputation to protect his future earnings. His family and kids will have the pain to deal with anyway and in many ways this will have made it worse much much worse. And then to try and sue Twitter! The arrogance of the spoiled and pampered who believe that throwing money at the problem can make it go away. I've always liked Giggs as a player and as a pro for the way in which he conducted himself both on and (I thought) off the pitch. A good guy.

Now perhaps this is an aberration or maybe it's the Tiger Woods syndrome? But his reputation is in tatters and it's entirely self inflicted

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 21:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Sorry Muttley but I can't agree with you. Equally, I don't think you can safely say with any accuracy the basis of the decision or the reason the injunction was applied for.

In any event, you're not looking at it from the correct perspective. We all have a right to privacy. The question is whether that right should be eroded in favour of, effectively, freedom of speech. A big part of that decision is whether it is in the public interest that the information be public.

I can't see much public interest in this short of basic, trashy gossip.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 23/05/2011 21:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

The fact that wealth buys you more protection from the law isn't new.

Its wrong for that reason, but also fundamentally wrong, regardless of that.

no_user_name Posted on 23/05/2011 21:03
Giggs lawyers back in court now

The thing that gets me about these gagging orders is that they seem to be totally based off the testimony of one side of the story, if he has evidence to prove blackmail then Imogen should be charged with a criminal offence.

Its in the public interest to understand fully if these orders are only to prevent damage to a persons image AND if these injunctions are only available to those who can afford crack lawyers to spin there story to make sure one is awarded.

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 21:06
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Perhaps Giggs should have used Beckham's lawyer [:D]

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 23/05/2011 21:06
Giggs lawyers back in court now

For anyone who may not have seen it, Buddy posted this earlier today.


Link: Injunction

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 23/05/2011 21:09
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"I can't see much public interest in this short of basic, trashy gossip"

How much of the repoted media satify's that test?

Not a lot is the answer.





viv_andersons_nana Posted on 23/05/2011 21:12
Giggs lawyers back in court now

There was also this:


Link: Injunction

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 21:14
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I didn't have time to expand on my thing about media exploitation earlier. What I was saying was that just because Giggs uses the media to make money, doesn't mean they should have open season on his private life. I just don't buy that.

Put extremely crudely: if he's shagging someone at the FA and then gets off a suspension, get it in the papers. Otherwise, it's got bugger all to do with anyone except those directly involved.

Here's the rather impressive Carl Gardner for the second time today:


Link: Head of Legal

gravyboat Posted on 23/05/2011 21:14
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Depends what sort of media you use I suppose.

Muttley, you seen awfully sure about the reasoning behind this. Not sure you're in a position to be tbh.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 23/05/2011 21:14
Giggs lawyers back in court now

One key sentence from the first link of Buddy's that I re-posted;

"There is a pressing need for the injunction to prevent harassment and unjustified intrusion into the lives of the Claimants and the man's family."

expat_smoggie Posted on 23/05/2011 21:16
Giggs lawyers back in court now

of course this would all change if Ms Thomas came out and told the twitter community that she fabricated the whole thing-- ok, she'd be probably hammered in court but just like the dealings with Becks some females find it easy to spout off when they have been jilted or betrayed -- especially by a married man-- a famous one at that. It may take two to tango, but Giggs may have been setup-- whatever happens I bet good ol' Sir Alex is non-pleased that his starting midfielder is less focused on Saturday's main event.

Muttley Posted on 23/05/2011 21:20
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"Muttley, you seen awfully sure about the reasoning behind this"

Well, it's just simple logic. His family know, therefore his kids know, his team-mates sure as hell know, his boss knows. So, who is he trying to fool?

Us.

If you can think of another explanation then please enlighten me.

no_user_name Posted on 23/05/2011 21:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I don't understand why Imogen Thomas's name was released? If it was kept hidded then there would of been no story.

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 21:27
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It isn't simple logic. It's your view, which is fine, but it is very presumptuous and one sided.

I agree with Buddy completely.

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 21:28
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"There is a pressing need for the injunction to prevent harassment and unjustified intrusion into the lives of the Claimants and the man's family."

Oh well, in that case it's a well justified injunction. Poor Giggsy ... and does he need some cream for his friction burns too!?

gravyboat Posted on 23/05/2011 21:28
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Perhaps he was concerned his indiscretion would be exaggerated in the tabloid press. Maybe he would think this based upon things like Imogen Thomas having NOTW photographers follow her to meetings she had arranged with Giggs to blackmail him for money. The likelihood being these pictures would then be used to suggest they had been meeting for sex.

For the record, avoiding a loss of earnings is likely to be a factor, but to completely dismiss the idea it has anything to do with protecting his family seems a bit odd.

Adi_Dem Posted on 23/05/2011 21:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Exactly gravy.

Joseph you seem very bitter about this. Is it not possible that the judge, with all the information, felt that there were factors here that outweighed the media thirst to hang him out to dry?

no_user_name Posted on 23/05/2011 21:34
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Either way he needs to sack his advisers, the have failed him big time.

joseph99 Posted on 23/05/2011 21:35
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Far from bitter, quite indifferent tbf. Being rumbled is always uncomfortable I suppose.

borodavey Posted on 23/05/2011 21:38
Giggs lawyers back in court now

can i just say, you dont really have to be famous to have afairs published in the press. My dad wasnt famous but was forced to leave his job when his affair was published in the press some 15 years ago.

zadoc Posted on 23/05/2011 21:51
Giggs lawyers back in court now

FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

People die for it. Yet this individual wishes it not to be so in his case because it 'infringes' his rights.

Oh do fcuk off.

This fellow is named. If I wish to speak his name with regards to this whole tawdry affair I will.


If others feel it is inappropriate for whatever reasons for this person to be named that is their choice.

He gets exactly what he deserves. Not through press exposure but by the mere fact he cheats on his wife and kids and then expects his money to grant him anonimity, having previously used the media to laud his praises.

Do me a favour.

Get fcuking real. [xx(]

He hung himself out to dry. Not his wife, friends or family, not his kids, not you and not me.

Buddy Posted on 23/05/2011 22:25
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It's a glib phrase but it serves very well to make a point:

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema.

ste_north_stand Posted on 23/05/2011 22:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Surely the High Court has more useful things it could be doing than running rulings over stuff as inane as this?

borodavey Posted on 23/05/2011 23:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

ste[^]

red_shamrock Posted on 23/05/2011 23:10
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Whatever his reasons for getting this injunction he wants to get rid of his Solicitor[:D].

hootswah Posted on 23/05/2011 23:13
Giggs lawyers back in court now

buddy stop being arsey for the sake of it....no need really. We all know who it is and if he can't take the flack perhaps he should't have messed around.

outmac Posted on 23/05/2011 23:16
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Exactly Ste North Stand , Premier league
players seem to be taking up all their time.
I think they got a bit time last week to
rule that some disabled people should not
lose their services due to the co-alition cuts . Then back to footballers injuctions.

red_shamrock Posted on 23/05/2011 23:20
Giggs lawyers back in court now

He`s done the media a massive favour,they have had many more miles out of this than him just taking it on the chin.

I couldnt give a flying tbh, but looking at it he should have put the spade down ages ago.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 23/05/2011 23:44
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"There is a pressing need for the injunction to prevent harassment and unjustified intrusion into the lives of the Claimants and the man's family."

"Oh well, in that case it's a well justified injunction."

Well, yes. On the grounds that the harassment and unjustified intrusion into the personal lives of Giggs and his family was just that; unjustifiable.


red_shamrock Posted on 23/05/2011 23:48
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It might just be the thin end of the wedge[:D]. I cant see what your cribbing about it goes with the territory..he`ll get over it.

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 00:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

This has f'ck all to do with "harassment and unjustified intrusion into the personal lives of Giggs and his family..."

This is just a very rich person who has allegedly been doing a bit of extra marital knobbing looking to protect their image rights.

If he doesn't want to be harassed then he should keep his trousers on.

It is ridiculous that the sole purpose of "super injunctions" appears to be to protect the financial interests of very rich men who've been doing things that they shouldn't have been.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 24/05/2011 00:52
Giggs lawyers back in court now

1. This isn't a 'super-injunction'.

2. You should probably read the links on this thread, or on the one Buddy started earlier today.

Just because he is rich and famous doesn't mean he isn't entitled to a private life. Extra-marital activities are part of said private life and it is none of our business what he gets up to when he isn't playing football.

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 01:17
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Viv:

1) I couldn't give a flying f'ck what type of injunction it is. If it isn't a "super injunction" though I suggest that you take the matter up with most of the media as rightly or wrongly that is how they are reporting it.

2) I have done.

Again, this has nothing to do with privacy - this is purely down to someone who has enough money to be able to try and cover up what he's been doing to protect his image rights etc. I have absolutely zero sympathy for him. Quite the opposite in fact.

If it had all just come out that he'd been rattling her and he'd done the usual act of contriteness and was all apologetic then it would have blown over in a week. Now he just looks like a complete idiot and the story is going to hang around for months while the whole issue of injunctions is debated and it will ultimately be far more damaging for him.

At the end of the day he was caught doing something he shouldn't have been and just needs to stand up and be a man about it rather than hiding behind lawyers etc.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 06:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

There's a very interesting theme emerging in the last few posts, which is basically "this is what the media have said and done, so this is how it is".

We've got the following contentions:

(a) News International have decided who can and can't have what privacy and that's OK - this, remember, is the company that listens to your mobile phone messages if they feel like it;

(b) the idea that the media have been calling it a superinjunction so it's pointless pointing out that it's not;

(c) the suggestion that the courts are doing nothing but dealing with footballers (see how many you can find in the link below - for bonus points the phone hacking is in there as well, although the noise made about it has been somewhat less);

(d) the idea that everyone knows what's what so why are we even discussing the merits of that (this also applied to Joanna Yeates' landlord, remember).

I never cease to be amazed by how many people buy the mainstream media line unquestioningly. Sites like Tabloid Watch must feel like they're pi$$ing in the wind because nobody's really listening, and it's massively depressing.


Link: What are the courts doing?

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 07:34
Giggs lawyers back in court now

What is more important:

a) Ryan Giggs right to privacy

b) Imogen Thomas's right to a freedom of speech?

Why should Giggs wanting to keep their relationship a secret over rule her wanting to publicise it?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 07:43
Giggs lawyers back in court now

above post has a clear point, why cant one person from a shared relationship share what happened in the relationship with the media without being threatened with a court order?

In this very case law was used to stop details of an affair getting out. Law should be used to govern and prevent criminal actions. This case is a prime example of law being used to help the rich stop the not so reach from disclosing uncomfortable information.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 07:48
Giggs lawyers back in court now

degsys - on balance, (a). If we were all level-headed individuals who wouldn't poke a stick at the guy's family, scream abuse at him, make his kids' life a misery, and camp on his doorstep for weeks, then maybe it would veer towards (b).

But it's a good point. That's what judges are for, to draw that balance.

Raz - "Law should be used to govern and prevent criminal actions." That's a pretty radical step. Abolishing the civil law at one stroke is one way of proceeding. At least I wouldn't have to pay my credit card bill though.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 07:54
Giggs lawyers back in court now

civil law is a term for governent, you consider a footballer having an affair and wanting to hide that a need for civil law?

I guess your clasification of civil law and governing that side of matters something that should deal with the hiding of affairs.

'poke a stick at the guy's family, scream abuse at him, make his kids' life a misery, and camp on his doorstep for weeks, then maybe it would veer towards '

you are condoning his actions of hiding an affair because of the potential actions of others. Which is like saying it is ok for him to have an affair and then pay for someone to hide it through the courts because people MAY be a bit mean to him. ffs

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 08:19
Giggs lawyers back in court now

If he truly wanted to protect his family he would have kept hisXXXXXX in his pants.

I think that is why I'm so against injunctions in cases such as this - rich men hiding behind lawyers under the guise of protecting their families. Hypocritical and utter horse shoite.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 08:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

exactly he showed no thought for his family when he took part in the affair.

It was all about keeping his reputation in tact, and as a person in the public spot light, someone the public deem to be a figure they can look up to, this injunction on helped to fool them and keep his image intact

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 08:51
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"Civil law is a term for government" [:D]

OK.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 08:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

re-read what i said... ffs

sasboro1 Posted on 24/05/2011 09:09
Giggs lawyers back in court now

i dont see how its in the publics interest what giggs did.why is it any of our business. shock horror, married man has an affair. hardly uncommon these days.imogen just wants to be able to sell the full story to the tabloids. she will be onto her next football once she has got what she can.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 09:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

how is it in the interest of the public to have something like this go through the courts in the first place?

Why should a court help hide a mans affair?

The_263 Posted on 24/05/2011 09:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

By definition of the law, she is part of the injunction against the media so one would presume she's been "encouraged" by Giggs to co-operate and to keep tight-lipped. Beyond any encouragement, it is in her interests of course to milk this case of adultery and make even more money out of the situation. She is clearly an over-ambitious tart that honey-trapped a sneaky promiscuous footballer cheating on his wife and kids. Whether or not this is newsworthy is down to personal taste - as it involves a high profile football player that has allowed his libido to become more powerful than his judgement. Admittedly what he has committed is more immoral than illegal and it is possible to see both sides of the argument.

Like many others I presumed Giggs was a upstanding family-man and sportsman role model - an image he is obviously keen to protect for various reasons.

On the broader issue, if this case sets a precedent, it follows that such agreements should be made cheaply and affordable for someone on a minimum wage - otherwise it will be seen to be a system that is exclusively designed to protect the rich.


sasboro1 Posted on 24/05/2011 09:34
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"On the broader issue, if this case sets a precedent, it follows that such agreements should be made cheaply and affordable for someone on a minimum wage - otherwise it will be seen to be a system that is exclusively designed to protect the rich."

yeah but the papers wont be interested in a married man in somewhere like ingleby barwick having an affair with someone else on the estate.they wouldnt sell papers.

he is wrong to have an affair, but it does go on a lot and why is it any of our business really.

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 09:35
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"honey trapped"

Ffs, poor innocent Ryan - did that nasty girl lead him astray?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 09:42
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'yeah but the papers wont be interested in a married man in somewhere like ingleby barwick having an affair with someone else on the estate.'

I think you are wrong and at some level publications could come out of someones private life and unless they have the finances they cannot stop them from coming out

sasboro1 Posted on 24/05/2011 09:45
Giggs lawyers back in court now

i just dont see why its in our interests to know what went on between this footballer and some bird who chases footballers and makes a living off the back of it. why is it our business. the papers just want their way to sell papers. people are obsessed by celebrities personal life.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 09:50
Giggs lawyers back in court now

sas i guess ask yourself why she, is was part of the relationship, is not being allowed to talk to media about it.

its clearly about reputation.

You see many people splashed across the papers and they are people who dont have the funds to take out such injunctions. E.g. that lady that was killed a while back and her landlord was taken in for questioning, and injunction should have been used there, the cost of an injunction means normal people dont get such a private life though.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 09:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

There should have been no need for any injunction in that case, as the law already prevented the media from reporting what they did.

Chappy112 Posted on 24/05/2011 09:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Well said sas, it's none of our business what he does in his private life.

I read someone say he should do a public apology... WTF?! Why should he apologise to us?

The_263 Posted on 24/05/2011 09:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"yeah but the papers wont be interested in a married man in somewhere like ingleby barwick having an affair with someone else on the estate.they wouldnt sell papers"

I did say looking at the broader issue. If an Ingelby man is found committing adultery perhaps it is not national newsworthy but it might be in a parochial sense - he might be well-known popular local figure who is highly image conscious or simply a bloke who wishes to keep his ex-wife quiet to maintain a squeaky clean image. You can easily think of analogous situations for the common man opposite this case. The biggest factor here is cash.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 10:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy law stated they could not report on facts about the mans private life?

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 10:06
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Correct.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 10:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

which law states you cannot state facts about someones life?

sasboro1 Posted on 24/05/2011 10:08
Giggs lawyers back in court now

isnt that bloke in bristol suing the papers now?

its nothing to do with cash its about the papers seeing an opportunity to sell papers. i'm sure some ex boro players will have played away but media never bothered cos it wont sell papers.same at most clubs. there is far more imprrtant news stories out there. but because giggs is so famous people seem to think its their right to know what he has been upto in his private life. its not even been effecting his game.

but as i said why is it any of our business? its not in our interest. if the PM was having an affair then yes it is then.

i've only read and heard bits about this whole farce. but i just think whats it do to with us anyway and all the media seem to be
jumping on the bandwagon and making a big story out of it. but we are a country obsessed by what celebrities get up to. more important news out there. shock horror football has an affair!wow!

but in all this no one seems to be thinking about his wife and kids. imagine the hassle they will get if the injunction is lifted.

i guess with giggs the media havent managed to get much off him since he was a teenager, he seemed to have kept a very private life in the last 15 years or so.maybe thats why the media are so interested. unlike some exmanutd players

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 10:11
Giggs lawyers back in court now

.


Link: Polly Toynbee

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 10:12
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Raz - the one about contempt of court in active proceedings.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 10:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'but in all this no one seems to be thinking about his wife and kids.'

Not even the football player!!

E-PRIME Posted on 24/05/2011 10:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

What about Imogen's right to let anyone she wants to know she's been sh4gging a footballer?

That avoids the "public interest" aspect.

She gives an interview, any false hoods get picked up by footballer. He sues. End of story.

I'm sorry, but she should have the right to shag and sell stories about anyone she wants TO anyone she wants and get sued if she's lying. As morally abhorrent as that is, it's true. It's a calculated income stream for her and not necessarily a result of the big bad papers forcing her to do it.

It also is not relevant that people are sick enough to buy papers for these tasty pieces of gossip.

sasboro1 Posted on 24/05/2011 10:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

missing the point,

whats it to do with us, why is it of any interest to us. it isnt but it sells papers because people are obsessed with celebrities

also maybe he has sorted things out with his wife and trying to protect his family from the media attention. its as if the media think he is the only married person to ever have an affair.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 10:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy they were saying stuff about him before his arrest ffs... which is the point of this, in such a situation he would require substantial funds to stop that, which is why he couldnt but a footballer can use law to hide an affair.

Should law be used to hide an affair?

UAUA Posted on 24/05/2011 10:25
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"i just dont see why its in our interests to know what went on between this footballer and some bird who chases footballers and makes a living off the back of it. why is it our business. the papers just want their way to sell papers. people are obsessed by celebrities personal life. "

Why do you keep asking the same question when you have already answered it in your own post, i.e. people are obsessed by celebrities personal life.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 10:27
Giggs lawyers back in court now

did he think about his wife and kids whilst he was having the affair?

maybe his public persona being more like what is reality would be of benefit to the public.

The_263 Posted on 24/05/2011 10:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Polly from The Guardian taking a couple of hypocritical and political swipes at Cameron and Murdoch as well as stating that it is OK for the rich and famous to have the privacy laws they can afford.

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 11:02
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I am genuinely shocked by what I've read on this thread.

I find it difficult to engage with anyone that believes that a right to a private life ceases if someone is rich, famous or commits a sin. Of course Giggs is entitled to have a private life.

The question at hand here isn't whether or not Giggs should be afforded the basic human right of privacy. Any right minded person ought to agree with that as a starting point and his fame, wealth or whatever ought to have no bearing on that very basic premise.

The civil law then provides people with the a means of protecting their civili liberties or human rights and injunctionslike this are that very mechanism.

If you want me to agree that everyone should be able to access that protection, regardless of their status then I will agree wholeheartedly. Come up with a system that can achieve that and I'll sign up to it. When it comes to justice I feel that everyone should have equal rights before the law regardless of wealth.

What I won't do though is agree that he shouldn't be granted an injunction because of that wealth or that these type of injunctions are some kind of abuse of the system by the wealthy. it is absolutely right and proper that people, like Giggs, should have the ability to protect their rights in court.

This leads us to the key question here. It's not about helping him to cover up an affair or helping him protect his millions. it's not a moral question because a married man with children + affair + profiting from wholesome image + attempt to silence media reporting affair, wouldn't pass any basic moral scrutiny test.

Much has been made of the notion that a person somehow doesn't 'deserve' protection if he has engaged in morally squiffy conduct. In this particular case, this is irrelevant. Human rights are not just applicable to 'good' humans as opposed to the morally dubious ones: in order to qualify, you only need to be human.

If you think about it, this must be a good thing: you really don't want the courts to enagage in a preliminary deliberation about what a good person you are before they decide whether you've 'earned' your right to liberty, or a fair trial, or from torture.

In other areas of the law, of course, a claimant's own moral conduct is highly relevant - in defamation cases, for example, or in criminal proceedings where (say) one's defence team has led evidence of one's good character. But the right to a private life applies to sinners just as much as it applies to saints.

What it is about though is whether or not his immorality ought to be front page news or not. It is whether it is in the public interest (and not of interest to the public!!!) that freedom of speech supercede his right to privacy.

The hypocritical reporting by tabloids has given partial justification for the injunctions, as if its an outrage that I can't find out which footballer has been seeing an ex-BB contestant. Certain papers have done their bit for freedom to know by tapping phones. Now they are on the side of freedom once again demanding to make the lives of celebrities a hell. Who can blame them for wanting privacy from such 'journalism'?

Article 8 RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

VERSUS

Article 10 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So in deciding to award an injunction to prevent anyone infringing a claimant's right to privacy the courts must decide whether that claim outweighs someone else's conflicting right to freedom of speech (whether that of the press or someone with a story to sell).

There does not exist in English law an unfettered right to freedom of speech, nor should there be. Rightly, in my view, the law makes it illegal (in varying degrees) to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, to stir up a mob by engaging in 'hate speech,' to infringe someone's intellectual property rights by writing or saying certain things without their permission or engage in libel or slander. If you agree that this is an appropriate state of affairs then you necessarily also accept that there are legitimate curbs on absolute freedom of speech. The protection of (someone else's) right to privacy is just another one of them.

The factors the judge must consdier in deciding whether to grant a super-injunction depend upon the facts of the case. Specifically the judge must decide that a 'mere' injunction would not amount to effective protection of the claimant's rights. It's not that hard to see why this might be the case: if a public figure - let's say a footballer - is granted an injunction, and the press is allowed to report that, then the court will take into account that everyone will assume it's because he's been a naughty boy and will hound him for it anyway, thereby depriving him of the privacy that was the very thing that was being protected! So that's why a super-injunction will be granted - if it's the only practical, effective way to protect the very rights that the judicial remedy was trying to protect in the first place.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 11:17
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'

i think he gave up such rights, was it morally correctr what he did? no... is he protecting the freedoms of others? in this case no.

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 11:20
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Jesus wept Raz.

"or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"

Read my long post again.

zaphod Posted on 24/05/2011 11:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It's in the public interest to know that his image is based on a lie & he used that image to make money out of the public. Same as Tiger Woods.

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 11:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"She is clearly an over-ambitious tart that honey-trapped a sneaky promiscuous footballer cheating on his wife and kids."

"i just dont see why its in our interests to know what went on between this footballer and some bird who chases footballers and makes a living off the back of it."

"If he didn't want mocking and people reporting about his family he should have thought twice before sleeping with that tart."

"I'm sorry, but she should have the right to shag and sell stories about anyone she wants TO anyone she wants and get sued if she's lying. As morally abhorrent as that is, it's true. It's a calculated income stream for her and not necessarily a result of the big bad papers forcing her to do it."


Tart, big chested bimbo and basically a prostitute. We sure do hate women on this website huh? Meanwhile here is what Imogen has to say:


"One minute we were madly in love, the next I was being hit with an injunction, being made to feel like some sort of criminal – his lawyers were very cold with me. I've been crying for days.

"I know what I did was wrong but he's the one with a wife and children – he's the cheater. Now my life is in pieces."

"I can't stop crying but I don't suppose he is because he is protected by the law.

"I've been branded a home wrecker and a whore. But he hasn't lost anything."

"When I heard he was going to abandon me and let my name come out, that was when I felt hurt and betrayed."

“You gave me the best seven months of my life. I'd never have spoken about our relationship. It wasn't in my interests because I loved you."

Holgatewall Posted on 24/05/2011 11:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

That's a good point Zaphod[^]

personally I couldn't care less about 'personalities' and what they get up to in their private lives.

years ago we never had this sort of media speculation though i'm pretty sure some of the old timers were no better than the modern day 'stars'.

Surely the only people really affected by this are Giggs,His wife and kids and the girl in question.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 11:44
Giggs lawyers back in court now

is he protecting the freedoms of the woman he had the affair with?

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 11:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

No Raz, that's not important. Obviously she's a whore and a harlet and a slut and she only slept with him to make money (even though their relationship went on for months and she never sold stories about it to magazines then) and it's obvious that she was trying to blackmail him (even though she's denied that and there's been no evidence supporting that claim). She doesn't deserve protecting OR the freedom to choose what she will and will not say. Bimbo, slag, tart. Poor, poor Giggs.

newyddion Posted on 24/05/2011 11:50
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Silly Giggsy. If he hadn't have bothered with the super injuncture it would have all blown over by now.

Footballer cheats on wife is a complete non story [:o)]

Big_Shot Posted on 24/05/2011 11:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Its not as if Giggs hasn't got any previous. I remember his previous indiscretions making the front pages but those were quickly forgotten. Even to the point that most people seem to be completely unaware that he ever got up to no good in the past.

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 11:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"I've taken a lot of abuse. I've been called a wh*re, a sl*g, everything. It's horrible but you get on with it. I love the 'block' button on Twitter. I'm blocking at least 30 or 40 people a day at the moment."

Thank goodness Giggs is being protected from anyone criticising him. That would truly be tragic. Whatever for Imogen though, right? She's just a tart who slept with him for money.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 12:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

maybe Adi has a point, she is a filthy tart and ryan and his family need protecting from her.

Atticus Posted on 24/05/2011 12:04
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"maybe Adi has a point, she is a filthy tart and ryan and his family need protecting from her"

Why on earth would you say that about her? What has she done to lead you to believe that she is filthy or a tart?

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 12:04
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I think so. What really convinced me was the part where she said "I've been crying for days".

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 24/05/2011 12:14
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Whether its in your interest is down to taste and how you see Ryan Giggs.

But if this sort of thing is allowed to be covered up by the courts we're going down a dangerous route, we could kill investigative journalism in this country because people will simply claim intrusion of privacy and get an injunction to stop the details been printed.

It was investigative journalism that lifted the lid on MP's Expenses.

sasboro1 Posted on 24/05/2011 12:19
Giggs lawyers back in court now

MPs expenses is in the public's interest. a footballer having an affair isnt.

Holgatewall Posted on 24/05/2011 12:19
Giggs lawyers back in court now

But is the Giggs case really in the Public interest or is it just to satisfy people whos only interest in life is following 'celebrities' in tabloids?

I'm all for decent investigatative Journalism when it is uncovering wrongdoing that affects the public; this just seems like mudslinging and only really affectsd Giggs, His family and the girl in question.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 12:25
Giggs lawyers back in court now

a footballer who likes to give off one image of themselves where infact they are contrary to that image is trying to mislead the public, so for the public it is relevant to know that the image they publicise themselves is a false one.

Must all freedom of expression be in the public interest?

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 12:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

PAMH - have you read Adi's long post above?

Muttley Posted on 24/05/2011 12:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Whither the "Human Rights" of Ms Thomas who has been vilified here and elsewhere? Her name has been in the press for a long time. Her only crime to be involved with a glamorous footballer. She is accused (without supporting evidence) of blackmail. But Mr. Giggs can "protect his family"?

The difference, one is a multimillionaire footballer the other an erstwhile model and sometime minor TV "celeb". Money.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 12:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'It's not about helping him to cover up an affair'

really?

then you go on to mention about it being a 'fair trial'

how can this be so when the reason for injunction is given and it is all very one sided, the person putting in the injunction is not giving the other person a fair trial surely?

sasboro1 Posted on 24/05/2011 12:35
Giggs lawyers back in court now

didnt she say she didnt want to make it public herself but then decided to sell her story to just about all the sunday papers she could. [rle]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 12:40
Giggs lawyers back in court now

sas that is not answering if you think this whole process has been fair on her.

Consider it was two of them that has the affair.

Why should a fair trial be something that only allows one side to give their side of the story?

Muttley Posted on 24/05/2011 12:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

According to her, the first she knew about it was when she was presented with the injunction, effectively gagging her. How is that a "fair trial"?

Edwin Posted on 24/05/2011 12:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Whats all this nonsense about Giggs building a career based on him 'being a good family man'? I didn't now his wifes name, or his kids. Hardly basing his public persona on them.

A true professional who has had 2 decades at the top - thats what he is perceived to be.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 12:42
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Erm, doesn't the phrase "fair trial" relate to proceedings in court? I don't think the injunction would have banned anyone from speaking in court.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 24/05/2011 12:43
Giggs lawyers back in court now

MPs expenses was in public interests

But the vast majority did not break the law, they got the maximum from the system which was immoral.

If that situation happened now what's to say it wouldn't be covered up? An MP goes to court, gets an injunction to stop the press going through his finances as he's broke no rules, case covered up.

If people like Giggs are allowed to gag the press it's a slippery slope to a controlled media who are to scared to investigate rich powerful people for fear of prison.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 12:44
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Edwin he is perceived to have a clean image people look up to unlike Rooney and Ronaldo and others.

gravyboat Posted on 24/05/2011 12:45
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Exactly, Edwin.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 12:49
Giggs lawyers back in court now

PAMH - have you read Adi's long post above?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 12:52
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy was the way the injunction was given a fair trial?

This has now labelled a woman a black mailer! Ever heard of Innocent until proven Guilty??

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 12:52
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi - I completely agree that Giggs should have as much right to privacy as anyone else regardless of wealth etc.

I also very firmly believe that Imogen Thomas should have a complete right of freedom of speech providing that what she says is fair and truthful.

Clearly there is a tension between both issues but I stongley feel that in cases like this that freedom of speech is more important than the privacy of an individual.

If both of them wanted to keep it a secret then fair enough and I wouldn't support the notion of the press intruding into the issue - but this very clearly isn't the case here.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 12:54
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Raz - well both sides were represented in court, and the judge came to his view. That's how it works.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 12:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

degsyspesh i agree with all of that apart from

'If both of them wanted to keep it a secret then fair enough '

I do not agree with the notion of a couple having an affair using law to support that affair.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 12:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Here's the rather short shrift that News International got in court last night.


Link: Bugger off Murdoch

Muttley Posted on 24/05/2011 12:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Were they? Ms Thomas says the first she knew about it was when it was served upon her. What exactly happened?

London_Boro Posted on 24/05/2011 12:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Anyone else think that he just needs to man up and issue a statement?

And also tell us how those badboys look all soaped up!

gravyboat Posted on 24/05/2011 12:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Whilst I will concede there is no firm evidence that Imogen Thomas was attempting to blackmail Giggs, Mr Justice Eady has a pretty strong view on it.


Link: England and Wales High Court

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 13:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy are you stating that for this injunction both sides were able to officially give their side of events using evidence as proof and the outcome from that was that she is a blackmailer?

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 24/05/2011 13:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Yes Buddy and I do not agree with it

Another example of the Human Rights act protecting the offender

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 13:04
Giggs lawyers back in court now

The whole issue has just descended into a farce and the only way that it will end is for Giggs to come out and say something.

(London_Boro - if you want to know "how those badboys look all soaped up!" I suggest that you visit any reputable internet porn site and type in "Imogen Thomas" - your curiosity will be more than satisfied, so I'm told....ahem...)

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 13:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

gravyboat isnt the majority of evidence there just the Claimant giving an account of what went on.

And only a statement from Ms Thomas denying a couple of points, but no substantial statement.

It all seems very biased for a judge to judge on something that has such a one sided viewpoint.

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 13:11
Giggs lawyers back in court now

In answer to Raz's question about whether both sides gave their side of events, this is from the link Gravyboat posted.

"Ms Thomas was not represented, and indeed had not been notified of the hearing, since on the evidence I was satisfied that there would otherwise have been a risk of further disclosure of private or confidential information prior to her being served with the order."

Holgatewall Posted on 24/05/2011 13:18
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Has anyone thought of the feelings of Giggs wife and Kids in this tawdry affair?

It is them who are being hurt by all of this coverage.

I couldn't care less about Giggs and the Girl they have had their fun and now should face the wrath of his family.

Basically it has sod all to do with anyone else. just people being nosey.

How can this story coming out be classed as being in the public interest?

An over paid footballer and a slapper; who is really interested. Nothing new here. perhaps he should man up and admit it and try and explain hisself to his familiy who have been hurt by all of this.

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 13:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"didnt she say she didnt want to make it public herself but then decided to sell her story to just about all the sunday papers she could. [rle]"

A newspaper running a story about it, isn't the same as her selling a story about it. This is utterly pathetic. Why do we live in a society where a man who we all admire for his contribution to a sport betrays his wife and family and the first thought everyone has is how can they blame the girl he's been seeing?

She isn't a slut, or a tart, or a whore, or a bimbo, or blackmailing him, or selling her story as much as she can. She's a person. They had a relationship, when he got found out he's obviously cut all ties with her and covered his arse. She seems genuinely gutted. Now people are abusing her daily on her twitter account, and assuming she's some sort of criminal.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 13:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

From the same link:

"Indeed, it was not even argued that publication would serve the public interest"

Also, the hearing at which Ms Thomas was not represented was the initial "pre-trial" hearing on 14th April. She and her solicitors were fully involved in the full hearing on 20th April.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 24/05/2011 13:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"It's in the public interest to know that his image is based on a lie & he used that image to make money out of the public."

His 'image' is based on him being a top-class footballer, nothing else. His football club pay him a lot of money for being a top footballer, Reebok pay him a lot of money for being a top footballer.

oooooo Posted on 24/05/2011 13:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Did people on here think "Ryan Giggs is a great family guy" and then go and buy stuff? Because I doubt you have, but a lot of you seem to be awful convinced that you have been somehow wronged or deceived by someone you didn't know over a matter that doesn't affect you.

I'd say leave it to the lawyers, fmttm, I think this one is beyond you. Perhaps we should send this thread to the court, I presume the judge will do a facepalm and realise they were all wrong after all.


You silly sods.

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 13:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

These injunctions need to be changed. What IS in the public interest is British people not being restrained by the law from speaking about their own lives.

Society needs to change so that Holgatewall doesn't feel compelled to dub a woman a slapper because she happens to have slept with a consenting grown man.

Muttley Posted on 24/05/2011 13:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"His 'image' is based on him being a top-class footballer, nothing else."

Explain then why did all those sponsors ditch Tiger Woods subsequent to his high profile divorce and the revelations that led to it?

Sponsors don't like their pinups getting dragged through the tabloids and drop them accordingly. It is very much about protecting his future earnings. He has shown little regard for his family a simple statement at the start of this would have ended all the speculation, there'd have been a few tawdry stories in the gutter press and then he, his wife, his kids AND Ms. Thomas could just have got on with their lives. He has been very badly informed by lawyers who plainly saw a chance to have a dip in his bank account(s)

oooooo Posted on 24/05/2011 13:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"What IS in the public interest is British people not being restrained by the law from speaking about their own lives."

...in the newspapers, about someone else's private life and for money?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 13:34
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy it also admitted to some discrepencey regarding the length of relationship, however that never seemed to get resolved and they were happy to take what the claimant said as correct without fully questioning it.

fair trial???

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 13:34
Giggs lawyers back in court now

[:D] From the 16th May hearing:


"Mr Spearman raises the alternative argument, verging on the bathetic, that The Sun should at least be allowed to tell the Claimant's wife what it knows, or thinks it knows. This is a difficult one to follow. NGN is a media group legitimately interested in making profits from communicating to the world at large. It surely does not aspire to the role of social worker or "relationship counsellor". Its Article 10 rights are hardly engaged by this subsidiary argument at all. It was faintly suggested, therefore, that it should be allowed to pass on the story to the Claimant's wife in the furtherance or protection of her Article 8 right to family life. The Claimant regards this as so much humbug. The point of Article 8 is that it is not supposed to be any of NGN's business."

gravyboat Posted on 24/05/2011 13:36
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'She isn't a slut, or a tart, or a whore, or a bimbo, or blackmailing him, or selling her story as much as she can. She's a person. They had a relationship, when he got found out he's obviously cut all ties with her and covered his arse. She seems genuinely gutted. Now people are abusing her daily on her twitter account, and assuming she's some sort of criminal'

Whilst I would agree with your sentiments regarding the name calling, I'm not really sure how you've come to such a certain conclusion that she wasn't blackmailing him, or aiming to sell her story. What are you basing that on? Because she's been on tele crying a bit?

Read the link I posted above (which was also posted last week by Buddy), and see whether you still think with such certainty her actions aren't based on financial gain.

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 13:36
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"...in the newspapers, about someone else's private life and for money?"

Yeah. If 'silly sods' want to buy a magazine where Imogen Thomas tells people about the relationship she's been having for the past 7 months what's wrong with that? If people want to know about her life that badly they're willing to hand over cash, why shouldn't she accept it and indulge them if she so chooses.

Not that that has any relevance in this instance. I'll say it again. A newspaper printing a story about a person is NOT the same as that person selling their story to a newspaper.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 13:37
Giggs lawyers back in court now

To reiterate the public interest point:

"On the evidence before me, as at 14 and 20 April, I formed the view that the Claimant would be "likely" to obtain a permanent injunction at trial, if the matter goes that far. As I have said, it remains uncontradicted. The information is such that he is still entitled to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and no countervailing argument has been advanced to suggest that the Article 10 rights of the Defendants, or indeed of anyone else, should prevail. There is certainly no suggestion of any legitimate public interest in publishing such material.

Moreover, in so far as Ms Thomas wishes to exercise her Article 10 right by selling her life story, she is entitled to do so, but only subject to the qualification that she is not thereby relieved of any obligation of confidence she may owe, or free to intrude upon the privacy rights of others"

Holgatewall Posted on 24/05/2011 13:37
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Society needs to change so that Holgatewall doesn't feel compelled to dub a woman a slapper because she happens to have slept with a consenting grown man.


A consenting grown man that she KNEW had a wife and kids at home.

yes, she really is a wonderful person.


Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 13:39
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy why is it justifiable that if the claimant states something it is deemed as correct?

'The Claimant regards this as so much humbug'

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 13:40
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Gravyboat, because there's no evidence for her blackmailing anybody. And because in this country people are innocent until proven guilty. And because she's not even being sent to trial for blackmail so she is going to be remaining innocent for the forseeable future.

Why would I assume the worst about another human being for no reason?

oooooo Posted on 24/05/2011 13:42
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"Buddy why is it justifiable that if the claimant states something it is deemed as correct?"

Because the judge agrees, I do and anyone who read that bit about the Sun popping round to offer emotional support and counsel her through this is laughing their foooking ass off.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 13:43
Giggs lawyers back in court now

gravyboat what are you basing the blackmailing claims on?

because the claimant said so it must be true?

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 13:45
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"A fully grown man that she KNEW had a wife and kids at home.

yes, she really is a wonderful person."

Excellent. His wife and kids are her responsibility now yeah? Are all the women in the world responsible for maintaining Ryan Giggs' fidelity? Or is it that Imogen Thomas must take extra care to curb her allure towards anybody married?

I'll agree, she was in a moral conundrum. I'm not saying I think it's a good thing to pursue a relationship with somebody you know to be married. But I do think the person betraying their marriage partner is in a worse moral position.

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 13:45
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"His 'image' is based on him being a top-class footballer, nothing else."

Either disingenuous or naive in the extreme.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 24/05/2011 13:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Well what else is it based on then?

Holgatewall Posted on 24/05/2011 13:48
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Stu- while I totally agree with your sentiments about a married man betraying his wife being wrong. She also knew about his marital situation and went along with it which makes her equally as wrong in my book.

How would she have liked it if the boot had been on the other foot?

Okay, an hypothetical question maybe but opne that she should perhaps consider next time she sleeps with a married man.

Midosparmo Posted on 24/05/2011 13:49
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Beckham has made millions on his image even after shagging the nanny.
Footballer Shagging a tart, big deal, whats new? Giggs will have lost millions........ to his lawyers.

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 13:49
Giggs lawyers back in court now

oooooo if you're truthfully laughing your "foooking ass off" then you should try watching shooting stars on youtube or something. When I say there's nothing funny about this situation I'm not meaning it's some sort of dramatically grave tragedy, I'm just informing you. It just doesn't happen to be humourous.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 13:51
Giggs lawyers back in court now

stu - if you can't see the humour in The Sun pleading to be allowed to support Mrs Giggs in her hour of need, even if they're not allowed to publish it, then satire's probably wasted on you.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 13:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy to be fair you think it is ok to state someone is a blackmailer without any proof.

which is shocking!

oooooo Posted on 24/05/2011 13:54
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Stu, the Sun offering to support Gigg's wife is absolutely hilarious in every way it can be.

[:D][:D][:D][:D]

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 13:54
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Well what else is it based on then?

his "image", funnily enough. His image isn't just a picture of him - it is everything about his life.

Why do you think Beckham commands such high image rights - it's not just down too his football. It's his looks, his pop star (?) wife his kids - everything.


superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 13:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Holgatewall. I expect she'd be distraught if the boot was on the other foot, as Mrs Giggs probably is now. I wouldn't say they're equally as wrong but that's subjective and down to opinion, so I guess we ought just agree to disagree on that.

Midosparmo Posted on 24/05/2011 13:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"Why do you think Beckham commands such high image rights - it's not just down too his football. It's his looks, his pop star (?) wife his kids - everything"

Including shagging the nanny.

sasboro1 Posted on 24/05/2011 13:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

does anyone know if giggs and his wife are still together or is no one interested in that bit?

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 13:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Lads honestly. Try watching Peep Show on 4OD. That's decent. Or I quite like Modern Family. That's an American one. Really funny.

Muttley Posted on 24/05/2011 13:59
Giggs lawyers back in court now

And actually proof that fronting up actually works. Tiger Woods got dropped PDQ by his sponsors as (IIRC) did that loveable scamp Rooney after cheating on the fragrant Coleen.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 13:59
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Paragraphs 5 to 12 for the reasoning Razzer.


Link: Judgement

Holgatewall Posted on 24/05/2011 14:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

The thing is stu I agree with a lot you say.

However, I do believe that if a woman goes to bed with a man she Knows to be married she carries a lot of the blame.This in no way absolves the married man of his share of the blame.

The innocent party are his wife and kids.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:02
Giggs lawyers back in court now

BUDDY do you base calling her a blackmailer soley on the claimants statement alone?

or do you know of any other evidence

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 14:04
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Well fair enough Holgatewall like I said, it's opinions isn't it. Equally to blame, a lot of the blame, somewhat to blame. Everyone's gonna have their own view.

Obviously I agree his wife and kids are innocent in this. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest they're to blame.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 14:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Just to help you out Raz, I'm not Sir David Eady.

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It's clear from this that Raz and Pog, amongst others, either didn't read or didn't understand my post.

For example, they've picked up on this fair trial point and missed it.

All I said was:

"If you think about it, this must be a good thing: you really don't want the courts to enagage in a preliminary deliberation about what a good person you are before they decide whether you've 'earned' your right to liberty, or a fair trial, or from torture. "

If you Raz, for example, read my post properly you would see that every point you have raised since has been dealt with.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 24/05/2011 14:09
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Is there not a difference between Ryan Giggs and the worldwide 'brands' that are David Beckham and Tiger Woods?

Did Giggs actively and openly promote himself and his values like Beckham and Woods did/do?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:11
Giggs lawyers back in court now

sorry Adi what basis is say Buddy using to call the lady a Blackmailer?

is it simply from what the claimant said?

Or do they have evidence?

I know your post was clear on such matters, but i missed it.

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:15
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Read it again then.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

you make no reference of the blackmailing, and how that was proved to be fact rather than fiction.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 24/05/2011 14:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

If he cared that much about his family he should have paid for her to get an injunction aswell.

Instead we have the ludicrous situation where nobody is allowed to talk about what he did is he's wealthy enough to silence the press and she cannot say a word on the accusations of been a home-wrecking blackmailer.

In your perverse 'Human Rights' argument doesn't she have a right to respond to these allegations, it's denying her any freedom of speech.

America may have it's problems but they're absolutely right with the first amendment which entitles them to amongst other things: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

We're in danger of losing those in this country for the sake of a bunch of blokes who hang out the back of prostitute and glamour models.

What a pathetic country this is sometimes



Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

if you had read what i said you would not have asked me to reread your post but answered what i had asked...

... oh well

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

And that Pog, is the diametrically opposed viewpoint to the one I hold.

You talk about 'perverse' human rights and yet enjoy them every day and would no doubt be up in arms if they weren't respected. Hypocritical at best.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 14:27
Giggs lawyers back in court now

And then find me the post where I called her a blackmailer.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:28
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi does she have a right in all this?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:29
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Except Raz that not only is your question irrelevant it is actually dealt with when I pointed out that a judge will take into account a host of factors when granting an injunction.

Pog - what about the Fourth Amendment?

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 14:30
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi - where do you stand on her human right to a freedom of speech?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:30
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Raz, as I've now said repeatedly, she has all of the rights that he has, you and I have.

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Degsy - that's the question and it's the one that the judge has to balance when presented all of the facts. One person's rights often impinge on another persons rights. It is the role of the judiciary to determine which takes precedence. I don't have all the facts and so can't make that judgement.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi does the judge take into account the opinion of the person or persons the injunction is against giving appropriate time for such information to be gathered?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Yes

oooooo Posted on 24/05/2011 14:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Why oh why oh why oh why do you argue with Raz. He is a bot ffs.

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 14:35
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Normally I don't. When I do, I use the same justification I would use for arguing with Richard Littlejohn - to stop others believing him.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:37
Giggs lawyers back in court now

but in this case her side of the story has not been mentioned at all, and has not been used to determine the injunction.

Is that correct procedure to base an injunction on only one side?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:39
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Yes it has. The judge considers all of the factors prior to making a decision.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'that's the question and it's the one that the judge has to balance when presented all of the facts.'

Adi in this case do you think the judge had all the facts in front of him?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Yes.

Do you want to ask it a third way?

two_banks_of_four Posted on 24/05/2011 14:42
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Para 9 from the above, just for Raz

"The evidence before the court at that point, therefore, appeared strongly to suggest that the Claimant was being blackmailed (although that is not how he put it himself). I hasten to add, as is obvious, that I cannot come to any final conclusion about it at this stage. I have to make an assessment of the situation on the limited (and untested) evidence as it now stands. (That is what is required by s.12(3) of the Human Rights Act, to which I shall return shortly.)"

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:42
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'Yes it has.'

was it an affair that went on for 6 months ?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:43
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Not a clue Raz. Why don't you tell me.

Or, alternatively, make the point you're trying to make.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:46
Giggs lawyers back in court now

well as that is a major factor in the case, and as it was never established how can you state the judge had all the facts?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Why do you believe that it was a major factor in the case?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:49
Giggs lawyers back in court now

what is more important is why do you think the judge had all the facts, not just that of the claimants?

two_banks_of_four Posted on 24/05/2011 14:50
Giggs lawyers back in court now

just a clue

"I have to make an assessment of the situation on the limited (and untested) evidence as it now stands. (That is what is required by s.12(3) of the Human Rights Act, to which I shall return shortly.)"

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 14:52
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Because there have been several appeals, several hearings, some of which Imogen Thomas attended personally following the quoted remark above and adequate time for the judge to have all of the facts.

If he didn't have enough to make the decision then he wouldn't have made it and he wouldn't have dismissed the countless appeals.

Red_Matter Posted on 24/05/2011 14:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I have a lot of time for Ryan Giggs. One of my favourite footy players. But like the rest of us, he has his flaws. So what?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 14:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi does this mean that the judge gave his judgement based on only one side of events, that of the claimant?

'on the limited (and untested) evidence as it now stands'

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 15:04
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Applications like this are usually made ex parte. That's inevitable. It is the appeals process that is used to gather more information. The original judgement was based on limited evidence, as is almost always the case.

I'm still struggling to see you make your point.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 15:08
Giggs lawyers back in court now

so you are saying that the injunction may have been given without the person it was againsts opinion regarding events being used.

You agree that such judgement using limited evidence gives a fair trial to the person or persons the injunction is against?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 15:11
Giggs lawyers back in court now

1. The injunction isn't against Imogen Thomas, just to clear that up.
2. The urgency of such hearings often happens ex parte and so the applicant will be the only one present. That's not unusual.
3. There have been several hearings since and plenty of opporunity, in full knowledge of the facts, for the judge to reverse the decision. That hasn't happened.
4. It isn't a trial.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 15:13
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'1. The injunction isn't against Imogen Thomas, just to clear that up.'

Ms Thomas was infact able to publicise the details of the affair?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 15:15
Giggs lawyers back in court now

What?

oooooo Posted on 24/05/2011 15:15
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Maybe Raz knows more than all the lawyers working on this case. That is possible.

In fact, they had a guy on the news yesterday who seemed pretty well informed and he mentioned that he has just written a draft privacy law for Mauritius. And he didn't mention a single one of the bizarre points Raz is banging on about.

So the question is, do I listen to Raz of fmttm or do I listen to a bloke who writes laws for countries?

Tough call [sad]

two_banks_of_four Posted on 24/05/2011 15:15
Giggs lawyers back in court now

para 38

Moreover, in so far as Ms Thomas wishes to exercise her Article 10 right by selling her life story, she is entitled to do so, but only subject to the qualification that she is not thereby relieved of any obligation of confidence she may owe, or free to intrude upon the privacy rights of others: see e.g. McKennitt v Ash, cited above, at [28]-[32] and [50]-[51]. In so far as there are any conflicts of evidence or of recollection between her and the Claimant, it will be for the court to resolve them at the appropriate time. I will discuss with counsel whether it would be appropriate to order a speedy trial for that purpose

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 15:19
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'1. The injunction isn't against Imogen Thomas, just to clear that up.'

SHE WAS FREE TO DISCLOSE DETAILS OF HER AFFAIR WITH A FOOTBALLER THEN

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 15:20
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Deary me. READ IT RAZ!!!

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 24/05/2011 15:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

i have and it was against her and a certain media outlet.

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 15:25
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Sorry raz, I owe you an apology there, a typo has caused the confusion - I should have written that the injunction wasn't 'JUST' against Imogen Thomas (given that News Group Newspapers were also a co-defendant).

Aside from that I can only repeat what I've already said.

The_263 Posted on 24/05/2011 15:25
Giggs lawyers back in court now

In other words, if you attempt to sell your story the chances are we will sue you.

degsyspesh Posted on 24/05/2011 16:42
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"I don't have all the facts and so can't make that judgement."

Adi - I was asking you for an opinion rather than a legal judgement -you don't have all of the facts about the privacy case but you still feel comfortable passing opinion on the matter.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 24/05/2011 16:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"Raz, as I've now said repeatedly, she has all of the rights that he has, you and I have."

No she doesn't.

He had the money to buy his anonymity and stop her talking about him. She didn't have the money to stop people finding out who she was.

He can stop this at any time, she can't. Until he drops the injunction she faces jail if she responds to any accusations.

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 16:59
Giggs lawyers back in court now

No, I don't actually. I feel comfortable opining on the general principles involved in the privacy case rather than on its merits because I just don't know.

If you want my view though, I think there's a good chance that Imogen doesn't come to this with clean hands. In light of Giggs' having a family and it not really being in the public interest to have this on the front pages I am inclined to put his right to privacy ahead of her right to fredom of expression.

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 17:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Sorry Pog but that is, quite simply, wrong. On many levels.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 24/05/2011 17:05
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi

Here's the 4th amendment

It deals with privacy but nothing like in the context your talking about.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 17:09
Giggs lawyers back in court now

The point I was making was a simple one. Even in America, it is not an unfettered right to freedom of expression. Each freedom or right is part of a group of rights and freedoms and noe are unfettered. In other words, your previous post sayng that we should be more like the US was inaccurate and, in any event, not something I could ever agree with.

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 18:38
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"If you want my view though, I think there's a good chance that Imogen doesn't come to this with clean hands. In light of Giggs' having a family and it not really being in the public interest to have this on the front pages I am inclined to put his right to privacy ahead of her right to fredom of expression."

Thought you were a more modern man than that Adi.

OPEO Posted on 24/05/2011 18:45
Giggs lawyers back in court now

If he cared so much about his family he wouldn't be shagging some slag behind his wifes back. He deserves all the crap in the world.

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 18:49
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It isn't about what he deserves though OPEO, not granting the injunction isn't. Punitive measure.

Modern man? Care to elaborate?

superstu Posted on 24/05/2011 18:52
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Just thought you were a bit more aware. Not another "well he's a rich man so she must have tricked him in to it!" sort.

OPEO why is she a slag? Because she slept with a man she had a relationship for 7 months with?

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 18:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Erm I don't know how you got that from what I posted! All I said that she didn't come with clean hands I.e. She knew he was married.

I've already said what Giggs has done is immoral but this isn't a moral question.

On balance, bearing in mind Giggs' family, I think the right decision was made. That is not condoning it or somehow saying that he was tricked into it. I've also been at pains to say that his wealth has nothing to do with it.

As I say I don't know where you got that from at all.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 24/05/2011 19:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Jesus Christ, this place really is like infant school the way people construct arguments.

Some people are trying to argue the principle of "privacy laws" and others just respond with comments like "oh so you defend Giggs' actions do you?" which is completely missing the point people are trying to make. Repeat ad infinitum.

Then people like superstu lambast people for believing that Imogen was trying to "blackmail" Giggs - which was the opinion of the judge presiding at the hearing - but then believes Imogen implicitly when she claims they had a 7 month relationship - and cannot see the contradictory nature of this.

Is this place really a reflection on our society as a whole?? [?]

Buddy Posted on 24/05/2011 19:02
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I think it might be, yes.

joseph99 Posted on 24/05/2011 19:04
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"I've also been at pains to say that his wealth has nothing to do with it."

Apart his mammoth wealth funding this injunction with phenemonal amounts of money that go well beyond the financial capability of the average man in the street. Justice for all, eh!

Fearless_Fish Posted on 24/05/2011 19:06
Giggs lawyers back in court now

joseph99 - I believe Adi has already said many times that he believes the right to privacy belongs to all, and that it's wrong if only rich people can benefit from things such as injunctions. Not quite sure why you're still banging on about this..[?] Care to explain?

OPEO Posted on 24/05/2011 19:15
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Shes a slag cos Giggsy is one ugly specimen that happens to be well minted.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 24/05/2011 19:16
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Thanks for that useful input OPEO [smi]

OPEO Posted on 24/05/2011 19:17
Giggs lawyers back in court now

That's a free one[smi]

joseph99 Posted on 24/05/2011 21:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Please explain how I get an injunction on my mistress as she is thretening to tell my wife and kids, I am skint too [smi]

Adi_Dem Posted on 24/05/2011 21:22
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Is there a point here Joseph, one that hasn't been made and answered before?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 10:03
Giggs lawyers back in court now

joseph99 good point.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 10:12
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"I've also been at pains to say that his wealth has nothing to do with it."


it was his wealth tha afforded an inunction.

isnt they a cost against appealing against such an injunction?

I know it cost Hislop v Andrew Marr.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 10:19
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Raz, there's two seperate points:

1.) Whether an "injunction" is a fair way of protecting a person's privacy.
2.) Whether it's fair than an "injunction" is so expensive that only the rich can afford one.

I don't think anyone particularly thinks number 2 is fair, so you're arguing with yourself on that one. The main debate is number 1. Hope this helps.

Buddy Posted on 25/05/2011 10:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I'm betting it won't.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 10:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Fearless_Fish i agree when we are just talking about the morality of injunctions in general.

However the giggs case has been mentioned specifically here, and his wealth was a major factor in that case, adi pointing out she had her right to appeal etc.

And appealing comes at a large financial cost and even if you are right in appealing it again comes down to the opinion of a judge, so that financial cost to some is too big a risk.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 10:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'1.) Whether an "injunction" is a fair way of protecting a person's privacy.
'

as joseph alluded too is it fair that law should be used to protect someone from having an affair?

I think that is a misuse of our system of law.


Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 10:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Well it depends on why it was used. Like the judge said, it seemed like the affair could involve blackmail, so in that case an injunction could well be appropriate. Or maybe it's just Giggs trying to hide his behaviour from the public. The point is we don't KNOW exactly what's gone on - the judge is the person that's heard the evidence and came to his conclusion based upon it.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 10:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

my point is simple, we cannot condone an injunction being used for an affair, thats misuse.

If it was use due to blackmail, i would suggest that some evidence at some point would be required before giving an injunction long term, no proof of blackmail and then no injunction given.

If an injunction is given so details of an affair dont come out and upset the children, i do not see that as a good enough reason because then law will be used by any well paid celeb who has an affair and pleads it coming out may harm someone. ALL affairs harm people, thats why they are so secretive, but only people with money can hide them with injunctions, its a clear misue of law.

ZappBrannagan Posted on 25/05/2011 10:51
Giggs lawyers back in court now

The bigger picture:

Media’s lack of focus on phone-hacking exposes their real agenda – sex and celebs

Posted on 24 May 2011 | 10:05am

Apart from the occasional passing reference, there was next to no mention yesterday of the issue of illegal phone-hacking by newspapers.

This should not surprise anyone. With the exception of The Guardian, newspapers have tended to leave the story of systematic illegal activity by The News of the World well alone, for reasons likely to do with their own use or condoning of such practices. The news channels too have tended to cover the issue only when arrests or resignations have resulted.

The contrast with the zeal with which most of the media have pursued the superinjunctions issue, culminating in yesterday’s full-on frenzy, could not be clearer.

When it suits them, newspapers and politicians are at the front of the queue in expressing support for the rule of law as one of the principles on which our country operates. It did not suit Lib Dem MP John Hemmings yesterday, who saw an opportunity for a Warhol moment that would make him a short-term hero of sections of the press, and the cheap thrill twitterati. Nor did it suit those newspaper groups who have been pushing on all the pressure points that led to him finally doing their work for them in the Commons, and opening the floodgates. Nor did it suit the Prime Minister who, faced with a choice between standing up for the independence of the judiciary, and playing along with the media mood, opted for the latter when he sat on the Daybreak sofa yesterday.

The coverage in most of the papers has been self-serving beyond belief. Their self-portrait as freedom fighters taking on forces of evil might be justified if at the centre of this story was an act of serious wrongdoing by a politician, a Pope or a major corporation. It is about a footballer who had an affair with a woman who then appears to have sought to benefit financially from the experience, with the help of Mr Max Clifford and a national newspaper.

Twitter is being cited as the new kid on the block that made the granting of such an injunction unsustainable. But the argument on that too has been self-serving, all about getting the story out there whatever a judge may deem to be right or wrong. When an injunction is granted, the lawyers know about it. Staff at the newspaper know about it. They gossip amongst themselves and before long more journalists know about it. They tell their families who might tell their friends. That has gone on forever, on the thankfully fairly rare occasions when injunctions have been imposed. All twitter has done is add to the scale and speed of that process.

But until Parliament takes a view on how that should change the law, politicians and newspapers have a duty to obey the law as is. There is a wonderful irony in seeing newspapers falsely claiming judges are writing a new law as they go along – they are seeking to interpret the law as it is – whilst in their words and actions they are seeking to set the law themselves.

What they actually want is a system where there should be one law for the media, and its day to day assessment of what is in the public interest, and another for everyone else. Phone-hacking, theft of bank data or medical records? Well, illegal, sure, but we are newspapers defending the public interest. Breaking injunctions? Well who the hell do the judges think they are anyway?

Mr Cameron has asked a committee of MPs and peers to look into the implications of social media and the internet more widely in this fraught and complex area. I am pleased that the thoughtful Tory MP John Whittingdale is involved in that. He has strong views on phone-hacking and the failure of the Press Complaints Commission. (Cameron was at his lamest in suggesting the PCC might be the solution here … That’d be the body that had Paul Dacre as head of its ethics committee.)

Whittingdale is also someone who knows there is a difference between the public interest and what the media think the public might be interested in. He knows too that if he and his colleagues come up with anything that tampers with the second of those different things, and the media’s belief in its right to build up and trash any so-called celeb it likes, they will have major amounts of ordure poured over their heads. If they truly believe in the public interest, they should be prepared to take it.

The papers are under pressure. Take away from their staple diet stories of kiss and tell and the synthetic anger and envy in which they specialise and the pressure grows. That is what the last few days have been about. Magna Carta? Cant. Freedom of expression? Hypocrisy, esepcially in light of the near blackout on phone-hacking.

Sex sells, apparently. Celebs sell, apparently. What they are fighting for is the right to write about sex and celebs. That’s it.



Link: Alastair Campbell

Buddy Posted on 25/05/2011 10:56
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I agree with that, but also with someone on Twitter earlier who said it was problematic to see ALASTAIR FKING CAMPBELL taking the moral high ground...

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 11:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"we cannot condone an injunction being used for an affair, thats misuse"

Is it? If so, why? Does the public have a right to know all the details of celebrities lives? Do they have no right to privacy?

If someone on fmttm found out who you were, would you mind if they tracked you, took photos and recorded conversations and then posted it on here? Would you say "fair game"?

"If it was use due to blackmail, i would suggest that some evidence at some point would be required before giving an injunction long term, no proof of blackmail and then no injunction given."

I'm pretty sure this in injunction is in place as there was a suspicious of blackmail, and so the injunction protects the claimant until all the evidence has been reviewed. There's no point in granting an injunction AFTER the story has been spread across all the newspapers. Injuction first - overturned later.

"but only people with money can hide them with injunctions"

You're off on a tangent again. Refer to points 1 and 2 above.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 11:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

those are all good points, but i imagine the reason behind not commenting on the phone hacking might be due laws not allowing them to do so. And maybe also i agree out of their own interests.

in the giggs case as mentioned above specifically on a number of occasions the injunction was not only taken out on the media organisation but the other person in the affair.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 11:06
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'Injuction first - overturned later.'

you are also of on a tangent there as you are unwilling to make the link between the injunction and the financial cost.

Like i have said Hislop overturned the Marr injunction and he stated it was at such a financial cost that he could not afford to do it again.

Are you stating that it is straightforward to overturn such an injunction if wrong without having to consider if you can afford to do it?

will you not comment on the unfair financial constraints of trying to overturn a misued injunction?

Muttley Posted on 25/05/2011 11:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Triple Ton!

I would suggest that the only suggestion of blackmail was made by lawyers acting on behalf of Mr. Giggs to assure the safe passage of the injunction. It seems to have come as a surprise to Ms Thomas (but then I suppose it would, wouldn't it)

Oh and blackmail is only effective if the person targeted is not willing/able to do a "Wellington".

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 11:08
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Refer to points 1 and 2 above.

I'm not arguing that the costs of obtaining/overturning injuctions is prohibitive and wrong. I AGREE with you there ffs.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 11:12
Giggs lawyers back in court now

so you agree that an injunction maybe put through on limited information and then could be deemed misuse, and that they can be overturned but the person trying to overturning them needs to have huge financial backing to afford to attempt to overturn them.

I guess in a nutshell we agree the fundementals of whats wrong with the injunction system and how it can easily be abused by the wealthy.

Buddy Posted on 25/05/2011 11:12
Giggs lawyers back in court now

You'd suggest wrong then Muttley.

"The evidence before the court at that point, therefore, appeared strongly to suggest that the Claimant was being blackmailed (although that is not how he put it himself)"

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 11:15
Giggs lawyers back in court now

according to that same report the only evidence produced was from the claimant.


'(although that is not how he put it himself)"'

did that suggest that he wasnt putting an injunction in on the grounds of blackmail?

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 11:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"so you agree that an injunction maybe put through on limited information and then could be deemed misuse, and that they can be overturned but the person trying to overturning them needs to have huge financial backing to afford to attempt to overturn them."

No, I'm saying that Giggs wanted an injunction to stop any information getting out, as is his right (his right to privacy). The "defendants" obviously did want the information to get out. The judge listened to both sides and decided that in his opinion there was sufficient evidence to warrant the granting of an injuntion.

That's not misuse. If there was not sufficient evidence, the judge would not have granted the injunction and the story could be printed.

The only part that I think I agree with you on is the part about the cost of injuctions being unfair.

superstu Posted on 25/05/2011 11:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

All this talk about the public interest is pathetic. Injunctions should be changed around so that the person buying the injunction has to prove that their secret getting out would be harmful to the public interest.

Then you'd be silencing newspapers about to report on where a police unit are staking out a terrorist cell for example. Rather than covering a rich lads arse cause he's worried someone is gonna tell his wife about his girlfriend.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 11:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"All this talk about the public interest is pathetic. Injunctions should be changed around so that the person buying the injunction has to prove that their secret getting out would be harmful to the public interest.

Then you'd be silencing newspapers about to report on where a police unit are staking out a terrorist cell for example. Rather than covering a rich lads arse cause he's worried someone is gonna tell his wife about his girlfriend."

That post makes absolutely no sense.

Ryan Giggs is attempting to PROTECT HIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY. He is NOT SAYING that the story getting out will damage the public.

Your examples are ludicrous.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 11:29
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Fearless_Fish as shown in the report and mentioned above the evidence the judge used was 99% from what the claimant had to say.

maybe you agree with that being fair.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 11:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'Ryan Giggs is attempting to PROTECT HIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY.'

what about Ms Thomas' rights as she did also take part in the affair?

Should one persons right be more important than anothers?

superstu Posted on 25/05/2011 11:35
Giggs lawyers back in court now

F_F. His right to privacy/her right to free speech/the freedom of the press. How do we currently decide which one prevails? Who's willing to pay the most. He takes out an injunction and he wins. The press splash enough money on appeals and it'll be overturned. That's what makes no sense and is ludicrous. How can we claim to have just courts if their decisions are directly influenced by what people can spend?

"He is NOT SAYING that the story getting out will damage the public." - I know he's not. I never claimed he was. I'm saying that should be how these cases are decided in my opinion.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 11:38
Giggs lawyers back in court now

1.) Imogen Thomas has a right to "free speech"
2.) Ryan Giggs has a right to privacy
3.) Imogen Thomas by executing her right to "free speech" impinges on Ryan Giggs' right to privacy. Therefore he takes out an injunction to stop her speaking.
4.) The judge looks at both sides of the argument, and decides that Ryan Giggs' right to privacy "wins" in this case. However, had Imogen Thomas' "free speech" being about something in the public interest rather than tittle-tattle it is likely the injunction would have been denied.

That's my take.

superstu Posted on 25/05/2011 11:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

1.) Imogen Thomas has a right to "free speech"
2.) Ryan Giggs has a right to privacy
3.) Imogen Thomas by executing her right to "free speech" impinges on Ryan Giggs' right to privacy and vice versa. Therefore he takes out an injunction to stop her speaking.
4.) The judge looks at Ryan Giggs' side of the argument, and decides that Ryan Giggs' right to privacy "wins" in this case.
5.) However, if Imogen Thomas has enough dosh to put together an appeals case then she could get it overturned.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 11:43
Giggs lawyers back in court now

did the judge use anything Imogen Thomas said as evidence in this case as far as you are aware?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 11:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now


Fearless_Fish do you think superstu's chain of events are correct for this specific injunction case as far as we know?

sasboro1 Posted on 25/05/2011 11:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"5.) However, if Imogen Thomas has enough dosh to put together an appeals case then she could get it overturned"

why dont the papers pay for it, they will easily get their money back in paper sales or she could pay it back from the extra money she would get from selling her story again

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 11:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I believe she can only get it overturned if she provides enough evidence to "prove Giggs wrong" so to speak. She can't simply pay £1m to have it overturned, unless I'm much mistaken.

Raz - I'm pretty sure that judge listened to both sides before returning his verdict.

Buddy Posted on 25/05/2011 11:48
Giggs lawyers back in court now

(sas - they are)

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 11:50
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Fearless_Fish so giggs is correct until someone can prove otherwise, he requires no proof?

also from the report it showed the the judge did not listen to both sides, for whatever reason.

superstu Posted on 25/05/2011 11:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"prove Giggs wrong"

Pardon? What's she going to prove him wrong about?

sasboro1 Posted on 25/05/2011 11:54
Giggs lawyers back in court now

maybe once the champions league is out the way then giggs might decide he doenst want the injuction anymore. i mean the timing of it all in the lead up to the champions league final would be a massive distraction. the papers have a history of digging up stories and timing them to clash with some big event in football.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 11:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

""prove Giggs wrong"

Pardon? What's she going to prove him wrong about?"

I put it in inverted commas as I'm running out of terminology to explain the same point multiple times in a different way.

It's pretty XXXXXXg simple. Giggs is allowed privacy. Thomas is allowed to speak. However, Thomas speaking impinges on Giggs privacy. Therefore a judgement needs to be made on how to proceed - to let Thomas speak, or to prevent her speaking to protect Giggs' privacy.

Are we clear on this bit so far? If so, then I'll continue.

superstu Posted on 25/05/2011 12:02
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Why be a patronising nob? So by prove him wrong you mean present her case for a right to speak freely about her life? And you still don't see why I and many others think it's pathetic that these laws exist? That it's shocking that Imogen Thomas or anyone else should have to go to court to stand up for such a basic human right?

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 12:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Sorry for being a "patronising nob" but I've explained the situation many times and people aren't listening.

As per the above, Giggs also has a basic human right to privacy, which Imogen is trying to flout (by using her basic human right to "free speech").

Do you not see where the conflict is there? And that only one of them is going to be able to exercise their right?

superstu Posted on 25/05/2011 12:17
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Of course I see the conflict. I just don't agree with the decisions made by the court so far and think they've been reached in an unjust way.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 12:18
Giggs lawyers back in court now

they both have rights, and under such a situation which requires an injunction for one against the other shouldnt a judge require evidence from both sides not just the claimants evidence?

THIS DIDNT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE.


Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 12:19
Giggs lawyers back in court now

And what leads you to that conclusion? Bearing in mind none of us know the ins and outs of this case.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 12:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Raz WTF are you bleating on about. Both sides were heard a judgement was made.

Example: In a murder case, the prosecution put forward their case, the defence theirs. There ends up being a "murder" verdict. Do we then start claiming that the defence case wasn't listened too because the prosecution won???

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 12:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

the report buddy linked to and what he and others have used to quote.

the judge used the claimants evidence only.

If that was the case do you consider it a fair way to set an injunction?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 12:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'Raz WTF are you bleating on about. Both sides were heard a judgement was made.'

please dont be patronising, i like many others are basing what i know of this case on the report linked to and quote many times by Buddy and others.

are you suggesting that report is inaccurate?

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 12:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I give up. No-one has ever succesfully debated with Raz, no-one ever will.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 25/05/2011 12:36
Giggs lawyers back in court now

This thread is superb.

Feraless_Fish - You're doing a grand job mate, keep it up. It's a shame some posters don't seem to be able to grasp what you're saying.

Zapp - Great post. [^]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 12:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Fearless_Fish you are contesting the report linked to.

all i was doing was asking why you would do that?

Buddy Posted on 25/05/2011 12:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Raz - there were at least two hearings. The first one was ex parte, subsequently they weren't.

superstu Posted on 25/05/2011 12:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"And what leads you to that conclusion? Bearing in mind none of us know the ins and outs of this case."

Re: his right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" he's among the longest serving players at the biggest club in the biggest league in the world. He's more decorated in winners medals than any other player in England ever, and this year the club set the record for being the most successful ever. He's having an affair with Miss Wales. Do you think it's reasonable to expect that this would never get out?

Re her right to expression. She's speaking about her own life, and what she's saying has to be assumed true. None of what she's said has been contested.

That's why I disagree with the granting of this injunction.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 12:59
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy and this was all in the report you linked to.

which as you pointed out the judge based his judgement on the little evidence he had, which was one sided for whatever reason that may be.

So for someone to state that the judge was able to use balanced judgement after hearing both sides is not exactly true in this case.

Buddy Posted on 25/05/2011 13:03
Giggs lawyers back in court now

until the second hearing, when he could.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 13:05
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Buddy are you saying that from that report their could not have been a balanced judgement from that point in time?

Buddy Posted on 25/05/2011 13:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Which report, the first one? Yes. That's why he granted a temporary injunction with a short return date. As is quite clear from the judgement.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 13:10
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'temporary injunction '

are you saying that if you have the money you can have a temp injunction out with no evidence i.e. proof for your reasoning, and in this case it was established the claimant did not think it was blackmail.

from the whole report you linked to

oh so evidence was given from both sides and both sides were able to substantiate their evidence?

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 13:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Jesus H Christ.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 13:44
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Fearless_Fish you clearly didnt even read the report.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 13:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

You clearly don't read anything Raz.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 13:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

yet it is clear i read more than you [;)]

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 14:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

But understand less [;)]

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 25/05/2011 14:04
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Raz - You seem to be doing your best to turn what is a really interesting thread into something slightly more petty. All the points you have raised have been answered several times, by several different posters, and the links on the thread show you everything you have been going on about again and again and again.

If you have read the links properly then I don't know why you keep making the same points over and over and over.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 14:05
Giggs lawyers back in court now

in this case it is clear that when the judge has only had the claimants witness statement to take account of when making the judgement he hasnt had a the views from both sides taken into account. [;)]

oooooo Posted on 25/05/2011 14:08
Giggs lawyers back in court now

You d1cks, stop replying to him!

two_banks_of_four Posted on 25/05/2011 14:08
Giggs lawyers back in court now

that isn't clear to anyone who has read the judgements because it is wrong. For example the Judge makes reference to a witness statement signed by Imogen Thomas. Guess you missed that bit though..........

Adi_Dem Posted on 25/05/2011 14:09
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I can't decide whether Raz is on the wind up or not. Sadly, I suspect not.

Mr Fish you are indeed doing a grand job in my absence and I will now attempt to pick up the baton again.

What is plain is that Raz, amogst others, can't decide which point he wants to debate and then when he does he misunderstands the point he is debating.

I will try and simplify once again.

1. Raz, if you are arguing that ones means should not dictate whether one has access to an injunction such as the one being discussed then everyone on here will agree. Joseph keeps banging on this same point too but no-one disagrees. I've said it countless times, justice should be accessible to all.

2. In any event, means is not the reason the injunction was granted. All three parties, yes, including Imogen Thomas, are being represented at the hearings by top, top QCs. I suspect that the Sun are funding it on behalf of Ms Thomas. On that basis, there is equality between the parties and the judge is basing his decision on the evidence before hm.

3. Injunction applications, at first instance, are often ex parte i.e only the claimant is present. he has to provide enough evidence to persuade the judge to grant the injunction but at that stage it is one sided. The reason is simple. Such applications often happen late at night where urgency to prevent, for example, publication is paramount. That's why the judge grants a temporary injunction for a short time with a return date to hear from both sides and see all of the evidence.

4. The order can and has been appealed more than once here. All the parties have been present and represented. On each occasion the judge has upheld the order. That suggests he is content with the decision made. I struggle to see why anyone on here is better qualified to judge that.

5. This is not a case or morality or of protecting a sinner. That isn't what the law is about. See my long post above setting out why everyone, even sinners, must have their civil liberties protected.

6. This case is about whether it is more important, on the evidence, to protect Giggs' privacy or Imogen Thomas/the Sun's right to free speech. The judge has clearly decided that there are good reasons to protect Giggs' privacy. Indeed, I can see why - freedom of speech to publish details of an affair is hardly in the public interest and hardly something if not revealed will stop the world turning.

Now read this carefully and get a grip of what it is you're debating because it is apparent that you don't currently know.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 14:22
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'freedom of speech to publish details of an affair is hardly in the public interest and hardly something if not revealed will stop the world turning'

Is 'freedom of speech only relevant if it is in the public interest, So anyone could be gagged from saying anything they like if it wasnt in the public interest?

I dont think you fully grasp what freedom of speech relates to but rather used one element of it to portray an answer.

fair enough

Adi_Dem Posted on 25/05/2011 14:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Hilarious Raz.

Been answered before several times. Do you really need that one explaining again?

1. Freedom of speech is a right we all enjoy. However, it is not a completely unfettered right.
2. Anyone can apply for an injunction to protect their privacy in the event that someone else's right to freedom of speech is going to impinge upon it.
3. The judge will assess each side of the argument and make a decision. Whether revealing the information is in the public interest is part of that decision making process.

At least try and understand it Raz.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 14:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

gotcha [;)]

oooooo Posted on 25/05/2011 14:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Hang on, you are tag teaming to debate with Raz?

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 25/05/2011 14:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

*bangs head against wall*

Her freedom of speech brings with it responsibility, Raz. If what she says leads, in the judges words, to 'harassment and unjustifiable intrusion' into the private life of Giggs and his family, or anyone else her words may implicate, then she is neglecting to concern herself with the 'responsibility' bit and just focusing on her right to freedom of speech. The Sun are also not bothering to concern themselves with the 'responsibility' bit, too.*

If what she said was in the public interest, rather than just 'of interest to the public', then it would be a completely different matter. If she was saying Giggs had done something illegal then yes, print it because that would be 'in the public interest'. Giggs hasn't done anything illegal though has he, therefore exposing his behaviour isn't any of our business and should remain private because there is no benefit to be gained by putting it in the papers.

I find it worrying that so many journalists seem to want to forget about the 'responsibility' bit and just focus on their 'right' to carry on printing all sorts of salacious filth. Which is a very sad reflection on the majority of our mainstream media as a whole.


*which is understandable, given their track-record on behaving responsibly.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 25/05/2011 14:34
Giggs lawyers back in court now

[:D]oooooo

Adi_Dem Posted on 25/05/2011 14:35
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Well said Viv.

Raz - that's a relief. Are you saying that your posts on this entire thread have been a joke?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 14:48
Giggs lawyers back in court now

dont think the entire thread has been a joke, but it has become that way.

ryan giggs is a good footballer, hope he plays at the weekend [^]

Adi_Dem Posted on 25/05/2011 14:49
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I didn't say the entire thread was a joke!!

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 14:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

no i was saying it had become a joke due to repetition, and sillyness.

i am sure yesterday i had a post that had a point, but its more worthy showing how people like to create a big issue over a small issue and get irrated if people do not agree with them or understand them.

injunctions like anything else to do with law favour those who have the money compared to those who do not.

Thats just a fact, injunctions are not unique in that way.

Adi_Dem Posted on 25/05/2011 15:10
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Can you not see though Raz that that very point has been dealt with dozens of times on this thread and I don't recall anyone actually disagreeing with that point.

You are the one confusing the points you're making despite them being dealt with over and over again.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 25/05/2011 15:13
Giggs lawyers back in court now

and that point is irrelevant, as anything that takes you to court costs. That was my point there.

I have confused nothing to be honest. [;)]

Adi_Dem Posted on 25/05/2011 15:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I know it's irrelevant, if you agree why have you been banging on about it?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 07:38
Giggs lawyers back in court now

but also you must see that if you take away the cost then the use or of them will become irrelevant.

As most will be overturned, and easily appealed. By taking away the cost you make the use of them different and the system on both side fairer.

you say they are fairly judged and given on reasonable grounds yet several that have come out John Terry and Andrew Marr as examples have been of public interest, specifically the john terry one where changes in his working conditions had to happen due to what he had done, the andrew marr one changes the scope of his working trust and an appeal overturned the injunction so they are misused and judges do get decisions wrong.

Liamo Posted on 26/05/2011 13:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Without getting into some of the other issues in this whole debate, I'd like to make a couple of points.

For those (and there have been a few, including PAMH) asking why Imogen Thomas' name is being published and her rights to privacy are not being respected) the reason is contained in the following from the court judgement:

'On that date [15 April] she [Ms Thomas] had signed a very brief witness statement accepting that she wished to publish her account of her relationship with the Claimant and that she was in discussion with the Mail on Sunday about that.'

(Though, as we now know, she later switched her allegiance to the Sun.)

So the reason her name is not being kept private is because she was not wanting or trying to protect it, on the contrary, she was actively trying to publicise her name and her part in the story.

And for those claiming this is a case of a rich individual trying to stifle the right to free speech of a (presumably) poorer individual, I should point out that Imogen Thomas is not the first defendant in the injunction, though she is a secondary named defendant. The main target of the injunction (at least, the first defendant in it) is News Group Newspapers Limited, a subsidiary of News International, owned by Rupert Murdoch.

So for those presenting this as some sort of David vs Goliath contest, in terms of the monetary and legal resources available to the competing parties, I would say you are probably right.

However, with News International providing the main source of funding for those opposing the injunction rather than Ms Thomas, I think you may have the roles reversed.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 13:31
Giggs lawyers back in court now

all you are doing there is showing that this is about money and the side with the most money and power wins.

Most cases that is the celeb.

In this case Murdoch as successfully used the media in many formats to manipulate the situation and he was won as giggs is now plastered on the front of newspapers and i am sure they are selling more papers off the back of that.

But with out the wealth and power of the murdoch backing in such cases the claimant would always win.

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 15:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Utter, utter tripe Raz.

Most will be overturned if you take away the cost? What? How on earth do you get there.

Are you suggesting that the judge sits in his chambers with a copy of each party's net worth statement and decides on that basis whether to grant an injunction or not.

Sorry but I've been polite up until this point. You are spouting absolute nonsense I'm afraid.

You use two examples where the judge got it right by overturning the injunctions to suggest that judge's get it wrong? Deary me. Do you even know what point you're arguing now?

The party with the most money wins? Well why is the injunction still in place in the Giggs case? Unless you're now shifting the debate to talk about the underhand and despicable lengths the media outlet has gone to to circumvent the court order but that belongs on another thread surely? That has nothing to do with the legal merits of granting the injunction.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 15:37
Giggs lawyers back in court now

in the Andrew Marr case a judge granted an injunction that in the end even Andrew Marr stated it should not have been granted.

It was only overturned because Ian Hislop used his finances to lodge the appeal which yes then a judge overturned. But without that costly appeal the original judge that gave the injunction allowed it to be used to simply cover an affair up.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 26/05/2011 15:40
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I thought Andrew Marr said he 'should never have applied for it', not that it should never have been granted?

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 26/05/2011 15:47
Giggs lawyers back in court now

One more thing; Isn't the Andrew Marr case different to the Giggs case? Marr applied for, and got, a 'super-injunction'. Giggs' was an injunction, which is a different thing altogether.


*edit - It's actually difficult to find out whether Marr's was an injunction, or a 'super-injunction'. Some sites say it was an injunction, some say otherwise. Which is another part of the wider problem.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 15:49
Giggs lawyers back in court now

marrs was also a privacy injunction to stop the disclosure of an affair. The level of that injunction it says is 'Super'

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 26/05/2011 15:52
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So you think, Raz, that Marr had a 'super-injunction'? If you do, and you seem to, then that is completely different to what Giggs got. So bringing Andrew Marr into this particular equation isn't really of any relevance.

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 15:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

None of the points he makes are relevant!!

I haven't a clue what point you're trying to make Raz. That's what appeals are for and, once again, for the umpteenth time, you're preaching to the converted if you're arguing that everyone should have access to justice irrespective of wealth.

Other than that, what on earth are you banging on about?

superstu Posted on 26/05/2011 15:57
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Super-injunctions and injunctions aren't really completely different though are they v_a_n? Not in the way that say, grapes or a budgie are completely different from injunctions. No, super-injunctions are just a bit different.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 15:58
Giggs lawyers back in court now

the detail of the too cases are similar, agreed the specific detail is not the same.

i was identifying that to trust a judge to solely come up with a balanced judgement in the case of injunctions isnt always the correct measure.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 26/05/2011 16:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I would argue that an injunction is indeed completely different to a 'super-injunction', to be honest.

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 16:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Deary me. That's your point?

Judge's are fallible? Well there's my belief system shattered.

superstu Posted on 26/05/2011 16:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Completely different? You can't see any similarities whatsoever?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 16:03
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi_Dem just forget.

I have stated on here that injunctions at times are being used for the rich to misuse law.

You have stated that a judge makes a fair judgement so the above isnt true.

I have give examples of judges giving injunctions but on appeal they have been overturned, which shows that initially they were wrongly given. Marrs was in 2008 and overturned this year only because 1 person could AFFORD to overturn it.

It allowed a rich man to hide an affair, which a judge years later found to be a misuse of the injunction law.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 16:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

if you are saying that judges make mistakes and in such examples that have come out where it is clear they were used simply to hide an affair, then initially that was one mans mistake to give.

Shows the system can be misued and is not perfect.

Murdochs use of the media to manipulate the situation with the giggs injunction, i think we again agree on that the injunction system is far from perfect.

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 16:14
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Raz, I'm sorry but that is just XXXXXX. Absolute XXXXXX.

You've gone off on a complete tangent. You've gone from arguing that law should only govern criminal matters to discussing the merits of injunctions 'protecting' immoral behaviour to them being misused by the wealthy to Imogen Thomas' right to freedom of speech to judge's fallibility.

You're now saying that successfully appealed injunctions are evidence of a misuse of the law. What?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 26/05/2011 16:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Yes, there are similarities but they can still be completely different at the same time.

superstu Posted on 26/05/2011 16:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Cracking use of the word completely that. [:D]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 16:29
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi_Dem you dont understand what is meant by a misuse of the law i.e. a wrongly given injunction that is only able to be challenged if you have the funds to do so.

but as you say this is not about the cost. [:D]

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 26/05/2011 16:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

While they may be similar things, they have completely different repercussions.

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 16:34
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I think it's clear to everyone which of us doesn't understand.

Tell me this. Given your quite clear view that:

1. Where an injunction is successfully appealed it is proof positive that it was wrongly granted in the first place; and

2. That injunctions can be a misuse because you have to have wealth to appeal them;

do you therefore conclude that the injunction in the Giggs case is not a misuse and has been fairly and reasonably granted?


Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 16:35
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Viv - a super injunction has additional criteria and tests in order for it to be granted. In that sense it is very different.

superstu Posted on 26/05/2011 16:41
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Super injunctions are a bit different. [:D][^]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 16:50
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'do you therefore conclude that the injunction in the Giggs case is not a misuse and has been fairly and reasonably granted?'

i have already highlighted that that case has highlighted that the injunction process is far from perfect and it shows a misuse on either side other wise the injunction and detail of what not be public knowledge.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 26/05/2011 16:51
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"In that sense it is very different."

Nice use of the word 'bit', i.e., just plucking it out of nowhere.

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 16:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

How has it done so Raz?

By your own standards, it has been appealed and upheld thus confirming that it was right. Both parties come to it on an equal footing in terms of finance and all parties have been given plenty of opportunity to present their evidence.

On that basis, you must conclude that the injunction is fair and reasonable. Mustn't you?

How has it shown that the injunction process is far from perfect? In which way has it been misused?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 16:56
Giggs lawyers back in court now

because the detail of the injunction is now in the newspapers.

is that the perfect injunction system at play or has it cracks that certain people have been able to manipulate to get the information out?

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 16:59
Giggs lawyers back in court now

That's just shifting the argument again!! That's not a point you've made before. Come on Raz, I refuse to believe that you're not on a wind up. Come clean.

You're now talking about enforcement of the injunction order and whether that can be achieved given the way we consume media nowadays with social networks and the like as well as the archaic and slight mis-use of Parliamentary privilege.

Incidentally, who has argued that the enforceability of the order is or ever has been perfect?

oooooo Posted on 26/05/2011 17:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Still going lads? [:D]

I'll forward this to the courts, legal discussion of this level must not lost to history.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 17:01
Giggs lawyers back in court now

so we are not talking about the cost, or the enforceability?

but apart from that injunctions are correct and fair and work well?


Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 17:05
Giggs lawyers back in court now

No-one has ever commented about whether they work Raz, that's you just shifting the discussion again. And cost has been dealt with numerous times.

As I say, you keep confusing yourself.

Answer my question - based on your own criteria, do you agree that the granting of an injunction in favour of Giggs was correct?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 17:07
Giggs lawyers back in court now

as i said to the mrs when it all came out an injunction involving BLACKMAIL is a bad example of why these injunctions should not be used.

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 17:08
Giggs lawyers back in court now

What? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 17:10
Giggs lawyers back in court now

ok

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 17:12
Giggs lawyers back in court now

So you're not going to answer the question then?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 26/05/2011 17:17
Giggs lawyers back in court now

i did

gravyboat Posted on 26/05/2011 17:33
Giggs lawyers back in court now

tag teaming with Raz [:D][:D]

It's Thursday, and his work is done!

joseph99 Posted on 26/05/2011 17:40
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It's a good job Giggs is rich

Adi_Dem Posted on 26/05/2011 17:42
Giggs lawyers back in court now

You didn't Raz but I'll leave it there. Someone else can take over if they wish.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 07:43
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi come on be serious for a second i do not have all the information in front of me that the judge had so in this case i cannot say if it was correct or incorrect.

I said for the news media to pick on this case as an example of why injunctions should not be tolerated was in my opinion a bad example as alleged blackmail was at the heart of it and it was then maybe put in place to prevent criminal activity.

But in this case like i have already said it has become worthless because someone has managed to manipulate the media. The point of the injunction was so that the affair did not get out into the public domain - and that has happened, even though it is still in place. I am sure Ryan Giggs did not want this outcome when he applied for the injunction.

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 10:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Nope, you're not dragging me back in. You've shifted the point you're trying to make too often when challenged and it's become pointless.

Oh, and I've been serious throughout.

I have given my view on the cost element, the principles of human rights law and how they fit into this legal debate and their enforceability. You have it all above if you wish to check what my view on any of those points are.

Rayman Posted on 27/05/2011 10:38
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Can't be arsed reading back but has anyone mentioned the Streisand effect?
Giggs should have put his hands up and it would all have died down after a couple of days. Yesterday's papers and all that.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 10:39
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Adi i did not mention cost there, i answered your question honestly, sorry it was not a straight answer but as you will be aware i could not give a straight yes or no to this.

I hoped you had also moved on from cost, but you keep dragging it up as a protection mechanism

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 10:56
Giggs lawyers back in court now

If you can explain that bit about me using cost as a protection mechanism I'll be amazed.

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 11:00
Giggs lawyers back in court now

sorry Adi

i will explain again.

Rather than respond to my explanation, which was in response to a direct question from you, you felt the need to state 'I have given my view on the cost element, ' when we all knew you have spoke about the cost many times, but i never mentioned the cost once in my response.

Maybe you find it hard to agree with anything i say, and maybe thats why you felt it was worth telling me about the fact you had already gone through the cost factor.

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 11:15
Giggs lawyers back in court now

You didn't answer the question, you hid behind this blackmail nonsense. You pointed to two key factors with these injunctions earlier in the thread that somehow proved that they were wrongly granted namely inequality of wealth and successful appeal. By your own criteria the Giggs injunction was correctly granted.

I suggest you read my post again. There are three main threads to your inane ramblings, namely the cost element, the principles of human rights law and how they fit into this legal debate and their enforceability. What my last post said was that I have dealt with each of those three above and see no need to repeat myself. I did not refer solely to cost. So, again, please explain the way in which I am using it as a protection mechanism.

It's not that I find it hard to agree with anything you say I find it hard to understand and keep track of the point you think you're making.

UAUA Posted on 27/05/2011 11:18
Giggs lawyers back in court now

"Nope, you're not dragging me back in"

Stop replying then. At best he is being "obtuse", however I would suggest he is being blatently idiotic.

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 11:19
Giggs lawyers back in court now

I know, I shouldn't. It's a character flaw of mine.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 11:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

adi if you had read properly what i put in that post i clearly stated due to the fact i am unable to see all evidence provided i am unable to judge the case so unable to say if it was correct or not..


THAT WAS IN ANSWER TO YOUR DIRECT QUESTION.

I stated the blackmail claims in this case showed that for the media to highlight this case as a reason why all injunctions are wrong could be the wrong decision by the media

I WAS NOT HIDING BEHIND THE BLACKMAIL CLAIM.

If you want me to judge the giggs case and give a correct or incorrect verdict then honestly i cannot do that.

Why is that not a good enough answer?

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 11:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

It's just an odd response Raz given that you've spent the entire thread providing a variety of reasons as to why this injunction is wrong or a misuse. Very odd.

You'd have saved a lot of time if you'd just said that you didn't have a clue whether granting the injunction was right or wrong.

Buddy Posted on 27/05/2011 11:27
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Just looked it up and it appears this is now in the top 40 threads of all time [?]

Or top 25 if you ignore cricket...

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 11:29
Giggs lawyers back in court now

adi my response was honest and did not include any element that could have required a cost, nor did it include the morality of the situation.

Like i said a while back an injunction where blackmail is being prevented isnt a good example of why injunctions are not a good idea.

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 11:32
Giggs lawyers back in court now

As I say, it's a strange response given your contributions to the thread.

I didn't say your answer included any of those things. I said that if you have any questions on those three elements then look at my previous responses.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 11:36
Giggs lawyers back in court now

i know but i felt i had to point that out to you because you consider that my opinions on such matters mean that me being honest and saying that because i did not see evidence supplied to the judge in full i cannot say if it was a correct decision or not.

You required a yes or no answer from me even though you must know yourself that in all honesty that wasnt possible without me taking a leap of faith.

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 11:38
Giggs lawyers back in court now

No, it's a cop out Raz. You've spent the entire thread telling us all about how such injunctions are a misuse, how the law should only deal with criminal matters and a whole host of other guff and yet you are now saying you're not sure whether the injunction is right or wrong.

It's odd given that you've spent the thread telling us just how wrong it is. Very strange.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 11:43
Giggs lawyers back in court now

i have said what is wrong with injunctions yes on this thread i could say what is not perfect about this injunction too

but you asked me if the judge was right to give it.

Not the morality of giving it and not basing anything on wealth or cost.

on the basis of what injunctions are allowed by law at this present time and by the evidence supplied to the judge, i cannot give you a yes or no answer without seeing the detail.

Do i think it is pointless having an injunction for something not to get out into the public domain that has already got out into the public domain by media manipulation then of course at this stage i see the injunction as pointless.

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 11:48
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Nope, that's not what I asked you.

"do you therefore conclude that the injunction in the Giggs case is not a misuse and has been fairly and reasonably granted?"

I am not asking you whether the judge was right to grant it.

Anyway, that's me done. I give up, utterly pointless.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 11:53
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'do you agree that the granting of an injunction in favour of Giggs was correct?'

you asked the above [rle]

i too give up. I have already pointed out why the giggs injunction is a bad example of injunctions being a misuse of the law... yet still you bring it up again and again.

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 11:55
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Goodnight Raz.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 11:56
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Good day. if you ever need anything explaining again please allocate a free week.

oooooo Posted on 27/05/2011 12:12
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Do you ever feel you are wasting your lives lads?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 12:13
Giggs lawyers back in court now

yesh [sad]

i could have had giggs wealth and stardom but i wasted my intellect and talent by coming on here.

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 12:18
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Nah, on a train with little else to do. Eventually though Raz's inanity got to me.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 12:20
Giggs lawyers back in court now

which clearly means ... i won [^]

oooooo Posted on 27/05/2011 12:21
Giggs lawyers back in court now

You've been on a train for 2 days?

Capybara Posted on 27/05/2011 12:23
Giggs lawyers back in court now

'on a train with little else to do'

That's a contradiction in itself.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 12:24
Giggs lawyers back in court now

are you phileas fogg?

80 Days Around The World (Mainly On A Train)

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 12:25
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Certainly feels like two days. Ever done the Aberdeen train journey?

Capybara Posted on 27/05/2011 12:26
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Yes. Aberdeen by train is great.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 27/05/2011 12:28
Giggs lawyers back in court now

you must have a big case in aberdeen [^]

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 12:28
Giggs lawyers back in court now

Well one mans meat and all that!!

Adi_Dem Posted on 27/05/2011 12:48
Giggs lawyers back in court now

No, I just took an overnight bag Raz. On my way back.