Scott free in terms of pulbic criticism. Even now, he's not really getting much stick. The general consensus on here is that she's at fault because she had an affair with a married man.
Maybe she wanted to go to the press because he had chosen to name her in the injunction?
None of us know exactly what happened. All I'm basing my opinion on is that she was getting a lot of criticism whilst his name was still hidden. She was getting blame. That's where I feel sorry for her. It takes two to tango, both took part in the affair, both should face the consequences. If he didn't want to be caught, he shouldn't have had an affair.
Fair enough, I suppose all the flack she has been getting all boils down to who tipped off the press and according to the Sun it was a "concerned friend". So if it wasn't herself who tipped them off she's obviously been speaking to someone, which contradicts the fact that she had "no intention of speaking about the man".
She was always going to get a lot of criticism, because she is a publicity seeker. She has chosen to earn her living by being paid for interviews and pictures. She would have earnt more respect if she had kept a dignified silence, but she has backed herself in to a corner because of the way she earns her money.
As for Ryan Giggs, there is nothing worse than lying and cheating on your wife and family and instead of trying to sue twitter and dragging this out he should get his priorities right and put his family first.
No. She blackmailed him for more money. And she wanted his name to be outed.
I keep seeing it said that she blackmailed him, and it really confuses me why, if it's right, it's not a police matter because blackmail is a criminal offence.
As for Ryan Giggs, there is nothing worse than lying and cheating on your wife and family and instead of trying to sue twitter and dragging this out he should get his priorities right and put his family first.
Really what about murder, theft, rape, child abuse, abandoning your family...
Can we have a sense of perspective please. It's not like his now wife didn't know he was a cheater when she started cheating with him herself so I hardly think she was that shocked as he pretended to the judge in his petition when she learned the news of his infidelity...
Scott free in terms of pulbic criticism. Even now, he's not really getting much stick. The general consensus on here is that she's at fault because she had an affair with a married man.
Maybe she wanted to go to the press because he had chosen to name her in the injunction?
None of us know exactly what happened. All I'm basing my opinion on is that she was getting a lot of criticism whilst his name was still hidden. She was getting blame. That's where I feel sorry for her. It takes two to tango, both took part in the affair, both should face the consequences. If he didn't want to be caught, he shouldn't have had an affair.
I disagree. I think the general consensus on here is that she gets no sympathy because she had an affair with a married man. Not only that, she tried to play the innocent victim, claiming that she believed they were in love, he was going to leave his wife for her and she had no intention of selling her story for money. She has milked this for all she can and while I haven't seen the pictures of her wearing a man utd shirt, they're hardly the actions of someone who is ashamed of their behaviour and wants to draw as little attention to it as possible. She's not to blame for the affair, it takes two to tango but she's not innocent and doesn't deserve any sympathy.
I keep seeing it said that she blackmailed him, and it really confuses me why, if it's right, it's not a police matter because blackmail is a criminal offence.
Lord Justice Eady says in his judgement that the injunction was granted to potentially stop a criminal act, the implication being blackmail. Giggs specifically says he's not calling blackmail, Thomas says there is no evidence of blackmail, note no denial.
So in future, if you want to blackmail someone make sure it's a premiership footballer, they have no right to use the courts to stop you.
I have only just come onto this thread and have to say that I was relieved to see Sarah's post. Seriously, just because you go after a married man, doesn't mean he has to go for it. HE is entirely to blame for cheating on his wife. Whatever you may think of her as a personality, all she did was sleep with a man. The fact that he was married and had children is not her problem. I know someone who fancies my hubby. She flirts with him. If he ever slept with her, it is entirely his fault. It doesn't mean I am not angry that she flirts with him, but as a single person, she can do what she wants.
I have only just come onto this thread and have to say that I was relieved to see Sarah's post. Seriously, just because you go after a married man, doesn't mean he has to go for it. HE is entirely to blame for cheating on his wife. Whatever you may think of her as a personality, all she did was sleep with a man. The fact that he was married and had children is not her problem. I know someone who fancies my hubby. She flirts with him. If he ever slept with her, it is entirely his fault. It doesn't mean I am not angry that she flirts with him, but as a single person, she can do what she wants.
And shall you be bringing up any daughters you have to believe the same? Or sons to think that that it is perfectly acceptable for them to sleep with a married mother so long as they are themselves single because they 'can do what they want'? Why are you angry with the woman who flirts with your husband if she is doing nothing wrong?
Because human nature is to feel protective of those you love. I am angry because I find it disrespectful of someone who knows me to flirt in front of me with my husband. However, I still do not feel that she should not be allowed to just because he is married. Besides, flirting is harmless, if he does anything about it, HE is in the wrong. If she did not know me/ him then it would not bother me. Having said that, she is not a friend of mine so has no reason to respect me as she does not know me well.
I would not advise my children to sleep with married men/ women, as it usually ends up with the single person being hurt but if they did so because they fell in love with someone, then I would feel that they should make their own decisions. If a person does not want to cheat then no amount of pursuing should persuade them to cheat. You all assume people like this go after married men on purpose, maybe they do, but it is more fool the married man who sleeps with them. They are the ones breaking up their family, not the person they slept with. Why is she in the wrong for sleeping with someone when she didn't cheat on anyone? I don't like the woman as I think she is talentless and should not be as famous as she is based on this, but I don't believe she did anything wrong, sleeping with someone she liked. (assuming she was only doing it for publicity is heresay.)
I would feel like this about any affair regardless of public or amongst my circle. And having seen my fair share of cheating people in my life, and the pain caused, I have still never blamed the person not in the relationship.
Lord Justice Eady says in his judgement that the injunction was granted to potentially stop a criminal act, the implication being blackmail. Giggs specifically says he's not calling blackmail, Thomas says there is no evidence of blackmail, note no denial.
So in future, if you want to blackmail someone make sure it's a premiership footballer, they have no right to use the courts to stop you.
I'm not sure what you mean If anyone is blackmailed it's a criminal offence and the Police need to be involved.
A potential criminal act means it hasn't actually happened - and if Lord Justice Eady had any evidence or concerns that it had then he's best placed to do the necessary about it.
If RG says specifically he's not calling blackmail and hasn't been to the Police about it then presumably that's that as far as he is concerned.
He and she are as bad as each other, but neither sleeping with a married man nor cheating on your wife are criminal acts - blackmail is and at the very least needs reporting and investigating - evidence or not.
Lord Justice Eady says in his judgement that the injunction was granted to potentially stop a criminal act, the implication being blackmail. Giggs specifically says he's not calling blackmail, Thomas says there is no evidence of blackmail, note no denial.
So in future, if you want to blackmail someone make sure it's a premiership footballer, they have no right to use the courts to stop you.
Then perhaps you should read then injunction again. Her counsel quite emphatically stated that she had not asked for money. The judge also said that he couldn't come to a final conclusion.
Part 17 "I now wish to make it clear that, shortly before this judgment was handed down, Mr Price stated on his client's behalf that she denies either causing the publication in The Sun on 14 April or asking the Claimant for money."
Because human nature is to feel protective of those you love. I am angry because I find it disrespectful of someone who knows me to flirt in front of me with my husband. However, I still do not feel that she should not be allowed to just because he is married. Besides, flirting is harmless, if he does anything about it, HE is in the wrong. If she did not know me/ him then it would not bother me. Having said that, she is not a friend of mine so has no reason to respect me as she does not know me well.
I would not advise my children to sleep with married men/ women, as it usually ends up with the single person being hurt but if they did so because they fell in love with someone, then I would feel that they should make their own decisions. If a person does not want to cheat then no amount of pursuing should persuade them to cheat. You all assume people like this go after married men on purpose, maybe they do, but it is more fool the married man who sleeps with them. They are the ones breaking up their family, not the person they slept with. Why is she in the wrong for sleeping with someone when she didn't cheat on anyone? I don't like the woman as I think she is talentless and should not be as famous as she is based on this, but I don't believe she did anything wrong, sleeping with someone she liked. (assuming she was only doing it for publicity is heresay.)
I would feel like this about any affair regardless of public or amongst my circle. And having seen my fair share of cheating people in my life, and the pain caused, I have still never blamed the person not in the relationship.
I certainly agree with you that the person who is actually married and cheats on his/her spouse and presumably lies to them in order to pursue the affair is morally culpable. However, my own personal moral code is that a single person who knowingly sleeps with a person who is living with a spouse is not only stupid but also immoral. Just because I like the look of someone else's living room doesn't entitle me to wander in and sit in it for a bit without their knowledge. Worse yet is the person who knowingly sleeps with someone else's spouse and then whines that they are the one mistreated because they actually thought the marriage would break up for them!
Scott free in terms of pulbic criticism. Even now, he's not really getting much stick. The general consensus on here is that she's at fault because she had an affair with a married man.
Maybe she wanted to go to the press because he had chosen to name her in the injunction?
That's not how it works.
Giggs gets injunction against Thomas and News Group Newspaper. All parties are named before the judge in the papers.
Eady decided which parties will receive anonymity, based upon the requests and submissions of the applicant.
Giggs cannot apply to the judge for an injunction against "Anonymous" unless he applies for an injunction "contra mundum" i.e. against everybody and every organisation on the planet!
Thomas' name has to be in the application. That it was made public in the directions issued to the media is because Eadty decided, on the basis of the submission which, partly confirmed by her own words, suggested Thomas' intention to capitalise financially from the story. Since an intent to talk to the press suggests Thomas needs no privacy protection from the press, none is granted by Eady.
Simples.
Giggs, though morally reprehensible in many other ways, didn't "dob Imogen in" to the tabloids, her intent to enter into a business relationship with them is what "outed her".
I do feel sorry for her, because I am sick to death of the woman getting the blame in these incidents
First of all she did not "steal" or "entice" him away from his wife- he did that all by himself and he was certainly up for it and I wouls assume it wasnt his only infidelity
second of all this whole "homewrecker, man stealer" nonsense is insulting to most men because it implies they cannot control themselves and are weak and easily lead
the only person truly responsible for this mess is Giggs
How do we know Imogen was planning to blackmail or kiss and tell ? everyone is just on the bandwagon now and it's getting old :rolleyes:
Nahh.
She's like a pig in shit. All of this is a dream come true to her. An extra 15 minutes of fame after a forgetable appearence on BB, plus numerous cash offers to tell all in the red tops, ker shing!!!
It's not my idea of ''living the dream'' but each to their own.
I do feel sorry for her, because I am sick to death of the woman getting the blame in these incidents
First of all she did not "steal" or "entice" him away from his wife- he did that all by himself and he was certainly up for it and I wouls assume it wasnt his only infidelity
second of all this whole "homewrecker, man stealer" nonsense is insulting to most men because it implies they cannot control themselves and are weak and easily lead
the only person truly responsible for this mess is Giggs
How do we know Imogen was planning to blackmail or kiss and tell ? everyone is just on the bandwagon now and it's getting old :rolleyes:
Because his solicitor said she was.:rolleyes: Given his clients ability to lie to his wife's face for six months who knows what the real story is. I have to agree with you on the thoughts about Imogen. If this man stealer thing is right then she should bottle it, she will make more from that than the stories. Then we can all lure the happily married men of our dreams away from their wives.Note: I have first dibs on Hugh Jackman.:D
Because his solicitor said she was.:rolleyes: Given his clients ability to lie to his wife's face for six months who knows what the real story is. I have to agree with you on the thoughts about Imogen. If this man stealer thing is right then she should bottle it, she will make more from that than the stories. Then we can all lure the happily married men of our dreams away from their wives.Note: I have first dibs on Hugh Jackman.:D
I don't believe a word out of Gigg's or his solicitors' mouths I have to say - I think Giggs is just trying to get the sympathy vote now
You can have Hugh Jackman!! - he's too hairy for me
I do feel sorry for her, because I am sick to death of the woman getting the blame in these incidents
First of all she did not "steal" or "entice" him away from his wife- he did that all by himself and he was certainly up for it and I wouls assume it wasnt his only infidelity
second of all this whole "homewrecker, man stealer" nonsense is insulting to most men because it implies they cannot control themselves and are weak and easily lead
the only person truly responsible for this mess is Giggs
How do we know Imogen was planning to blackmail or kiss and tell ? everyone is just on the bandwagon now and it's getting old :rolleyes:
What mess?
Most people haven't bothered to read the evidence put before Justice Eady and his explaination of his judgement.
Most people have the court ruling and events interpretated for them by newspapers that have financially invested in the story.
Maybe his wife doesn't care he met Imogen, maybe he doesn't care about being name, well if he's as arrogant as people claim who wouldn't give a toss.
Maybe he just didn't want a female making money from a relationship or be forced to pay her off?
No. Why should I feel sorry for her? She had an affair with a married footballer and is now crying because she can't sell her story to the papers. Even if he wasn't married I'd not feel sorry for her. I am a Manchester United fan but I feel that gigs has acted stupidly over this. He should have accepted the consequences of his infidelity/ sleeping around. It goes with the territory of being a footballer.
I don't believe a word out of Gigg's or his solicitors' mouths I have to say - I think Giggs is just trying to get the sympathy vote now
You can have Hugh Jackman!! - he's too hairy for me
(as is giggs BTW)
But you'd believe Max Clifford?
You'd believe Imogen claims the player is living a 'nornal' life then immediately says she has now idea how he and his family are coping with situation. :rolleyes:
Oh her other classic of not wanting to name the player and supporting the injunction, but wanting the injunction 'lifted from her head', having within 24 hours of the injunction made a witness statement to be allowed to sell her story.
The public at the time were unaware of the players name or the details of the evidence provided about Imogen, how convienent for her...to maintain her image as hard done by.
In evidence the player said before the injunction he was phoned by Imogen and felt someone else was present.
Max Clifford has said he instructed Imogen to phone the player...if Max was engaged to deny the relationship, it was Imogen who was lying, supported by her agent.
I have only just come onto this thread and have to say that I was relieved to see Sarah's post. Seriously, just because you go after a married man, doesn't mean he has to go for it. HE is entirely to blame for cheating on his wife. Whatever you may think of her as a personality, all she did was sleep with a man. The fact that he was married and had children is not her problem. I know someone who fancies my hubby. She flirts with him. If he ever slept with her, it is entirely his fault. It doesn't mean I am not angry that she flirts with him, but as a single person, she can do what she wants.
To be fair, Sarah's post was brilliant, but she also criticized Imogen. Personally I don't understand your attitude about a single person doing what they want, there are plenty of single people in the world to sleep with, without putting peoples families at risk. I think a lot of the stick is also because many of us still believe, despite what she and the saintly mr' Clifford says, thaty she always intended to sell her story, as she has done in the past. Giggs was not the person that released her name to the press, it was a "friend":rolleyes:
Again I will have to say I think Giggs has behaved deplorably, as well.
I also don't get the entire premise about Imogen being the one getting the hard time here, the tabs are almost falling over themselves to paint her in a good way, particularly the biggest selling daily newspaper in the world. She's hit the jackpot here, never made more money, never got more fame.
Please don't give me the death threats nonsense, it's the same story everyone who get's a bit off notoriety, and is looking for sympathy leaks to the press.
Comments
Fair enough, I suppose all the flack she has been getting all boils down to who tipped off the press and according to the Sun it was a "concerned friend". So if it wasn't herself who tipped them off she's obviously been speaking to someone, which contradicts the fact that she had "no intention of speaking about the man".
She was always going to get a lot of criticism, because she is a publicity seeker. She has chosen to earn her living by being paid for interviews and pictures. She would have earnt more respect if she had kept a dignified silence, but she has backed herself in to a corner because of the way she earns her money.
As for Ryan Giggs, there is nothing worse than lying and cheating on your wife and family and instead of trying to sue twitter and dragging this out he should get his priorities right and put his family first.
I keep seeing it said that she blackmailed him, and it really confuses me why, if it's right, it's not a police matter because blackmail is a criminal offence.
Really what about murder, theft, rape, child abuse, abandoning your family...
Can we have a sense of perspective please. It's not like his now wife didn't know he was a cheater when she started cheating with him herself so I hardly think she was that shocked as he pretended to the judge in his petition when she learned the news of his infidelity...
Lord Justice Eady says in his judgement that the injunction was granted to potentially stop a criminal act, the implication being blackmail. Giggs specifically says he's not calling blackmail, Thomas says there is no evidence of blackmail, note no denial.
So in future, if you want to blackmail someone make sure it's a premiership footballer, they have no right to use the courts to stop you.
And shall you be bringing up any daughters you have to believe the same? Or sons to think that that it is perfectly acceptable for them to sleep with a married mother so long as they are themselves single because they 'can do what they want'? Why are you angry with the woman who flirts with your husband if she is doing nothing wrong?
I would not advise my children to sleep with married men/ women, as it usually ends up with the single person being hurt but if they did so because they fell in love with someone, then I would feel that they should make their own decisions. If a person does not want to cheat then no amount of pursuing should persuade them to cheat. You all assume people like this go after married men on purpose, maybe they do, but it is more fool the married man who sleeps with them. They are the ones breaking up their family, not the person they slept with. Why is she in the wrong for sleeping with someone when she didn't cheat on anyone? I don't like the woman as I think she is talentless and should not be as famous as she is based on this, but I don't believe she did anything wrong, sleeping with someone she liked. (assuming she was only doing it for publicity is heresay.)
I would feel like this about any affair regardless of public or amongst my circle. And having seen my fair share of cheating people in my life, and the pain caused, I have still never blamed the person not in the relationship.
I'm not sure what you mean
A potential criminal act means it hasn't actually happened - and if Lord Justice Eady had any evidence or concerns that it had then he's best placed to do the necessary about it.
If RG says specifically he's not calling blackmail and hasn't been to the Police about it then presumably that's that as far as he is concerned.
He and she are as bad as each other, but neither sleeping with a married man nor cheating on your wife are criminal acts - blackmail is and at the very least needs reporting and investigating - evidence or not.
Then perhaps you should read then injunction again. Her counsel quite emphatically stated that she had not asked for money. The judge also said that he couldn't come to a final conclusion.
Part 17 "I now wish to make it clear that, shortly before this judgment was handed down, Mr Price stated on his client's behalf that she denies either causing the publication in The Sun on 14 April or asking the Claimant for money."
Just how much of a denial do you need?
I certainly agree with you that the person who is actually married and cheats on his/her spouse and presumably lies to them in order to pursue the affair is morally culpable. However, my own personal moral code is that a single person who knowingly sleeps with a person who is living with a spouse is not only stupid but also immoral. Just because I like the look of someone else's living room doesn't entitle me to wander in and sit in it for a bit without their knowledge. Worse yet is the person who knowingly sleeps with someone else's spouse and then whines that they are the one mistreated because they actually thought the marriage would break up for them!
That's not how it works.
Giggs gets injunction against Thomas and News Group Newspaper. All parties are named before the judge in the papers.
Eady decided which parties will receive anonymity, based upon the requests and submissions of the applicant.
Giggs cannot apply to the judge for an injunction against "Anonymous" unless he applies for an injunction "contra mundum" i.e. against everybody and every organisation on the planet!
Thomas' name has to be in the application. That it was made public in the directions issued to the media is because Eadty decided, on the basis of the submission which, partly confirmed by her own words, suggested Thomas' intention to capitalise financially from the story. Since an intent to talk to the press suggests Thomas needs no privacy protection from the press, none is granted by Eady.
Simples.
Giggs, though morally reprehensible in many other ways, didn't "dob Imogen in" to the tabloids, her intent to enter into a business relationship with them is what "outed her".
and he'll be playing happily family man 'i did nothing' :rolleyes:
both in the wrong feel sorry for neither !
First of all she did not "steal" or "entice" him away from his wife- he did that all by himself and he was certainly up for it and I wouls assume it wasnt his only infidelity
second of all this whole "homewrecker, man stealer" nonsense is insulting to most men because it implies they cannot control themselves and are weak and easily lead
the only person truly responsible for this mess is Giggs
How do we know Imogen was planning to blackmail or kiss and tell ? everyone is just on the bandwagon now and it's getting old :rolleyes:
She's like a pig in shit. All of this is a dream come true to her. An extra 15 minutes of fame after a forgetable appearence on BB, plus numerous cash offers to tell all in the red tops, ker shing!!!
It's not my idea of ''living the dream'' but each to their own.
Because his solicitor said she was.:rolleyes: Given his clients ability to lie to his wife's face for six months who knows what the real story is. I have to agree with you on the thoughts about Imogen. If this man stealer thing is right then she should bottle it, she will make more from that than the stories. Then we can all lure the happily married men of our dreams away from their wives.Note: I have first dibs on Hugh Jackman.:D
I don't believe a word out of Gigg's or his solicitors' mouths I have to say - I think Giggs is just trying to get the sympathy vote now
You can have Hugh Jackman!!
(as is giggs BTW)
What mess?
Most people haven't bothered to read the evidence put before Justice Eady and his explaination of his judgement.
Most people have the court ruling and events interpretated for them by newspapers that have financially invested in the story.
Maybe his wife doesn't care he met Imogen, maybe he doesn't care about being name, well if he's as arrogant as people claim who wouldn't give a toss.
Maybe he just didn't want a female making money from a relationship or be forced to pay her off?
Isn't it an assumption on your part he lied to his wife, were you present when he supposedly lied?
Maybe your numerous encounters with other womens husbands has clouded your thinking?
But you'd believe Max Clifford?
You'd believe Imogen claims the player is living a 'nornal' life then immediately says she has now idea how he and his family are coping with situation. :rolleyes:
Oh her other classic of not wanting to name the player and supporting the injunction, but wanting the injunction 'lifted from her head', having within 24 hours of the injunction made a witness statement to be allowed to sell her story.
The public at the time were unaware of the players name or the details of the evidence provided about Imogen, how convienent for her...to maintain her image as hard done by.
In evidence the player said before the injunction he was phoned by Imogen and felt someone else was present.
Max Clifford has said he instructed Imogen to phone the player...if Max was engaged to deny the relationship, it was Imogen who was lying, supported by her agent.
To be fair, Sarah's post was brilliant, but she also criticized Imogen. Personally I don't understand your attitude about a single person doing what they want, there are plenty of single people in the world to sleep with, without putting peoples families at risk. I think a lot of the stick is also because many of us still believe, despite what she and the saintly mr' Clifford says, thaty she always intended to sell her story, as she has done in the past. Giggs was not the person that released her name to the press, it was a "friend":rolleyes:
Again I will have to say I think Giggs has behaved deplorably, as well.
I also don't get the entire premise about Imogen being the one getting the hard time here, the tabs are almost falling over themselves to paint her in a good way, particularly the biggest selling daily newspaper in the world. She's hit the jackpot here, never made more money, never got more fame.
Please don't give me the death threats nonsense, it's the same story everyone who get's a bit off notoriety, and is looking for sympathy leaks to the press.