I wanted Rooney gone after his affairs and contract wrangling, with Giggs it is different as he is already a fully fledged legend.
He's the most successful player in English football, ever. This will end up a footnote on his wiki page. And probably Sir Alex will use it as a cautionary tale for up and coming youngsters.
I am interested in knowing about the lawyers who advised this course of injunction and were they backed by the Man Utd bosses or was it merely a case of Giggs acting privately.
Man U bosses had to know what was going on as it impacts on their club.
Getting interesting/
Me too as it has been a spectacular own goal. I was thinking (and that is only my opinion that) as Rooney sailed his infidelity storm and came out of it relativley unscathed the club would take the same view here but as Giggs is coming to the end of his career he would want to protect his image and endorsements. But I cant see how the club didn't know about it when half the world did and Piers Morgan was openly taunting Rio Ferdinand on twitter about it. Just my thoughts.
Its only slander if its not true. And its true that he cheated with Imogen Thomas.
Twitter is not the media. Not all Twitter users are journalists. And we don't know if prior to the MP naming him, if media personnel had outed him on Twitter. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
The other footballer case (TSE) with Giles Coren, who is a member of the media, did allude that this footballer had an injunction and might have cheated. He has a much stronger case than Giggs. TSE also outed himself when his lawyers asked a judge to refer Coren to the Attorney General's office.
i suppose i went for the wrong word but you got what i meant
that they are publishing bits of information in public for the world to see.
They were proving a point on how ridiculous the injuction was. ie The whole world knows who this or has access to knowing who it is but the press are forbidden from identifying him.
Fair enough - thanks.
Another thing I can't get my head around...a judge lifted the Terry injunction of his own accord. Yet despite the world, his wife and his mistress knowing it's Giggs this time the injunction's been kept in place.
so if its a farce who cares, how was wanting to keep his private live/ stopping people from profiting from it, making an arse out of the law?
relatives are always suspects, how was he humiliated? (i didnt know about it until you mentioned it)
well some seem to think its there right to know.
that sort of thing shouldnt be covered up, so why not go for important targets?
i think the line is pretty clear but if it needs clearing up then they should hurry the hell up.
Obviously you do not follow the news, it was very clearly reported in the papers and TV/internet media. I don't care about celebs boning each other or people they pay, my point is these SJ's detract from the news that really is in the public interest and those that should be kept private
Not a particular constructive opening gambit to accuse someone of something, by making assumptions about them! The author bex is someone who has approached this subject in a dispassionate fashion. I stand by my comments that she was reasoned and sensible. If someone posts something in a similar vein, whether those views chime in with mine or not, I would likewise ascribe to them such a description.
I wasn't criticising your judgement on that particular post, more on a general observation, I'd made.
I
would urge everyone to read the judgment, it sets out very clearly why the injunction was granted, it's perameters etc. Injunctive relief is always interim; ex parte orders until the return date, inter partes orders until the trial of the issue(s). The injunction granted on 16th May was to run until further order or the trial of the issue and the Judge makes reference at the end of his judgment to the need for a speedy trial of the matter.
If, and of course we do not even know the full extent of the evidence before the court last week, nevermind what the final evidence that will be presented to the court at trial will be, but if, for sake of argument, the court found that Thomas had acted in a manner which disclosed criminality, the injunction would be useful so as to not compromise potential later criminal proceedings.
I'll read it, but I doubt I'll be convinced, if I'm truthful. If Imogen Thomas was blackmailing said footballer then should have been prosecuted as such.
This was not a superinjunction.
I know that. Which is why I've always refer to it as an ''injunction.''
Injunctions have been a very common feature of our justice system, well for as long as we've had the justice system, be that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, common law, statute and case law. They serve a very useful and important purpose. As Lord Neuberger's report states there seems to be a hyseteria about injunctions at the moment, fuelled by this and other cases, but completely hampered by a media that is too lazy or stupid to report this accurately and properly.
I know injunctions didn't just exist recently. But the fact injunctions have existed and have been apart of a judiciary system for many years does not make it right cases such as this one, and other can take advantage of such laws. There should be a limit, and as of yet, there doesn't seem to be.
Also, The Times journo in the soup ( with the threat of prison that will never materialise) relates to another footballer.
It doesn't. Said footballer in the Imogen Thomas case is taking legal action against twitter and its users, which could result in a two year sentence for those users.
Superinjunctions are a whole different ball game if I may use the phrase. Again I would recommend people read Lord Neuberger's report on that, well actually the report is 112 pages long, but there are summaries in various law reports in the broadsheets. According to Lord Neuberger, there have only been 2 superinjunctions since 2010. As we don't even know of their existence it's impossible to make a value judgment about their worth, necessity etc. I'm struggling to envisage a situation where a superinjunction would be justified, the nearest I can think of are some particularly sensitive family proceedings where disclosure may put a child at risk of serious harm etc.
The fact we can't judge their worth itself, rules them out completely. Such arrangements are wrong particuarly when cannot comment on them, or judge them and they remain so scary secretive.
One of the fundamental principle for injunctive relief super or other wise, is proportionality when applying competing human rights. Freedom of speech as against a person's article 8 rights. Now regardless of what one thinks of the footballer and his motives, it would seem that Mr Justice Eady was concerned:
a) that the evidence before him for the injunction hearings suggested criminal behaviour and;
b) the footballer's wife and children's article 8 rights were invoked ie.The Right to Respect Private and Family life. This article is invoked in many types of cases, from a personal professional perspective, I've argued article 8 rights on behalf of parents in care proceedings where the state, in the form of the Local Authority are seeking to remove their children. So you can see it has a wide application.
Arguably, if the criminal allegation against Imogen Thomas do have substance investigations into that should occur, not an injunction. As for the protection of his family, an injuction or restraining order against the press should be enforced for said footballer's wife and children. Arguably an affair is an activity outside of family life, but one that has concequences for it. Since it is an activity outside of family life, in that light so long as the family in question are not dragged into it, it should be allowed to be commented on.
The thing is there are no privacy laws as such. There are injunctions which can be obtained, but they haven't created privacy laws. It's disingenuous of the press to cry free speech. They are not interested in that, they are interested in shifting units. Sadly there are too many lazyy journos who rely on celebrity gossip, kiss and tells and soap spoilers to fill the pages of their papers rather than actually reporting on the news.
Privacy laws should be at least considered then as an alternative to injunctions. As for the press, that's not who I'm defending. And as for celebrity stories, wherther you or I think that's right or wrong there is a demand for that kind of journalism.
While both incidents are morally dubious at best, you can't compare cheating on your wife to lamping a guy in a club, claiming the defence "I thought he was gonna hit me".
Liverpool fans are probably torn, on the one hand Giggs plays for Man Utd, but he's up against The Sun newspaper.
Me too as it has been a spectacular own goal. I was thinking (and that is only my opinion that) as Rooney sailed his infidelity storm and came out of it relativley unscathed the club would take the same view here but as Giggs is coming to the end of his career he would want to protect his image and endorsements. But I cant see how the club didn't know about it when half the world did and Piers Morgan was openly taunting Rio Ferdinand on twitter about it. Just my thoughts.
rooney also used injuctions and the club knew about that too.
piers morgan really is a massive d-bag, you would think someone with his own show on cnn, would have better things to do.
Obviously you do not follow the news, it was very clearly reported in the papers and TV/internet media. I don't care about celebs boning each other or people they pay, my point is these SJ's detract from the news that really is in the public interest and those that should be kept private
i do but maybe not as much as you.
sorry i am missing your point, as i have said that personal issues should be just that and that the rest should be sorted out and exposed.
Someones martial problems are not fertile ground for comedy.
Umm...yes it is but more so Giggs and his lawyers. They have been the gold mine. People's been giving him stick for the last 3 days. Giggs and TSE (footballer suing Coren) have committed own goals. That's laughable.
Everyone made fun of Rooney and his grandmas, Hugh and his hooker, and so many more.
Privacy laws should be at least considered then as an alternative to injunctions. As for the press, that's not who I'm defending. And as for celebrity stories, wherther you or I think that's right or wrong there is a demand for that kind of journalism.
Just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean it should be supplied. There is a demand for hanging, fox hunting, bare knuckle fighting, and Class A drugs, doesn't mean we should supply it.
Cant wait for the chants next season. Personally I hope giggs keeps playing for another season. Oh boy it will be hilarious. Think of the Rooney granny shagging chants and then multiply that by 10.
Aww well sing your heart out mate...... Your team will still be bobbins and win jack.:p:D
Someones martial problems are not fertile ground for comedy.
To be fair, the more comedy that's made from it the better. Otherwise it'll just be 'Ryan the cheat', 'Imogen the slag' for ever more. TBH, comedy is usually the first sign of acceptance, that the story is moving on and taking another shape. For Giggs and his family, however hard it may be to read at the moment, it's probably a good sign.
Cant wait for the chants next season. Personally I hope giggs keeps playing for another season. Oh boy it will be hilarious. Think of the Rooney granny shagging chants and then multiply that by 10.
"Are we allowed to...
Are we allowed to...
Are we allowed to sing to you?
Are we allowed to sing to you?"
Comments
He's the most successful player in English football, ever. This will end up a footnote on his wiki page. And probably Sir Alex will use it as a cautionary tale for up and coming youngsters.
Me too as it has been a spectacular own goal. I was thinking (and that is only my opinion that) as Rooney sailed his infidelity storm and came out of it relativley unscathed the club would take the same view here but as Giggs is coming to the end of his career he would want to protect his image and endorsements. But I cant see how the club didn't know about it when half the world did and Piers Morgan was openly taunting Rio Ferdinand on twitter about it. Just my thoughts.
Well when I choose new trainers the fidelity of the figure advertising the product is the crucial, deciding factor.
i suppose i went for the wrong word but you got what i meant
that they are publishing bits of information in public for the world to see.
Fair enough - thanks.
Another thing I can't get my head around...a judge lifted the Terry injunction of his own accord. Yet despite the world, his wife and his mistress knowing it's Giggs this time the injunction's been kept in place.
Obviously you do not follow the news, it was very clearly reported in the papers and TV/internet media. I don't care about celebs boning each other or people they pay, my point is these SJ's detract from the news that really is in the public interest and those that should be kept private
I I'll read it, but I doubt I'll be convinced, if I'm truthful. If Imogen Thomas was blackmailing said footballer then should have been prosecuted as such. I know that. Which is why I've always refer to it as an ''injunction.'' I know injunctions didn't just exist recently. But the fact injunctions have existed and have been apart of a judiciary system for many years does not make it right cases such as this one, and other can take advantage of such laws. There should be a limit, and as of yet, there doesn't seem to be. It doesn't. Said footballer in the Imogen Thomas case is taking legal action against twitter and its users, which could result in a two year sentence for those users. The fact we can't judge their worth itself, rules them out completely. Such arrangements are wrong particuarly when cannot comment on them, or judge them and they remain so scary secretive. Arguably, if the criminal allegation against Imogen Thomas do have substance investigations into that should occur, not an injunction. As for the protection of his family, an injuction or restraining order against the press should be enforced for said footballer's wife and children. Arguably an affair is an activity outside of family life, but one that has concequences for it. Since it is an activity outside of family life, in that light so long as the family in question are not dragged into it, it should be allowed to be commented on. Privacy laws should be at least considered then as an alternative to injunctions. As for the press, that's not who I'm defending. And as for celebrity stories, wherther you or I think that's right or wrong there is a demand for that kind of journalism.
"Mr Justice...Eady, when he says... no reveal-ly. We all must bow big to the man in a wig because he's Mr Justice... Eady"
Justice Eady is filmed before a live studio audience.
Justice: "Hey rain don't y'all dare fall on me"
cue downpour.
Justice: "Darn it!"
Liverpool fans are probably torn, on the one hand Giggs plays for Man Utd, but he's up against The Sun newspaper.
dang, hello to the future :eek::p
rooney also used injuctions and the club knew about that too.
piers morgan really is a massive d-bag, you would think someone with his own show on cnn, would have better things to do.
indeed
hell i want the shoes that someone uses for quick escapes.
http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/sports/2782-ryan-giggs-to-sue-the-internet.html
Read the whole thing - it's hilarious!
Don't forget Crouch and Beckham.
i do but maybe not as much as you.
sorry i am missing your point, as i have said that personal issues should be just that and that the rest should be sorted out and exposed.
Someones martial problems are not fertile ground for comedy.
Really? The moral high ground is really a place no football fan should sit.
More likely breathing a sigh of relief.
Umm...yes it is but more so Giggs and his lawyers. They have been the gold mine. People's been giving him stick for the last 3 days. Giggs and TSE (footballer suing Coren) have committed own goals. That's laughable.
Everyone made fun of Rooney and his grandmas, Hugh and his hooker, and so many more.
Sun loses, end of. :mad:
Just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean it should be supplied. There is a demand for hanging, fox hunting, bare knuckle fighting, and Class A drugs, doesn't mean we should supply it.
Aww well sing your heart out mate...... Your team will still be bobbins and win jack.:p:D
That's true.
For now;)
why not?
To be fair, the more comedy that's made from it the better. Otherwise it'll just be 'Ryan the cheat', 'Imogen the slag' for ever more. TBH, comedy is usually the first sign of acceptance, that the story is moving on and taking another shape. For Giggs and his family, however hard it may be to read at the moment, it's probably a good sign.
"Are we allowed to...
Are we allowed to...
Are we allowed to sing to you?
Are we allowed to sing to you?"
Sorry, I'll behave now.
Is it marital problems though or just Giggs having his cake (wife) and eating it (elsewhere of course)? :rolleyes: