..........get his money back on this super-do-pa injunction? :roflmao:
Is he a good footballer? Yes
Is the news in the publics interest? Yes
Feel sorry for the Family? Yes
Sorry for Imogen? Undecided, but a gagging order is harsh!
Feel sorry for Ryan Giggs? No
....and come to think of it.... can anyone name a footballer that hasn't cheated on their wife/girlfriend? :g: 10 points for each one named!
Justin Fashanu to my knowledge never cheated on wife.
Steve Ogrisovich. I mean, who would...
Charlie Brooker wrote a cracking article about the utter pointlessness of these 'Super Injunctions': http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/16/superinjunctions-guarantee-loss-of-anonymity
Super-injunctions are being circumvented because they're new and taboo. Eventually people will be getting them regularly and staying anonymous because it will be hard for people to separate gossip from fact then it will settle down.
Personally I'm against them though, if it's news the papers should report it. Some people for some reason care when a footballer cheats on their wife or what have you. If a newspaper which serves that populace finds out that Ryan Giggs likes inserting himself into women in an adulterous way they should print that. It's news, it apparently did happen. If it didn't he'll sue whichever newspaper and make a load of money, this discourages a newspaper from just making stuff up.
So when a story is true who decides what can or can't make the paper? Can the prime minister get one to stop the papers posting negative financial forecasts? I don't know what is or isn't acceptable to forbid. Why not let the public decide with their money by purchasing the newspaper. I don't care about the stories, I just care that our current main source of information is being gagged. Who knows what else they're not allowed to tell us...who would tell us if the press can't?
The question is though... is it news? Why is it anyone's business what Ryan Giggs does in his private life. It's not "in the public interest" but it is "of public interest" and there's a big difference between those two concepts. There are two very important ideals being questioned here, freedom of the press and an individuals right to privacy. Each has to be weighed against the other. When a story serves the public interest i.e. it informs us about something that is of importance in our lives then that outweighs the rights of an individual to privacy. So if the adulterer had been a member of government then we have a right to know as we'll base our voting decisions on what sort of person they are. Or if a company dumps a load of toxic waste in a river and kills hundreds of people then we need to know about this. But why is it important to know about the private life of a footballer? They just play football. They don't make government policy, they don't run major publicly owned banks or companies. They kick a ball about twice a week. There's no more 'in the public interest' about them than there is about me. And I certainly don't believe anyone has the right to print my private life in the press. And I'm sure none of you would be keen to see your lives in print either. IMHO there was no case at all for this being in the papers other than to feed our grubby desire for gossip about other people.
Super injunctions have a role in society, to protect us from other peoples insatiable desire to pry and nose into our personal lives. It protects us from ourselves. We cannot rely on our broken, corrupt and morally bankrupt press to make those decisions, so we have to turn to the courts. People who feel they have some right to know all about other peoples private lives are a bit creepy in my opinion and we needs the courts to protect us from them. However with the Internet and the incredible way it can spread information I think the idea of personal privacy is lost. We only get privacy through obscurity. We don't see ourselves in the press because unless something extraordinary happens to us no one cares.
I was all for the tit getting outed, but in thinking about it, how many of you have done things you regret? To have that published every time? I would be a lonely old man living in a cupboard with no friends. (much like now without the cupboard bit).
It's invasion of privacy and it's not in the public interest. People like to see others fail, what kind of society do we really live in? I'm off to watch "you've been framed" in the hope a fat woman smashes her teeth on a curb. /sigh.
Wise words. It's a horrible can of worms deciding what is important for us to know about and what is trivial. We can't rely on the press to self police, the idea of the government deciding for us is terrifying. So the only ones left are the courts, and I guess they will have to do. Some people like Trafigura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura#Super-injunction) have no right to hide behind injunctions. Their behavior was a disgrace and we have a right to know all their grubby little secrets. But who I or anyone else chooses to shag is really not any ones business at all.
I don't think news of an affair should be on the front page. But I don't think it should be swept aside and pretend it never happened. Everyone has done things they regret, and to see them in print would not be very nice, but the answer to that is most certainly NOT telling the press what they can and can't write about.
I'd much rather rules were put in place to stop paparazzi hounding celebrities and trying to bate them into a reaction than trying to censor the media. That's the big problem with the press, not the fact that things they've done are made public.
Not to mention that he won BBC's 'sports personality of the year', if it had been revealed that year, would he of still won?
If you are going to cheat then do it properly with a dam fit women and this is something old Ryan achieved.
To be honest I am kind of fed up with all this sort of rubbish news being chatted about as if it is the most important thing. Less people forget we are at war on 2 fronts, weather storms are killing Americans and cost of living is just crazy at the moment. These are all important issues and if some guy went and cheated then quite frankly I could not care less, let the family and wife cut his head off and leave us to concentrate on our life's instead.
(rant done)
The sad truth is that papers are not stupid (not even the Daily Mail). They print what they know the public as a whole want to read. Seems the public want's to read about Ryan Giggs rather than the struggle for democracy in the Middle East. :sad:
I couldn't really care less either if truth be told, it was only interesting as the super Injunction made it a challenge, then it kinda made me laugh.
Also, it goes to show that they are good at cheating both on and off the pitch :devil: