to feel a little bit pleased that silly old Ryan Giggs' one man crusade is finally over?

[TheFlyingOnion]

Radio 4's PM programme has begun with the presenter saying "Ryan Giggs, Ryan Giggs, Ryan Giggs"

Oh dear, its all soooo much more of a clusterfuck because he didn't want to man up and come clean.

His poor poor poor wife and kids

Hope she divorces him for everything he's got. Which will obviously be much less now his lawyers will have taken their cut.....

[RobF]

Man Utd have 2 matches this week, Gary Neville's testimonial tomorrow, and the Champions League final on Saturday. Wonder if Giggs will play in either?

I think he will retire at the end of the season, regardless.

[bandgeek]

Whit a bawbag! He deserves everything that he gets.

[whatatip]

Basically I think YABU. I am a lone voice on this thread I know. I am going to really try to hold myself back with this post.

I am almost glad it is over but I am not glad of the result. I wanted the papers to get absolutely, royally, fucked up the arse. Oh Jesus I did.

I wanted the courts to find out that it was the scumbag papers who ruin people's lives who had deliberately put it out on twitter and elsewhere on the net, so that the papers could justify getting the injunction lifted. I wanted them to be forced to give access to their emails, and for us to find incriminating evidence to show they were breaking the law yet again in order to make a quick buck out of other people's private lives. Fine them , chuck them in jail...yay.

Remember this is not a moral crusade on the part of the papers for free speech, it is a violation of human rights in order for them to earn money. Kiss and tells are their business model.

I am not that bothered about this case particularly. In hindsight he certainly should have done things differently. I am just sick, sick, sick to the back teeth of boring kiss and tell stories full of the intimate details of someone else's private lives.

HE WRONGED HIS WIFE NOT US.
THIS IS NOT OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
KEEP IT AND OTHER STORIES LIKE IT OUT OF THE PAPERS.

[mayorquimby]

He'll play at Wembley he won't retire. he may make an appearance in the testimonial as I think they want to have neville,becks,giggs and scholes ont he pitch together to mark nevilles career.
He's too good to retire and he wants number 13.

[CaveMum]

Apologies if this has already been put out there, but I had to share a photo of Mr Giggs that is doing the rounds on Twitter here

Note what the billboard in the photo says - pure genius!

[frgaaah]

it doesn't work CaveMum

[CaveMum]

Trying again, here

[nijinsky]

He'll probably go on a good publicity drive next, choosing to appear in family friendly poses with his wife and children. Oops, he's already doing that. His wife was photographed at a film premier in a show stopping dress at the weekend and he had his children on the pitch with him when getting his medals at the football. His wife does look rather like Imogen, attractive and brunette, if rather bland.

[jackstarb]

Whatanip - I do understand your pov. I can see a certain irony in the press using social media on the Internet (which the newsprint press usually see as a threat) to undermine the injunction.

But going after Twitter was a mistake. Was making 70,000 plus (the number who tweeted his name) enemies worth the chance to catch a reporter?

[HipHopOpotomus]

Whaddawanker!

[MadAsASnakeNana]

What a tosser. Feel sorry for his family, he should have kept his pants on.

[fortyplus]

Errrrr... couldn't this thread get MN into trouble, ladies?

[Rohanda]

are we not getting a bit over-exercised here? It's to do with a bored and salacious public wanting to know about someone's private life, and to get all judgey about it.
yes giggsy was daft to shag IT, and then to try to have it injunctioned.

But, why o why does IT want to pursue it? Are we now not indulging a woman who shagged someone when she knew she shouldn't have? Not much more than that?

[manticlimactic]

Are they allowed to name him now? Or is it because the Hemming named him in Parliament they can report it depite the injunction?

[edam]

whatatip (great name, btw), there are several issues of principle here that go way beyond Gigg's inability to keep his dick in his pants.

First, superinjunctions aren't restricted to celebrities or even individuals and their sex lives. Multi-national corporations have used them to silence their critics and supress accusations of criminal wrong-doing. Judges allow them to use the law to hide from the law - that's ridiculous and outrageous (see Trafigura dumping toxic waste in Ivory Coast but God knows how many others because we aren't allowed to know).

Fred Goodwin got an injunction that prevented the FSA investigating his behaviour in the run up to the biggest bank collapse in British history - a collapse that is costing us £40bn. We are paying for his mistakes, we have every right to know if he was indulging in an extra-marital affair with a colleague that was against company policy and that may have influenced his behaviour. We don't know whether that colleague was in charge of risk management, or the company secretary, or finance director, or what but it does seem it was someone who had a crucial role in the way RBS was run.

Second, the judges have attacked parliamentary privilege. This is an essential part of our constitution and has been for 350 years, meaning MPs and Lords are free to discuss matters in Parliament and can't be gagged - and the public (often via the media but in person or by reading Hansard) are entitled to know what our legislators are discussing. Individual judges have issued unconstitutional and, I would submit, unlawful rulings preventing people from talking to MPs, and senior judges earlier this week, launching their report into superinjunctions, tried to order MPs not to discuss matters subject to superinjunctions. This is outrageous, an abuse of the law and an attack on the very fundamentals of democracy. MPs have agreed not to discuss matters that are sub-judice to avoid prejudicing trials and the speaker upholds this - but to say they should not discuss court rulings is ridiculous.

Third, back to Giggs - his attempt to gag Imogen Thomas. Why should she be prevented from talking about her own life just to suit him? Why does the court think his rights take priority over hers? Why does she just have to accept accusations of a serious criminal offence - he got the injunction by claiming she was blackmailing him, without IT being able to defend herself - while he is protected against far less serious accusations?

Secret justice is no justice. It's the weapon of evil dictators, not a parliamentary democracy.

[jackstarb]

Edam - good post. I saw (on Twitter ) a rough breakdown of the current Superinjunctions (no names). Of the 80 in place about 7 were taken out by women.

I do think this is a feminist issue.