Ryan Giggs accepts no basis to accuse Imogen Thomas of blackmail

[SardineQueen]

here

Not usually a sleb watcher but this is linked to the "superinjunctions" palaver a while back which was discussed on here a lot so I thought it would be worth sharing!

FWIW my thoughts are what a lying scumbag this man is.

Read it properly sardine.
She has sold the story now but said she didn't want to.
You're silly.

No, you're silly.

No comment on his pants but he is a big hairy beast in general!

I agree op. It's a shocking misuse of the courts and an example of how money can be used to apply the force of law when not warranted. The morality of who slept with who is really not the point here.

She did not sell her story. She did not intend to sell her story. The foundation for his action was false-a lie by Giggs who would be punished for that if it wasn't that the judge was a mysogynistic old fucker.

Apologists for the behaviour of Giggs being 'no worse' than that of Ms Thomas's are part of the patriarchy and it is no wonder that judges can make judgements like this and men can get away with so much when there are so many female apologists about.

And if she now goes on to sell her story.........?

GOOD!

Serves the nasty little scrote right. Although I do hope she rises above the temptation.

It's all a bit tawdry, neither of them have come out of the whole sorry saga very well.

Giggs as a desperate sex addict who cant keep it in his pants and Thomas ready to sell her soul to the devil (Max Clifford) for a few minutes of fame or should that be infamy.

The recent summer superinjunctions seem as useful as a chocolate teapot in that they do the exact opposite there meant for. Surely something so unfit for purpose should be scrapped?

Good, am glad to see she has been able to set the record straight. It's outrageous that a stupid judge saw fit to hand out an injunction on Gigg's say-so, without giving her a chance to defend herself against extremely serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing. All Giggs was accused of was having an affair - which, while reprehensible, is not illegal. Yet the judge protected him, allowing him to make far more serious allegations against her. Outrageous abuse of power by Giggs, his lawyers, and the idiot judge who handed out the injunction. I hope that judge - probably the one who did 90% of the gagging orders - realises quite how wrong he was and resolves not to do anything so unjust again.

Article doesn't say what redress has been offered or what status this ruling has, does anyone know?

bakingaddict, read the thread - Imogen Thomas did NOT sell her story and had no intention of selling her story, that's the point of this ruling! It was a big fat lie from Giggs, desperate to smear someone else instead of facing the consequences of his shitty actions.

Wish she could sue for defamation. Or report Judge to the law society or something.....Guess she'll need a gender re-assignment to make that one stick...

Edam....I have read the thread, she did hire Max Clifford as her publicist so what are you saying....she had no intention of selling ANY story be it before or after the whole superinjunction affair blew up. Superinjunctions exist in law and are granted on the basis that there will be damage to the family or innocent parties i.e children if any disclosures come into the public forum and that they have the right to privacy and no intrusion into their private life. That some celebrities have twisted them to suit their own tawdry lifestyles is a seperate arguement but if you had any understanding of the laws of this country you might better word your arguement

Max Clifford's role is not only to negotiate the sale of stories. By his own admission, he spends more time keeping his client's names out of the press. He was engaged by Ms Thomas to help her manage the press reaction to her 'outing' and to assist her with a myriad of consequences of Gigg's actions (and to an extent her own).

What about The Top Gear super injunction? Has that gone dormant? Would like to see more fuss made of that too seeing as he is a strong contender for vilest prick of the year.

If she wasn't going to tell the story why was she so bothered about the injunction?

at 'you might better word your arguement'. Consider yourself told, Edam!

RE- why was she so bothered about the injunction?-

Wouldn't you be bothered to be publicly branded a blackmailer with NO legal power of redress? if the answers no, then you are either of Christ-like tolerance or you do not understand the implications of that injunction. It was a disgraceful abuse of legal power.

She has NOT sold her story.....!!!

I hope she brings a libel suit against him and wins.

Obviously in granting the injunction, the judge would have given weight to the possibility of the affair entering the public domain if not by Ms Thomas herself selling the story then by somebody close to her. It's reasonable to consider that women who sleep with celebrities are going to sell their story to the papers especially when there has been perceived 'wrongdoing' done to them i.e Ryan Giggs promised to leave his wife. Otherwise we would never know of Rooney's 3 in a bed romps or Man Uniteds roasting parties or all the other indiscretions and we would still believe that sportstars were pillars of society

On whose word do we have it that Ms Thomas was not going to sell her story to the papers, had she signed some affadavit to that effect? I suspect it was damage limatation on the part of Max Clifford. Painting one party as an angel and another as a demon while banging on about abuse of powers without knowing all details of the case is misguided. Only the judge was party to the facts and would have been bound to consider the merits of the case within a legal framework. Phhh ive said all i'm going to say

"Only the judge was party to the facts and would have been bound to consider the merits of the case within a legal framework."

Yes and now Mr Giggs has basically admitted that he lied in court. Sorry, I mean allowed himself to give an impression and failed to correct it...

Interesting that people see Mr Giggs abuse of his position, money and power, including lying to the court, as not really of much interest. Yet a woman has sex and she is an outrageous scummo. She was single for crying out loud. And he was married. But they were as bad as each other? I think not. One was cheating, one was not. One lied to the courts, one did not. One set out to ruin anothers reputation based on a lie, the other did not. The insistence that they are "as bad as each other" is strange to me.

Nobody has supported Giggs here.
You're reading into things too much and self fabricating.

That's because he's a knobber.

Self fabricating? Sounds like a new range of sheds at BnQ

Same old same old on MN: married man got a little waylaid and ended up with his cock in a whore and single girl forces married man into unwanted liasion

She was single
He was married
That makes him the onl scumbag in this tawdry tale.