Ryan Giggs is the Manchester United star who has invoked the super-injunction that we’re all talking about over here in Blighty, which prevents anyone from identifying him in relation to allegations of an alleged extra-marital affair with somebody or other. Nevertheless, we all know it’s Ryan Giggs. I guess I’m just curious to see if this thread will get zapped.
I don’t really know what you’re talking about, but we once fought a war so we could be free from the iron-fisted rule of your football celebrities. You can say “Ryan Giggs” as much as you want - which I can’t imagine being more than once or twice, tops.
Giggs will tear you apart, Ximenean.
Yeah, do *not *say his name three times in a row!
(Or get him wet, feed him after midnight, etc.)
Blathering blatherskite! No idea what your talking about.
Sorry, it’s a big “freedom of the press” news story in the UK at the moment. A mega-rich footballer has invoked some kind of legal rule which means the that the press can’t name him in regards to rumours about his private life - a “super-injunction”. Other rich celebrities have employed the same legal mechanism to protect their privacy. It is a big story, raising among other things the question of whether it is OK to identify the super-injunctees on non-British websites.
I’m sure the SDMB lawyers will visit you shortly to explain all this in more detail. 
Does any of this have any genuine reason for us to be concerned?
There is no connection to his probity, there is no public issue at stake, I really cannot get worked up about it at all.
Would any of us give one flying fig if this were someone like Pete Docherty? Nope we would not be even slightly surprised.
There is no threat to national security, there is no posturing as a national moral guardian from him, there does not seem to be any hypocrisy revealed at all.
Just why would we need to care at all?
Its all British big tits and bums prurience and nothing more, there is no issue here that you have any pressing reason to know about.
God, don’t we just have a 1950’s salacious appetite for tut tutting for someone living their life with all the foibles and failings that the rest of us deal with on a day to day basis, wether its ourselves or our families.
Hell, even the royals can’t get it right.
Casdave, I can’t work out if you’re in favour of the injunction or against it.
I think it is very interesting. At some point governments will have to address the fact that via the internet, many citizens can circumvent a countries laws at will. Regardless of whether you care about Ryan Giggs or not, it is true that a UK court imposed a decision, and the Twitter users ignored it with impunity.
Law makers need to start taking issues like these into account, and either accept it or do something about it. I can see this becoming a test case for the wider issue of privacy laws.
On the smaller issue, Giggs scoring the winner in Saturday nights European cup final is the only scoring I am worried about.
I have to say that I don’t care that a public figure has an extra-marital affair. However, if the other party wants to talk about it, perhaps in newspapers, and complain that they have been badly treated then I can’t see that they should be stopped from doing so.
If you don’t want to leave yourself open to such stories then you might want to think twice about who you shag in the first place.
The huge irony here, and one that the person in question will have been warned about, is that what would have been a five-minute flicker of interest (certainly for me), is now blown up into a perfect media storm with ramifications and publicity far beyond the original kiss and tell.
What a ridiculous own-goal (ha!).
I give it 48hrs before the full story is out and the person in question is left looking like a 24ct cock.
True enough. What was ever done about music pirating over the internet? I never heard, or bothered to hear.
I’m worried about that too - it would be horrible if Man U won :eek:
Herecourtesy of Charlie Brooker is what happened to another high profile footballer who sought a gag order.
Its not really about being for or against the injunction.
Its really about the British attitude, if we as a nation were just a little more mature, then this issue of disclosures would not matter, and so there would be no perceived need for or aginast the injunction.
This has been portrayed as a freedom of the press issue, when its really all about titilation and a chance to knock someone down - its the good old British view, make yourself feel good by looking at the failings of others.
Its just freedom of the press to continue printing shit, creating a market for such shit, and a hypocritical public that just cannot wait to hoover it all up.
In that regard, selling shit to the public is rather like the British Food industry as portrayed by Alex Riley in ‘Britains most disgusting foods’.Just watch the youtube clips of his show, and imagine it was about the media, and its hardly any differant, seems the British like to eat as much shit as our industry leaders can produce, seems our industry leaders are also great at ensuring we have an unending appetite for shit too.
We are not talking national security, we need to take a look at ourselves and the shit that is purveyed to us in our media, the public gets what the public wants.
Tell me, what pressing need is there for you to know beyond sheer damned nosiness?
Why do you want to eat shit?
I mostly agree with you casdave - but it’s an interesting contrast to the reaction that has emerged in the wake of DSK’s arrest, regarding the way the French press treat their celeb/politician sex scandals (which is pretty much as you advocate, and something I generally support.) The argument goes that if there were more focus on politicians’ personal lives then there would be less scope for them to abuse their position.
I’m not at all sure I agree with that - and it’s a view I’ve mostly seen propagated by the UK media, which can hardly be said to be disinterested observers - but I’d be interested in your thoughts as to whether some sort of media checks and balances system might have a genuine role to play, beyond that of titillating the nosy masses?
Our punitive and bizarre libel laws have spawned a “libel tourism” industry, whereby foreigners can try to silence Ukrainian newspapers or American academics through the British libel courts, even if what they’ve been saying is actually true. For that reason the Americans now have a law preventing the enforcement of judgements of this sort in their country on the basis of rulings in British courts, so the SDMB may sleep safe in the knowledge that Ryan Giggs will not sue and become our evil overlord.
Giggs, however, is a fool. He was trying to protect his public image, having been talked into it by profiteering lawyers, and instead has ruined an otherwise very positive image which would hardly have been dented by a slight marital indiscretion. But this happens all the time. Andrew Marr, for example, everyone he knew already knew all about his affair, his wife knew, his co-workers knew, the only people who didn’t know were the people watching him on TV, buying his books and listening to his lecture about the awfulness of superinjunctions. These things only protect the guilty.
Certain professions have a need to be scrutinised, and confidence in their members is paramount.
If we had judges carrying on like this, and then making rulings in family courts, then it would be a matter of public interest, if we have medical professionals or teacher or some such behaving in a matter to question public trust in an area where the public has a direct stake, then there would be a case.
With DSK there is legitimate public interest, its so obvious it does not need stating.If it turns out he has had a string of hidden sexual discretions then that mght be a matter to consider in the prosecution, and again would be of pubic interest, however we would have to be extremely careful about prejdicing the legal proceedings.
The case of Fred Goodwin is interesting, because it is perhaps the closest you will see to debating wether or not there is public interest, does his lack of personal morals have a bearing on his professional probity? Very good question, but since his profeessional incompetance and his egotostocal drive to buy that Dutch Bank led to the nationalisation of his bank at a cost of over £20 billion, and this has led directly to serious public spending cuts and deep recession, there might well be a case to argue.
…but, a footballer? Come on, is there an issue of corrupt betting blackmail to throw matches, no such thing has been put forward.I thik the media really needs to do very much better than simply out a marital indescretion, it need to make a genuine case why this is of public concern and so far, it has not happened.
It all appears to me a case of the media trying to use the freedom of expression argument to continue feeding us shit so they can profit from it.
The greater issue is that behaving in this manner, the press is actually doing more damage to press freedom, rather than supporting it.
The thing is, who are you to decide that I can’t eat shit if I want to? It is a freedome issue. Why do I not have the choice to eat what I want? You admit thta the majority of your fellow countrymen seem to want to do so. Why, in a democracy, are your wishes more important than there’s?
That’s what has to be addressed.
I didn’t know it was Ryan Giggs. Stupid thing to do - he might as well have slathered himself in gravy and walked into the lion enclosure at London Zoo. Nobody beyond his immediate family cares if he had an affair, but they do care if he then takes advantage of a stupid law as well.
That’s the thing though - his lawyers have obtained a “disclosure order” against Twitter in a British court. I am baffled as to why he has done this. Presumably Twitter will just ignore it? Or will it hurt them in some way to defy a British court? If not, it would seem that you are right that he is being badly advised by his lawyers.
Meanwhile, the Sunday Herald in Scotland has broken cover and named “a man”. I presume it is Giggsy, but their site is not surprisingly down at the moment.