Ryan Giggs

[Calaen]

Shame apparently a number of them are actually incorrect. Makes a mockery of what they are trying to do if they cant get them all right. Not that I care about them doing it, just wish they got their facts straight so the "innocent" dont get harmed

This! If even one of them is wrong, everything else is just hearsay. It's no different to the stevie g saga that happens every year on forums.

 

[Tom]

From what I heard, she was basically blackmailing him by threatening to publish their relationship, a story she'd earn a lot of money for.

It wouldn't surprise me if true. She makes her money by shagging wealthy men, then makes more by selling the story.

 

[Embattle]

As I said in the football thread, I've little care for the tabloid junk media not being able to publish something but I'm still concerned by super injunctions.

In essence they aren't enforceable, they've a questionable moral basis and they seem to be causing considerable collateral damage via speculation.

 

[Keitanz]

BBC News - Footballer's Twitter disclosure order prompts online action

^Why use the CTB initials if it's Giggs? Bellamy's middle name is Douglas though.

Still think it's funny that people think the lawyers are trying to sue twitter itself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...tails-of-super-injunction-were-published.html

Twitter sued by super-injunction footballer after affair with Imogen Thomas | Mail Online

Well, the article headers do say that he is suing Twitter !

 

[Keitanz]

This! If even one of them is wrong, everything else is just hearsay. It's no different to the stevie g saga that happens every year on forums.

I like how it's mostly Man Utd supporters who are saying it's hearsay etc..

I don't think we will ever find out the truth about this though, Giggs for some reason has not come out and denied it though!

 

[Corran]

Premiership footballer sues Twitter after details of super-injunction were published - Telegraph

Twitter sued by super-injunction footballer after affair with Imogen Thomas | Mail Online

Well, the article headers do say that he is suing Twitter !

The article headers dont teall the story. If you believe an article title you are a fool! They take what is said and twist it to something barely related.

The lawyers have contacted Twitter and request that they hand over contact details of the twitter users that are breaching the court order, something that twitter may not legally need to do mind you. That is the unknown factor. They want the contact details in order to know who to begin suing.

Twitter are not being sued, merely the lawyers are trying to use legislation to get the details of them.

 

[Job]

It's all do do with the perception of what a media outlet is, very east to define in the past and practically impossible now, no one can stop people gossiping to each other, which is almost what Twitter is, modern technology yet again pulling the rug from underneath social norms.
Of course it will very soon pull the rug from every scenario which is based on
logistical limitations to provide it's worth.

 

[Calaen]

I like how it's mostly Man Utd supporters who are saying it's hearsay etc..

I don't think we will ever find out the truth about this though, Giggs for some reason has not come out and denied it though!

Gerard wasn't out denying fucking his baby sitter either, nor his sister in law.

 

[Tom]

Gigg's entry on Wikipedia now contains details of all this, cited to reliable foreign (ie not subject to UK law) sources.

Silly man.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Wonder how many of this threads people "absolutely hate reality tv"

Bunch of women you lot.

 

[Marc]

 

[Corran]

haha, does that company really think that they are covered from breaching the ruling with that picture by putting such a poor "censorship" of it .

 

[JingleBells]

haha, does that company really think that they are covered from breaching the ruling with that picture by putting such a poor "censorship" of it .

They aren't covered by the ruling, they're in Scotland:

 

[soze]

I was wondering, if you post on twitter saying "It's Giggs" how can you be sued? Won't they have to prove that you had knowledge covered by the injunction. Rather than spreading a rumour you heard.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Maybe i'm being a bit naive here having not followed this story, but what's the evidence that it's Giggs? Have people seen the injunction and leaked the info or is it more or less speculation?

 

[ECA]

Maybe i'm being a bit naive here having not followed this story, but what's the evidence that it's Giggs? Have people seen the injunction and leaked the info or is it more or less speculation?

The press are given details of the story, but not allowed to print it. ( so they don't accidentally print it ).

 

[cHodAX]

Maybe i'm being a bit naive here having not followed this story, but what's the evidence that it's Giggs? Have people seen the injunction and leaked the info or is it more or less speculation?

That is the thing, as far as we are aware there is no evidence, just what little she leaked to try sell her story. If ends up her word versus his then this story has no where to run.

 

[soze]

Maybe i'm being a bit naive here having not followed this story, but what's the evidence that it's Giggs? Have people seen the injunction and leaked the info or is it more or less speculation?

As i understand it Foreign press who are not stopped by the Injunction have revealed that it is him.

 

[Embattle]

That is the thing, as far as we are aware there is no evidence, just what little she leaked to try sell her story. If ends up her word versus his then this story has no where to run.

If you believe current actions then they would imply some measure of truth.

 

[Corran]

If you believe current actions then they would imply some measure of truth.

Current actions may be because he doesnt want his name dragged through the dirt by some money grabbing bitch

Her arguement for not being a bad person is "I didnt know he was married". Well you are fucking dumb if you dont know that Giggs is married and has a child! Especially when you a person like her that is always chasing the money stories.

No actual evidence that there was an affair. It is one persons word against another persons. So take what you want from that. But made it clear what I think of people that do this so wont repeat that part

 

[Embattle]

As I said from all the information around that isn't the case, but then it depends if you believe all that information.

 

[Cadelin]

The ruling in full.

We don't know what actually has happened. But from the evidence there is a strong chance that CTB did very little wrong and if he had allowed untrue allegations to come out about him it would have done him and his family a lot of harm.

 

[Tom]

"The Claimant's witness statement was to the effect that Ms Thomas had made contact with him by various text messages in March, which led him to conclude that she was at that stage thinking of selling her story, such as it was. She told him by this means that she wanted, or "needed", a payment from him of £50,000. It was against this background that he agreed (he says with some reluctance) to meet her in a hotel where he was staying in early April of this year in order to discuss her demands. Although he had no wish to meet, he eventually agreed because he was concerned that she would go to the newspapers if he refused. On that occasion, which was according to his evidence only the fourth time they had met, they were together for no more than 30 minutes. She had asked him to provide her with a signed football shirt, which he did, but he told her that he was not prepared to pay her the sum of £50,000.
The next development was that she asked to see him again, in a different hotel, a few days later (where he was also staying). He agreed with reluctance and on this occasion, as she had requested, provided her with some football tickets.
It now seems that the Claimant may well have been "set up" so that photographs could be taken of Ms Thomas going to one or other, or both, of the hotels. Although the position is not yet by any means clear, the evidence before me on 14 April appeared to suggest that Ms Thomas had arranged the hotel rendezvous in collaboration with photographers and/or journalists. He first began to "smell a rat" when she told him at the first April meeting, perhaps feigning innocence, that she had been followed and recognised when she visited the first hotel."

BULLSHIT.

 

[DaGaffer]

What? Her or him? Because I can't tell, but tbh anything that goes against News Corp is fine in my book.

 

[Job]

Another nail in the coffin of the printed press, people now know that for the real truth , go the the nets.
The real fucknuts here are the scumbag, leeching w@nkers we call lawyers, first against the wall when the revolution comes!

 

[Corran]

I can see it being either way.. we already know that nothing is beyond the scope of the news corporation in question, afteral apparently it is fine to phone hack according to many journalists, so why would they care about setting up a person to further their own career?

 

[Tom]

What? Her or him? Because I can't tell, but tbh anything that goes against News Corp is fine in my book.

His side of the story. She's demanding 50 grand and so he goes along to "see what's what"? LOLK.

 

[Bahumat]

Messi is spreading this rumour to upset Man Utd when they play Barcelona!

 

[Himse]

Messi is spreading this rumour to upset Man Utd when they play Barcelona!

I wish I could rep you!

 

[old.user4556]

His side of the story. She's demanding 50 grand and so he goes along to "see what's what"? LOLK.

Yes, I lawled at the "I honestly just popped into a hotel room for a discussion on several occasions".

I'd have respect for him if he said "I fucked her, I really enjoyed fucking her, I came so hard, I now want her to fuck off so here's £100,000 k thx bye".