1976_Child Posted 23 May, 2011 Posted 23 May, 2011 It is official. Ryan Giggs is the footballer who got the Super Injunction. We all knew it already but couldn't write it on this forum or face getting Saints Web in trouble. However, seeing as BBC News has just headlined that it is indeed Ryan Giggs I think we can be sure that no legal action will follow. Ryan Giggs - you are a fornicating knob head.
egg Posted 23 May, 2011 Posted 23 May, 2011 Not quite. Bbc said that he is the guy named by an mp. Mp might have got it wrong ;-)
Gingeletiss Posted 23 May, 2011 Posted 23 May, 2011 Ah! the third thread on this, I felt I must contribute.
Sheaf Saint Posted 23 May, 2011 Posted 23 May, 2011 I'm getting sick to the f***ing back teeth of hearing about this now. I really couldn't give a toss which overpaid leather-bag shepherd is knobbing which desperate wannabe celebrity. The amoutn of column inches and airtime this story is receiving is completely out of proportion to the actual level of interest it should be receiving - ie, ****-all! The irony, of course, is that if he hadn't taken out the injunction in the first place then it might have only appeared on a few red-tops for a day or two and then blown over with everyone forgetting about it after a week.
1976_Child Posted 23 May, 2011 Author Posted 23 May, 2011 I'm getting sick to the f***ing back teeth of hearing about this now. I really couldn't give a toss which overpaid leather-bag shepherd is knobbing which desperate wannabe celebrity. The amoutn of column inches and airtime this story is receiving is completely out of proportion to the actual level of interest it should be receiving - ie, ****-all! The irony, of course, is that if he hadn't taken out the injunction in the first place then it might have only appeared on a few red-tops for a day or two and then blown over with everyone forgetting about it after a week. Sorry, don't agree that this is a non-story. It goes right to the very heart of the freedom of speech. Personally, I quite like being able to speak freely without the threat that some rich man could have me put in prison. And it is only the very rich who could ever get a super injunction. Those media lawyers charge upwards of £500 per hour.
egg Posted 23 May, 2011 Posted 23 May, 2011 Sorry, don't agree that this is a non-story. It goes right to the very heart of the freedom of speech. Personally, I quite like being able to speak freely without the threat that some rich man could have me put in prison. And it is only the very rich who could ever get a super injunction. Those media lawyers charge upwards of £500 per hour. Kind of agree. The lawyers and what they charge are not the issue though. I find it abhorent that an injunction can be made that attempts to keep private the identity of one party but allows the press to name the other. Worse still is the idea that an order can effectively bind the world at large without them being aware of the terms of the injunction. That is unique to these kinds of orders. Contrast with this example. A bloke beats his wife aNd she gets injunction to keep him away from her he is not bound by it until he is made aware of it. The whole thing is crazy.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now