FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Giggs 0 1 Murdoch

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The Sun win a case at last. Ryan Giggs claim against The Sun for misuse of private information and argued that he is entitled to claim damages for distress and breach of a right to privacy enshrined in human rights legislation. Mr Justice Tugendhat, gave his ruling today saying Giggs was a cheating shite and denied his right to compensation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I might be wrong but I believe the judge did not award damages because Imogen whatsername has committed to not revealing anything so The Sun don't get their scoop.

Mind you The Sun could choose another story to splash with, such as how News of the World staff seemed to have sabotaged a murder trial of one of their private investigators.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

Cheating shite doesn't sound like very judgy words lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Cheating shite doesn't sound like very judgy words lol "

He did honest his exact words truthful like

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So regardless of what Giggs did (which wasn't illegal by the way) why don't we just dispense with the law altogether cos it pleases the general public. Why don't we go further and just close all the courts and sack all the police while we're at it because if the law doesn't hold up in it's own courtroom it isn't worth the paper it's supposed to be enshrined on.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

waits for the flood gates to other football stars to open... this shud be fun

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" waits for the flood gates to other football stars to open... this shud be fun "

That's kinda the point I was making. By not upholding Giggs' injunction the court have, in effect, made all injunctions worthless if the press decide that the public interest takes higher precedence over a celebs right to privacy. I don't condone Giggs for what he did and if I was his brother he wouldn't be playing football anymore, but that's beside the point, Giggs took out a legal injunction banning any newspaper for naming him and The Sun broke that injunction. That's the facts m'lud.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" waits for the flood gates to other football stars to open... this shud be fun

That's kinda the point I was making. By not upholding Giggs' injunction the court have, in effect, made all injunctions worthless if the press decide that the public interest takes higher precedence over a celebs right to privacy. I don't condone Giggs for what he did and if I was his brother he wouldn't be playing football anymore, but that's beside the point, Giggs took out a legal injunction banning any newspaper for naming him and The Sun broke that injunction. That's the facts m'lud. "

didn't the sun just report on what an mp said in the house of parliament? Wasn't it the mp that broke the injunctions but was protected by parliamentry privilige

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *un_JuiceCouple
over a year ago

Nr Chester

Just to echo wishy. Leave Rhodri and Imogen to rebuild their lives. RG committed a no no and its public knowledge. He's lost alot of respect from this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emima_puddlefuckCouple
over a year ago

hexham


"I might be wrong but I believe the judge did not award damages because Imogen whatsername has committed to not revealing anything so The Sun don't get their scoop.

Mind you The Sun could choose another story to splash with, such as how News of the World staff seemed to have sabotaged a murder trial of one of their private investigators."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"didn't the sun just report on what an mp said in the house of parliament? Wasn't it the mp that broke the injunctions but was protected by parliamentry privilige "

The MP was protected by parliamentary priviledge but The Sun wasn't. It should have adhered to the law and not printed what the MP said. That's irrelevant now though as The Sun DID print it, so the court should have upheld Giggs' injunction and awarded him damages against The Sun for breaking it.

It makes the injunction weapon of law totally pointless if someone can break an injunction with impunity.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

Wanting damages for shagging a dead fit bird? Jeez, whatever next.

I'd be skint.

Std. Disclaimer applies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Wanting damages for shagging a dead fit bird? Jeez, whatever next.

I'd be skint.

Std. Disclaimer applies.

"

I bet Giggs (Ryan) wishes she was dead lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Cheating shite doesn't sound like very judgy words lol

He did honest his exact words truthful like "

was you there :P

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

I wonder if the judge did have a tug on his when reviewing the evidence?

What!!!! Six months for contempt? Not fair.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top