Joyrex Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 WATMM needs SuperInjunctions™ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 what's that osc? you mean that manchester united footballer ryan giggs had an affair with ex-big brother contestant (and rather tasty young lady) imogen thomas? well, if you're saying that Imogen Thomas and Ryan Giggs were partaking of Sexual Intercourse while the aforementioned footballer was already married, then i'll be blown sideways in a strong gust! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 what i do find hypocritical is that to this day the accusers aren't mentioned in the julian assange article and are quickly reverted if added, whilst the info regarding the giggs thing had its own article with names included at least a week ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coalbucket PI Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I won't link it but she's got a low quality sex tape out if you want a smutty little gander it's not hard to come by (ahem) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 i've seen it, it's old. and shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Well if it was older, she would have been younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 lol your silly injunctions don't apply in my land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Ryan Giggs looks a bit like Peter Weller in this picture here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Doesn't Ryan Giggs have any right to privacy? It's not like he was fucking her in front of Buckingham Palace. The affair took place in private homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Doesn't Ryan Giggs have any right to privacy? It's not like he was fucking her in front of Buckingham Palace. The affair took place in private homes. i think maybe, if Ryan Giggs really wants to have an extra marital affair, he should really choose someone who has more...discretion. and who isn't likely to try and milk him. fact is, as a celebrity, he should really have fucking known better. if you're a celebrity, and you're gonna go fucking someone else while you're married, you had better expect the shit to hit the fan sometime. and when it does, don't expect to be able to silence everyone on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Doesn't Ryan Giggs have any right to privacy? It's not like he was fucking her in front of Buckingham Palace. The affair took place in private homes. i think the lesson to be learnt here (and i couldn't give a flying fuck about football) is that if you're famous, then essentially you don't. i'm not saying that this is a good thing, i'm simply saying that in the era of twitter and facebook, it is. what is your lawyer going to do? take three quarters of a million of people (the majority of whom are in countries where your law doesn't apply) to court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Doesn't Ryan Giggs have any right to privacy? It's not like he was fucking her in front of Buckingham Palace. The affair took place in private homes. i think maybe, if Ryan Giggs really wants to have an extra marital affair, he should really choose someone who has more...discretion. and who isn't likely to try and milk him. fact is, as a celebrity, he should really have fucking known better. if you're a celebrity, and you're gonna go fucking someone else while you're married, you had better expect the shit to hit the fan sometime. and when it does, don't expect to be able to silence everyone on the internet. I don't believe that celebrities have any less right to privacy than anyone else. What they do in their public life should be public - of course. What they do in private should remain private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Doesn't Ryan Giggs have any right to privacy? It's not like he was fucking her in front of Buckingham Palace. The affair took place in private homes. i think maybe, if Ryan Giggs really wants to have an extra marital affair, he should really choose someone who has more...discretion. and who isn't likely to try and milk him. fact is, as a celebrity, he should really have fucking known better. if you're a celebrity, and you're gonna go fucking someone else while you're married, you had better expect the shit to hit the fan sometime. and when it does, don't expect to be able to silence everyone on the internet. I don't believe that celebrities have any less right to privacy than anyone else. What they do in their public life should be public - of course. What they do in private should remain private. i totally agree. what i mean is, make sure your private life stays private. by not sleeping with someone that is a c-list celebrity at best, who is blatantly trying to profit from the 'arrangement'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Doesn't Ryan Giggs have any right to privacy? It's not like he was fucking her in front of Buckingham Palace. The affair took place in private homes. i think maybe, if Ryan Giggs really wants to have an extra marital affair, he should really choose someone who has more...discretion. and who isn't likely to try and milk him. fact is, as a celebrity, he should really have fucking known better. if you're a celebrity, and you're gonna go fucking someone else while you're married, you had better expect the shit to hit the fan sometime. and when it does, don't expect to be able to silence everyone on the internet. I don't believe that celebrities have any less right to privacy than anyone else. What they do in their public life should be public - of course. What they do in private should remain private. i totally agree. what i mean is, make sure your private life stays private. by not sleeping with someone that is a c-list celebrity at best, who is blatantly trying to profit from the 'arrangement'. Well if she was the one who blabbed, that's different. I do agree with your stance on the super injunctions by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 the only reason she blabbed is because she couldn't afford lawyers to take out a similar superinjunction, which she undoubtedly would have if she could. i suppose it's a sort of libertarian free market, but certainly not the one i envisioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 She should have let Giggsy know about it, he would have paid for the lawers I imagine. Personally I suspect Spanish agents in advance of the CL final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Doesn't Ryan Giggs have any right to privacy? It's not like he was fucking her in front of Buckingham Palace. The affair took place in private homes. i think maybe, if Ryan Giggs really wants to have an extra marital affair, he should really choose someone who has more...discretion. and who isn't likely to try and milk him. fact is, as a celebrity, he should really have fucking known better. if you're a celebrity, and you're gonna go fucking someone else while you're married, you had better expect the shit to hit the fan sometime. and when it does, don't expect to be able to silence everyone on the internet. I don't believe that celebrities have any less right to privacy than anyone else. What they do in their public life should be public - of course. What they do in private should remain private. i totally agree. what i mean is, make sure your private life stays private. by not sleeping with someone that is a c-list celebrity at best, who is blatantly trying to profit from the 'arrangement'. Well if she was the one who blabbed, that's different. I do agree with your stance on the super injunctions by the way. yeah i'm pretty sure she's the one who blabbed...or at least set-up a private meeting that would coincidentally be seen by journalists i suppose it's a sort of libertarian free market, but certainly not the one i envisioned. lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 fuck griggsy he ain't got rights to shit - fucker cheated on his wife and kids with a fame-hungry slut. as a public figure and even more so as a man united player he is expected to set an example (especially to younger people) and the only example he has set is money, bitches, fame, oooh aren't I such a fucking stud and all women want me. no wonder marriage is a joke these days - cunts like griggsy don't have one iota of respect for the idea behind it and make a mockery of fidelity and the moral obligations of being a family man. fuck anyone who makes a promise to be faithful then breaks it - you want to go around fucking tarts? don't get fucking married then. prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hahathhat Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 but waitress, i ordered the hot beef injunction with a large stir fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 fuck griggsy he ain't got rights to shit - fucker cheated on his wife and kids with a fame-hungry slut. as a public figure and even more so as a man united player he is expected to set an example (especially to younger people) and the only example he has set is money, bitches, fame, oooh aren't I such a fucking stud and all women want me. no wonder marriage is a joke these days - cunts like griggsy don't have one iota of respect for the idea behind it and make a mockery of fidelity and the moral obligations of being a family man. fuck anyone who makes a promise to be faithful then breaks it - you want to go around fucking tarts? don't get fucking married then. prick. he is a public figure as a footballer - his conduct on the pitch and in public should be open to the world. This affair happened in private. As such, it should have been resolved in private. Also - why so butthurt? people aren't infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hahathhat Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 BIG FOOTBALLER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spratters Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 He'd have been much better off if he didn't bother with the injunction in the first place. He would have saved himself +£200K, not that he needs to but you know, and all this media popularity with him would be water under the bridge by now. He may also have not been as badly hated by a fair few people if it just came out in the normal fashion without him trying to hide everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lady kakapo Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 It is a question of the lesser of two evils. There is already a 'right to privacy' under UK law. The problem is that a more stringent right to privacy would be seen to undermine how democracy functions in the UK. Compare with say France. Footballers getting publicly emabrrassed is a price worth paying for having a free and open press. Public figures already know this and should accept it, so when they throw a spectacular legal hissy fit for being caught with their pants down, it just riles the British public (and press) even more. Superinjunctions are also very expensive. It's one law for the rich, and one for the rest. Now of course there are lots of areas of the law where this applies, but it does mean that there is a certain 'justice' when the superinjunctions are exposed. And I know of others where it is most definitely in the public interest to know i.e. trafigura. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hahathhat Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 i honestly have no idea what's going on here. but it smells like barry bonds with a lot more gossip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.