Ryan Giggs, football money and the effect on the economy

bendix

[quote=[Deleted User];43891790]
Before you further try to discredit me, as stated on the other thread I have no bad debts, no defaults, and good cashflow, both at the time and now.

That you try to misrepresent this and do it across other threads says a lot about you not me.

.[/QUOTE]

How have i tried to misrepresent you? Where have i mentioned your bad debts, cashflow?

Frankly, I'm not that interested in your circumstances, except insofar as I'm intrigued by the psychology of someone who - by the own admission - hates banks and those who work in them so much.

Disclaimer statement. I don't work in a bank. Never have. And I don't know anyone who does.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe he is trying to protect his kids ( you must know what bullies can be like in the playground ) OK yes he could have protected them by having no human frailties ya de ya. It seems to me it is the kids who suffer most in things like this but nobody seems to give a toss, how many times have you heard the kids position put forward in all the holier-than-thou crap spouted on the interweb?

Now there seems no point in keeping up the pretense that this injunction is anything but a waste of time and money. I am always quite wary of the "won't someone think of the kiddies" argument as it always seems to coincide with someone else justifying their desire to stop other people doing things.

From the Inbox this am:
Giggs occasionally gets homesick apparently. I heard him say he does Miss Wales.

chucky

Generali wrote: »

Now there seems no point in keeping up the pretense that this injunction is anything but a waste of time and money. I am always quite wary of the "won't someone think of the kiddies" argument as it always seems to coincide with someone else justifying their desire to stop other people doing things.

From the Inbox this am:
Giggs occasionally gets homesick apparently. I heard him say he does Miss Wales.

in all of this people seem to have made Imogen Thomas innocent in all of this. Giggsy didn't act alone, she knew he was married and got involved.

we also forget what she was trying to do - sell her story to the trash media for money and then promote her personal career portraying herself as a victim in all of this.

she's no victim, if you give Giggs a hard time, you need to give her a bit of a roasting to.

[Deleted User]

bendix wrote: »

How have i tried to misrepresent you?

Post 90

Where have i mentioned your bad debts, cashflow?

I don't have any, thats the point.

I'd be mildly surprised if you really are so thick as to not know that was the point.

Jennifer_Jane

StevieJ wrote: »

If that was true, all the other injunctees would be named in paliament and Twitter. BTW would the results of your transgressions be front page of the Daily Mail?

They have all been named on Twitter: the famous actor; the two having an affair; the MP; another comedian.... so many out-twitted, so many injunctions. You don't need to be 'on Twitter' to be able to see this information.

In addition, there has been an excellent article about 'the famous actor' on the Daily Mail website, describing the family man as being described by friends as 'the Ryan Giggs' of actors. This was well before RG was outed yesterday on BBC Parliament live.

I don't really care too much about footballers having affairs and such, but I don't like superinjunctions being used in this way, ie to hide their transgressions.

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

If that was true, all the other injunctees would be named in paliament and Twitter. BTW would the results of your transgressions be front page of the Daily Mail?

By threatening to sue Twitter maybe the veneer of respectability that the the PR machine has created, has been blown away. To reveal the true personality of the individual.

Maybe if this course hadn't of been taken then the public response would have been different. So has backfired big time.

bendix

[quote=[Deleted User];43893826]Post 90



I don't have any, thats the point.

I'd be mildly surprised if you really are so thick as to not know that was the point.[/QUOTE]


That's not misrepresentation. You stated yourself you hate banks and bankers, and bank apologists.

The rest is opinion.

[Deleted User]

bendix wrote: »

That's not misrepresentation. You stated yourself you hate banks and bankers, and bank apologists.

The rest is opinion.

I do hate the bankers and their apologists. The reason why is very different from what you stated. That is why it was a misrepresentation. Stop playing games.

bendix

[quote=[Deleted User];43894846]I do hate the bankers and their apologists. The reason why is very different from what you stated. That is why it was a misrepresentation. Stop playing games.[/QUOTE]


Really? You hate bankers and their apologists?

Don't you find that a bit sad and obsessive?

I don't think I hate anyone.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Now there seems no point in keeping up the pretense that this injunction is anything but a waste of time and money. I am always quite wary of the "won't someone think of the kiddies" argument as it always seems to coincide with someone else justifying their desire to stop other people doing things.

From the Inbox this am:
Giggs occasionally gets homesick apparently. I heard him say he does Miss Wales.

I agree he should have left it at the injunction and left Twitter to Twatter on about Twaddle until they got bored and moved on to the next target.