Ryan Giggs, football money and the effect on the economy

vivatifosi

Saw this tonight on Twitter. It did amuse me:

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

diable

[quote=[Deleted User];43896594]Try talking to yourself and you might begin to understand.[/QUOTE]
Thats where it really starts going Pete Tong...........

Ian_W

chucky wrote: »

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

I would just luv it, I really would luv to give that Imogen Thomas a good roasting (or 3)!!

Don't think I'd get the chance though as:
1. Not rich or famous enough
2. Papers wouldn't pay her threpence for the story
3. Too old and ugly to pull her on merit.

One aspect of the story, allegedly, is that she demanded money for her silence from Giggs, which is tantamount to blackmail. It's a long standing legal public policy position that anonymity is granted to "victims" in blackmail cases. By definition they have done something they wouldn't want to become public knowledge and almost always have some greater or lesser public persona.

Doesn't this undermine that principle? What about other circumstances where the law grants anonymity?

There is no legal "public interest" reason for Giggs philandering to be published, though the public are interested and nosey about adultery by the rich and famous but in many cases there is no pressing "need" for us to know about it.

Most of you seem to have swallowed the press line that that it only protects the rich without engaging your brain and realising that the press are only interested in outing the rich and famous. Two nobodies playing hide the sausage don't sell newspapers, Giggs and others who are rich & famous do.

As for the second rate MP who abused Parliamentary Privilege for his 15 minutes of fame - what goes around, comes around. Perhaps he should remember that with his next dominatrix, rent-boy or whatever else turns him on. Most of them are bent as nine bob notes!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Ian_W wrote: »

One aspect of the story, allegedly, is that she demanded money for her silence from Giggs, which is tantamount to blackmail.

Got a link for that? Other than one off of Twitter?

I think we can comfrotably come to the conclusion that statement could well or well not be a load of bollox.

If she did she would right now be being investigated by the Police.

Its not tantamount to blackmail, it is blackmail & a serious allegation to make about someone. Show us your source then...

headcone

Right bunch of fannies on this thread.

For goodness sake get a life.

IT doesnt matter.

Kennyboy66

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Got a link for that? Other than one off of Twitter?

I think we can comfrotably come to the conclusion that statement could well or well not be a load of bollox.

If she did she would right now be being investigated by the Police.

Its not tantamount to blackmail, it is blackmail & a serious allegation to make about someone. Show us your source then...

The allegation of Blackmail was made in court and the was part of the reason the super injunction was maintained by Justice Eady

"Eady said there was "ample reason not to trust" Thomas, and said the evidence before the court on 14 April "appeared strongly to suggest that the claimant [the anonymous footballer] was being blackmailed". He later records that she denies asking the footballer for money and that he has come to no conclusion on the allegation"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/16/imogen-thomas-gagging-order-blackmail

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

The allegation of Blackmail was made in court and the was part of the reason the super injunction was maintained by Justice Eady

"Eady said there was "ample reason not to trust" Thomas, and said the evidence before the court on 14 April "appeared strongly to suggest that the claimant [the anonymous footballer] was being blackmailed". He later records that she denies asking the footballer for money and that he has come to no conclusion on the allegation"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/16/imogen-thomas-gagging-order-blackmail

Ummmmmmmm

On that I have also come to no conclusion at all.

chucky

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

The allegation of Blackmail was made in court and the was part of the reason the super injunction was maintained by Justice Eady

"Eady said there was "ample reason not to trust" Thomas, and said the evidence before the court on 14 April "appeared strongly to suggest that the claimant [the anonymous footballer] was being blackmailed". He later records that she denies asking the footballer for money and that he has come to no conclusion on the allegation"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/16/imogen-thomas-gagging-order-blackmail

but wouldn't she be getting paid for the story by the newspaper?

StevieJ

Ian_W wrote: »

I would just luv it, I really would luv to give that Imogen Thomas a good roasting (or 3)!!

Don't think I'd get the chance though as:
1. Not rich or famous enough
2. Papers wouldn't pay her threpence for the story
3. Too old and ugly to pull her on merit.

One aspect of the story, allegedly, is that she demanded money for her silence from Giggs, which is tantamount to blackmail. It's a long standing legal public policy position that anonymity is granted to "victims" in blackmail cases. By definition they have done something they wouldn't want to become public knowledge and almost always have some greater or lesser public persona.

Apparently Imogen never wanted the story to come out according to world famous publicist Max Clifford

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/05/24/imogen-thomas-to-meet-max-clifford-today-to-decide-next-step-91466-28751593/

nicko33

Ian_W wrote: »

One aspect of the story, allegedly, is that she demanded money for her silence from Giggs

would probably have cost him less if he'd paid