Dear Ryan,
I'm sorry to have to break your injunction like that (although since it's been broken so many times now, you're probably getting used to it. Not so much as a 'injunction' as a... not-very-injunctiony-thing, right?).
Anyway, apologies aside, I've decided to write you this letter for a reason. I don't care if you decide to sue me. I'm very easy to find with a bit of internet poking (although, given that you don't understand the internet very well, you might want to pay someone to do that for you). Also, I don't have much stuff that you could take. Unless you're very interested in women's size 5 shoes (shit, did I just break another injunction? It's hard to keep up).
Here's the thing, Ryan - I didn't know who you were until a few days ago. I mean, I was aware that you were a footballer, but I don't know who you play for, who you're married to, or where you're putting your knob, and nor do I care. This post explains why I don't. I didn't know who Imogen Thomas was either, and frankly, if someone had tried to explain to me, I'd have let the words 'Big Brother' escape their lips and then zoned out. But I know who you are now, because you've pissed me off. Why have you pissed me off? I'll try and explain it as simply as I can, but put basically, it's because you're a selfish cunt.
Everything that has happened so far with this whole debacle is a result of you being a selfish cunt. Every single thing. And every potential consequence which I will explain will also be the result of you being a selfish cunt. Here's why:
Firstly, and basically, just to set the scene - putting your knob in someone who isn't your partner (presumably) without her knowledge or consent = selfish cuntery. I'm not holding up monogamy as an ideal, but if that's what you've promised someone, that's what you give them, and it's selfish, and cuntish, to do otherwise.
Then you got an injunction. Now, as I said before, I don't care about your private life, but I do care about the way the media is regulated. The media shouldn't be free to run roughshod over poor people's lives (see: Chris Jeffries) while not being allowed to talk about rich people's lives. What we need is a tougher, and more accountable, press regualtion scheme. That would solve both problems. Instead, what we get is injunctions. What this means is that poor people continue getting fucked over because the rich people (like you) are happy, because they can afford legal recourse.
Then, the shit kind of hit the fan, and here's where you pissed me off. You decided to take Twitter to court in order to obtain the details of those who had broken the injunction. It's kind of obvious that this has blown up in your face, and it's tempting to just laugh, think it serves you right for trying to censor the internet and move on. But I can't.
You've started a dangerous ball rolling here, Ryan. If you'll excuse me here, I'm going to give you a short lesson in how law works so you can understand my worries. Parliament makes a law, and it is the job of the judges to interpret this law. This is because Parliament can't anticipate every situation, so they make law intentionally quite vague, and then the judges refine it. Think of it like taking an off-the-peg suit to a tailor to have it made to fit you. Sometimes, the suit is just too ill fitting, and we can see that it was never made to be worn by someone your shape, and sometimes it just requires a few clarifications, and it's you all over. That's lesson number one.
Now, in order to keep things reasonably stable in these interpretations, we use systems called 'judicial precedent' and 'persuasive precedent'*. What judicial precedent means is that if a case with similar facts has been decided by a higher court, we have to apply the decision reached by the higher courts to the case we're looking at. Persuasive precedent is where a court looks at decisions from other (lower or foreign) courts to help it reach a decision. This isn't binding, but it's how a lot of decisions are made.
Got that? OK. Here's why you pissed me off:
1) When you act like a selfish cunt and then selfishly go to get an injunction using s.8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, you're helping to develop this judge-made law further and have it apply to more and more situations, just to suit your needs. That's all well and good for you, but what about if the law that you helped extend is then used to censor something that undeniably is in the public interest - like the Trafigura case? Then people get hurt. People get really hurt. Not like 'my husband is porking a z-list celebrity' hurt, but physically hurt. And you helped that.
2) If you eventually do succeed in forcing Twitter to hand over the details of anonymous users that apparently broke your injunction, then (aside from it being insanely hypocritical) you've potentially made it so that Twitter can be forced by other companies and agencies to give out details, because of the whole 'judicial/persuasive precedent' thing. I'm going to assume that you were too busy bumping uglies with wannabes to pay attention to current affairs, but there's been a lot of civil uprising recently, and a lot of it has been brought to attention via Twitter. Now, if you get your way, and Twitter are forced to give up the details, what's to stop other agencies using it? What's to stop the government getting the details of everyone who talks about protests on Twitter and using the pre-arrest tactic more often? What's to stop governments that are a bit more torture-happy from getting details of protestors from Twitter?
I don't think you thought about this. You just wanted to get your end away and suffer none of the ill-consequences. But you've started it, and the decent thing to do now would be to stop it, before the ripples from a few illicit fucks and your selfish cuntery lead to a lot worse things than repressing the media.
*I'm trying to write so a footballer can understand.
EDIT: Changed all occurrences of word 'superinjunction' to now read 'injunction'. I know there's a difference (even the existance of superinjunctions can't be reported), but everyone else was/is calling it a superinjunction, so I used that word to ensure people would know what I was referring to. Anyway. All gone now. Every news agency is reporting it after John Hemmings' comments in the HoC this afternoon. Even Newsround, apparently.
An excellent post. You should send it to him.
ReplyDeleteFantastic.
ReplyDeleteAwesome post!! Let's hope it is him :P
ReplyDelete1 - 0
ReplyDeleteExcellent blog, more guts than me at posting this!
ReplyDeleteBrilliant post dude *high five* _o/\o_
ReplyDeleteGreat letter - but I suspect it will be lost on a footballer with an IQ in single figures and a reading age of 3! He probably thinks Trafigura is a make of car.
ReplyDeleteback of the net
ReplyDeleteGood one!
ReplyDeleteLooks like Jack Of Kent's going to be following this, too. Could be interesting. Well, that's if it's the same case. That's the thing with superinjunctions—hard to tell who's who.
All true, which is why I wish it wasn't Ryan Giggs. Why? He's been an exemplary footballer, shunning the celebrity wankfest that the Premier League has become, while doing serious charity work in Africa, especially Sierra Leone where his grandfather was born.
ReplyDeletePut simply, he has played for Manchester United for 20 years and is perhaps their greatest ever player, and yet no one seems to hate him, not even Liverpool fans.
To think he might piss that all away now is desperately sad.
Marvellous post.
ReplyDeletewho are we to judge, lol try concentrating on your own life losers , seems to me like you lot like the goss. grow up
ReplyDelete@dafyed48 - Did you actually read this, or did your hands accidentally mash the keyboard en route to scratching your balls annd thwack out some vague approximations of words?
ReplyDeleteThat's right Dafyed48, it's the goss that's got everyone hot under the collar, not the creation of a rich man's privacy law, the curtailment of freedom of speech, or the attempt to muzzle Twitter. Tell me, does it hurt when you think?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a superinjunction. It is just an injunction. If it were a superinjunction then the English media couldn't report on even the existence of the injunction.
ReplyDeleteAn excellent piece of work. I really hope he gets to read it though! Even though his life up till now might have been 'exemplary', he has sure fallen down to a very large degree. Not only now is he behaving like a (sorry to say it) stereotypical celeb footballer but he has the audacity to manically hide his cover, using the law to weed out revelation & words of criticism. And it's only because his money has allowed him to do this. If he wants to cheat and behave like a celeb he should take the consequences and well done to Forty Shades of Grey for bringing to our attention the potential harm that he is causing to our freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteYour piece hits the spot.
ReplyDeleteI knew little of Ryan Giggs, apart from the fact that he is a senior citizen, in football terms. These people are remarkably unaware, as you have intimated, about new media, but of course they are remarkably unaware of anything but themselves.
The case has highlighted a dangerous step into to two-tier legal system which protects the likes of Giggs and crucifies people like Chris Jeffries.
The mood music is fairly clear on this; with some consideration and debate, this egregious bit of made up law will be stamped on. Meanwhile, a lot of very expensive law firms will make a mad dash to milk their stupid clients with promises of anonymity.
Inspirational blog! Thanks!
ReplyDelete@Patrick Neylan, I have heard it said charity begins at home! A good sportsmen Ryan may be yet the reputation of footballers to their wives is anything but charitable.
Perhaps the fall of one of the greats (so spectacularly) will hold these brazen adulterers to account, for Ryan has behaved like a coward with not a trace of humility or grace to his wife.
If you are looking for exemplary heroes look to the leaders of civil disobedience movements around the world. Freedom of speech is their playing field and the winnings are the greatest of all: freedom and dignity!
On this score Ryan is no match and only himself to blame.
LOVE it, well said. I couldnt have said it better myself :))))) xxoo
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely fucking brilliant post! Well done. Spread one and all, spread, for the love of all things good and the protection of our future.
ReplyDeletebrilliant piece of writing
ReplyDeleteRyan Giggs... STUD.. we`d all love to fcuk imogen thomas behind our wives back ;)
ReplyDeleteJames:
ReplyDeleteSo, you're okay with adultery but can't bring yourself to type the word 'fuck'? Them's some interesting values you have, Sparky.
@Natalie: "what about if the law that you helped extend is then used to censor something that undeniably is in the public interest - like the Trafigura case?"
ReplyDeleteEvents seem to have moved on now that Mr Justice Eady's report has been published so we don't have to rely on recycled hearsay (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html).
For those interested in the kiss-and-tell story, here's the key part: "Ms Thomas had arranged for photographs to be taken, having already agreed a payment or payments from the newspaper. Despite that, she was still requesting £100,000 from the Claimant."
If the personal privacy issues are your bag, try this: "The courts have an obligation… to discourage blackmailers and to give some protection… where there is a threat of revelation."
For those who don't care about Giggs or Thomas but are more interested in the wider implications (most of us, I suspect), this is the key part: "Personal relationships are entitled to Article 8 protection [but] it is necessary to have regard to the public interest and to the right of citizens generally to receive information. … I have to consider whether … the revelation of this particular information would help to achieve some legitimate social purpose, such as the prevention or detection of crime?"
This all sounds very reasonable, though it in no way absolves Giggs of dipping his wick in the first place. What really troubles me (given this very clear statement of a judge's duty by the judge himself) is how on earth Trafigura ever got its super-injunction, since revelation of that story clearly assisted the detection of crime.
Patrick Neylan - No dear, that's just what Giggs and his lawyers asserted in order to get their injunction. They had to make up this shite: even our out-of-touch judges might have thought twice about issuing the injunction for, "I just nobbed this hot Welsh bird and now the Sun's found out. Can't let the missus know, she'll castrate me!"
ReplyDeletePatrick, yes, lets consider social purpose.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Was the injunction put in place to protect him, his family or the skillfully manufactured image of the “family man role model” for the UK public consumer?
Some might argue the family values image was constructed by the PR marketing directors of the football association (i.e. Giggs parading his children on the pitch etc.) which attracts £ millions of corporate sponsorship fees.
Much worse than playing the human "right to private life card", (and attempt to take Twitter to court/ freedom of speech), is the potentially disgraceful effort (of this injunction) to mislead the UK public. If the injunction had held it would have maintained the misrepresenting of core social values of family ethics in our country in order to protect corporate sponsorship marketing.
It could be said the real motivation of the Giggs injunction was to stop the public from their freedom to choose.
This crime is far worse than betraying his wife and Imogene’s hush money; Giggs was betraying the entire consumer protection act for our country.
The Giggs injunction was about self-gratification and greed on every level.
Imogen played the football culture at their £ game and found the Achilles heel of weaknesses. Remarkably the social purpose in breaking the injunction will clearly work to uphold ethical accountability and transparent marketing to the UK pulbic.
To be clear the social purpose result is occasioned by civil disobedience freedom on twitter that inspired parliamentary privilege.
@Cathi: "No dear": straight in there with the patronising condescension. Were you a 1950s businessman in a former life?
ReplyDeleteYou're sneering at me for posting the judge's exact words, not to exonerate Giggs but to get as close to the facts as possible. We're not allowed to know all the evidence, but presumably the judge saw a lot of that evidence before he came to these conclusions. It's a pity he didn't have as much evidence as you clearly do, because you 'know' Giggs's lawyers made it all up. Would you care to share?
Again, this is not to defend Giggs for getting himself into this situation. I've respected him as a man as well as a footballer for 20 years and I'm hugely disillusioned by his actions, both in bed and in court.
Patronising condescension? No. Humour - for those with a sense thereof! Sneering at you? I don't even know you.
ReplyDeleteCertainly sneering at the antics of a judge trying to influence the law of precedence, and far too receptive to the aggressive arguments of flash lawyers making a killing from rich people who prefer to pay cash for their secret pecadillos.
And yes, certainly sneering at that arrogant 'silencer' Schilling, beaten by the power of the powerless on Twitter. I don't really give a toss about Giggs, he's not worth even the effort of disillusion.
That is reserved for a legal system that has allowed a law intended to protect victims of proper wrongdoing to become contaminated by the big money of flash celebrity lawyers and corporations with massive legal teams trying to cover up their crimes. When the convention was enshrined in British law through the Human Rights Act of 1998, few could predict the dangers of its misuse.
Excellent post Natalie, except for one thing as stated in a previous post by Patrick Neylan.
ReplyDeleteYou've called the one footballer in the Premier League a cunt who has least behaved like one, has more acolades to his name than any other player in Premier League history and if anything you would expect him to act like "vainglorious showpony" ala Cristiano Ronaldo but he never has and never will.
I've been a Man Utd fan for years waiting to see what scandal could possibly be printed about him till now. The man is inherently media shy and prefers to concentrate on his craft. You should do yourself a favour before you go judging people that by your own admission you know nothing of and then have the temerity to call the man a "selfish cunt" several times.
My view is your entitled to your opinion in private but you've thoroughly "pissed me off" with your attitude and clearly ignorant stance - hence go here www . bailii . org / ew /cases /EWHC /QB /2011/ 1232. html and take a look at the background to this case from the judgement itself.
Read it, absorb it possibly with a slice of humble pie when you come to realise as you will that the real cunt here - not just because she possesses one - is Imogen Thomas. I make no apology for Giggs what he did was wrong, but blackmail is not on. He is a very private individual who wanted things to remain that way.
If you have as much decency as intelectual wit, you'll do the decent thing a post some sort of apology here on your blog to Mr Giggs for your vile character assassination of him.
By the way you do come across as an awfully bitter woman with the use of such language - something happen in your past that the public don't know about? Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Let's face does anyone want their dirty laundry exposed in public? No, so who are we too judge.
P.S. let's hope he doesn't find your post as he may just use some heavy handed ignorance of social media to crush you financially.
Roy, don't you think it is not the teensiest bit off that a man cheats on his wife, and then uses his vast fortune to shut the other woman up, knowing full well that because our tabloid press thinks this kind of nonsense is news, they will tear her to pieces whilst he can go back home and carry on. and then when it doesn't go to plan, he threatens to sue everyone in sight?
ReplyDeletei mean, he had a choice not to cheat on his wife.
Hi, Roy.
ReplyDeleteOK, here's a few things:
1. If a person, despite promising to be faithful to one person, is not faithful to them because they are too tempted by attatching their genitalia to that of another person, despite knowing it will hurt their partner and any children they may have, then I think that's the behaviour of a selfish cunt.
2. If a person is so desperate to preserve the (apparently undeserved) squeaky-clean reputation they have built for themselves, that they attempt to extend privacy laws to force impartial platforms to impart information about users, then I think that's the behaviour of a selfish cunt.
3. RE: Imogen Thomas. If the blackmail attempt is true, that's a good reason for an injunction against the media. HOWEVER - what money could she make off the case if the identities are leaked FOR FREE by an anonymous Twitter user? None. So, as far as I'm concerned, we're left with four problems. In the short term, a) (see point 2.). In the long term, b) we have a country that is happy to have a media that, as I said, is perfectly happy to completely and unjustifiably assassinate the characters of some - who have spent YEARS being 'inherently media shy and concentrating on their craft' like, uhm, Chris Jefferies, because they can't afford injunctions (despite this often being a stick in the side of due legal process), but go batshit crazy about a footballer they idolise being exposed as an adulterer because 'Ohh boo hoo, but he never acted like the usual footballing cunt before'. c) We have a media that trades in sex and sleaze and is perfectly happy to pay young women vast sums of money for their stories about 'bonking' celebrities, and d) some young women see this as a valid career choice.
I'm aware I'm going a bit off point here, so, to conclude:
No, Roy. Me swearing does not mean that Daddy didn't love me or anything like that. It means that when overprivileged selfish cunts attempt to create legal precedent to expose those who exposed their previous selfish cuntery, which could have very scary future ramifications, I fully reserve the right to call what I see.
Brilliant response Natalie.
ReplyDelete"You've called the one footballer in the Premier League a cunt who has least behaved like one." an amazing claim, even for an obvious fan like Roy.
No, I'm sorry Giggs, is an assured Cupid Stunt.
Natalie is spot on here. The British tabloids are toxic bullies - the point about this case is not that it is apparently about a willy-waving footballer whose finely-honed gross motor skills apparently have earned him a loyal following prepared to make excuses on his behalf, but the danger that this individual's behaviour will make it more difficult for the few remaining decent journalists to expose the behaviour of the powerful.
ReplyDeleteThe really pathetic thing about all this is Giggs' self-importance. People in this country are losing their jobs, their benefits, their services in the name of ideology - and elsewhere in the world the same ideology is taking their lives. The spectacle of someone paid millions for kicking a ball making it harder to speak truth to power on behalf of the powerless is repellent.
It must be devastating when one's hero turns out to have feet of clay.
ReplyDeleteRoy, (skipping the polite acknowledgements)
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get off calling an intelligent woman who argues her case (correctly I might add) as bitter? Now you have really pissed me off!
If there is one thing that gets up my nose more than lying adulterous man blaming their shame on the woman, it is holier than thou man who insults fearless women by degrading their intelligence views as bitter insecurities!
Sorry Roy but you have shown your colour for who you truly are! It’s you who is the bitter misogynist here.
Roy your manner is such an example as to how men have subjugated women who speak out on principles. It is how women have been kept out of politics for decades and why so few women MPs in the UK!
Everything Natelie has said is clear as a bell. FACT: Giggs squeaky clean family image for Man United brings in ££ corporate sponsorship. (Even though he shagged every woman in town prior to his marriage).
The Injunction was to keep the sponsors on board! Simply follow the money. Giggs is worth £24 million and your deeply offensive tactic to defend him is simply repulsive and worthless.
Damn, looks like I'm late for this one.
ReplyDeleteRoy, If you can't see an adulterer who attempts to legally bully folks into shutting up about him, whilst leaving the woman he adulterated with standing there out in the open like a bloody great archery target (Damn, where's this sentence going? Oh yes…) is a grade-A stupid cunt, then I'm sorry old chap, but you're obviously pretty much of a stupid cunt yourself.
Natalie, a legal question for you. In the court judgement 21st April (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html) Item 4 records the judge's analysis prior to issuing the injunction. He states:
ReplyDelete"Ms Thomas was not represented, and indeed had not been notified of the hearing, since on the evidence I was satisfied that there would otherwise have been a risk of further disclosure of private or confidential information prior to her being served with the order."
The judge has only heard the evidence as presented by the claiment (the deceitful betraying adulterer football hero). There has been no representation of Ms Thomas whatsoever to hear her side. Yet based on this deemed trustworthy evidence the judge (as jury) makes a verdict and decides not to even inform Ms Thomas of the injunction taken place against her.
Has a more significant lapse of judicial process by a judge taken place here? Or can a judge waive the rights for representation of an accused (innocent before proven guilty) on one sided evidence when considering an injunctions?
@Cathi
ReplyDeleteSorry if I misunderstood you. I read "dear" in the context of Cameron's "Calm down dear" to Angela Earle.
I take your point about the wider implications, which are what's really important here. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I'm hoping the courts will follow through on allowing disclosure of what's in the public interest.
If football fans (seemingly a minority here) are looking for something deeper behind all this, it's because Giggs is probably the last footballer you'd expect to behave in this way (after Paul Scholes).