Twitter Thread

[lager loud]

By putting his hands up and admitting it was true or untrue. What he has done is instead of being next weeks chip paper and only in the UK (who given his boy next door image, he would have been forgiven) he has now turned himself into the most ridiculed man on the planet and the fall out from that is his wife and children will suffer ten times as much and if the injunction is to be believed that is what he was trying to protect his family from.

He and his legal team made 2 fatal errors, firstly claiming blackmail, that is a criminal offence with long prison sentences if true he should have gone to the police and secondly the injunction against twitter must be one of the most ridiculous legal decisions of all time.

As for lack of public interest here, morally I as said he profited from his boy next door image, so actually there is some public interest involved. Also had he admitted the truth originally the media would have been viewed as the bad boy here, now because of his and his ridiculous legal teams attempts to shut the world up there is only one bad boy. I have no sympathy whatsoever my dad used to say "honesty is the best policy".

But simply by "confessing or denying" he would have lost his right to privacy, as the information/allegation would be in the public domain.

Tactically his decisions may have been wrong, because it's now clear that this sort of injunction won't work. That doesn't change the principle that (IMO) he shouldn't have been put in that position in the first place.

As far as the boy next door image is concerned, I don't believe the profit he makes from his public image is a strong enough reason to cost him his privacy. I've no idea how big a part that image had in getting him endorsements, but at the end of the day all his contracts have been with private companies. So unless you think we have a right to know everything about everyone who works for any company so that we can make a moral decision about whose trainers we buy or which football club we support, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Personally, I'd draw the line at criminal acts, and anything which could have a significant impact on the public (Fred Goodwin might be an interesting borderline case here). So, for instance, if City signed a Marlon King I think it's reasaonable that I should know about his criminal record so that I could decide whether to spend any more money at City (personally, I wouldn't for as long as he was there). But, morally unpleasant as it might be, I don't think a footballer's philandering is serious enough to justify an invasion of privacy.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But simply by "confessing or denying" he would have lost his right to privacy, as the information/allegation would be in the public domain.

Tactically his decisions may have been wrong, because it's now clear that this sort of injunction won't work. That doesn't change the principle that (IMO) he shouldn't have been put in that position in the first place.

As far as the boy next door image is concerned, I don't believe the profit he makes from his public image is a strong enough reason to cost him his privacy. I've no idea how big a part that image had in getting him endorsements, but at the end of the day all his contracts have been with private companies. So unless you think we have a right to know everything about everyone who works for any company so that we can make a moral decision about whose trainers we buy or which football club we support, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Personally, I'd draw the line at criminal acts, and anything which could have a significant impact on the public (Fred Goodwin might be an interesting borderline case here). So, for instance, if City signed a Marlon King I think it's reasaonable that I should know about his criminal record so that I could decide whether to spend any more money at City (personally, I wouldn't for as long as he was there). But, morally unpleasant as it might be, I don't think a footballer's philandering is serious enough to justify an invasion of privacy.

I suggest you ask many of his sponsors that question and I bet that they will not be as forgiving as you appear to be, I suspect the worldwide ridicule this has attracted will see many of them jump ship and serves him right, one last thing be totally honest do you really believe his primary objective was protecting his family or protecting his 'boy next door' image?, in light of what has happend I know where my vote would go.

[Redcliffe 78]

and the people who pay him millions for his 'boy next door image' and the millions of parents who buy products the he endorses, there is a public interest here.

Nail on the head, ask any fan in World football to name a Welsh footballer?, he has ruined his reputation and this will not go away a new law will be brought in over this sad end to a great player.

[screech]

Isn't it great being the MP who spoke out about this when he can hide behind Parliamentary priviledges, pity the slimy wan...r didn't want to air his views when his mates in Parliament were putting their hands in the till claiming for anything and everything.

[Fiale]

None of that changes the principle that IMO none of this was the Sun's business in the first place. There is no public interest here, just public curiosity. How else could Giggs try to protect his right to a private life?

He has a right to a private life with his family, the second he decides to **** someone else then tough luck.

If the person he is shagging behind his wifes back decides she wants to tell people about it then that is her right. If you don't want people (or your kids) to know your a liar and cheat - then simply do not lie and cheat.

Worse do not threaten to put people in jail for telling the truth when it is your actions that caused the story in the first place.

As to those who are still spouting nonsense about the case, if your not sure of why the injunction was issued you can see it here

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html&query=ctb&method=boolean#disp1

[WellRedPhil]

I also don't understand why he didn't just admit to it at the beginning. as others have said the papers would've been bored within the week and no one would really have cared, bar his family of course. However now he looks a tad weird for going to such extremes and with talk of even suing twitter users he's come across as almost a little creepy. If he wants to have an affair he has just as much right as anybody and who are we to judge, yet by doing all of this he has only made things worse.

[Abraham Romanovich]

It's about how some journalists can make some money by selling papers. And some publicists. And how some women can make money by sleeping with famous people (I think there's a name for that profession).

A politician puts him/herself in the public eye, and part of that can be about making an issue of his/her moral principles, so if they are known to be hypocritical they're fair game, as this knowledge could affect voters' intentions. Apart from real hypocrisy, though, I think even politicians should be entitled to keep their private lives private.

A footballer's private life has nothing to do with their job, and they are employed by private companies (so even if their work is affected , it's a matter for their club rather than anyone else). I've never seen an argument that convinces me that this sort of thing is any of my business.

Would you feel the same if you were the subject of this sort of thing? Or would you think that it was a private matter that you should be able to sort out with your family? And would you think it was OK to subject your children to have to put up with the taunts of their schoolmates so that Max Clifford, Rupert Murdoch and a few slappers can make a killing, and so that a few million people can have a good snigger?

Freedom of the press is of course an essential part of living in a democracy. So the Sun should be free to say whatever it wants (or, in reality, what Rupert Murdoch thinks) about the government, the opposition, the economy, the price of eggs, the prospects of humans landing on Mars in the next century and lots of other stuff. It's even important that the BNP gets a hearing.

But to suggest that knowing who a footballer has been humping is part of the same principle is nonsense.

Anyone in the public eye is fair game, I do agree that footballers and suchlike come at the bottom end of the scale. However, I can't agree that if they commit an indiscretion and it is discovered they can pay for an injunction and the public remain blissfully ignorant.

It is only newsworthy when a high profile name is involved as they earn millions in salary and endorsements and their name appears on kids shirts throughout the world.

A law must be absolute it must apply to everyone you cannot create a situation whereby a footballer is exempt while a politician is not .

The tabloid press is not perfect but I far prefer to have their intrusiveness than the alternative of wealthy individuals being able to surpress information which shows them in a bad light..

[Redcliffe 78]

Isn't it great being the MP who spoke out about this when he can hide behind Parliamentary priviledges, pity the slimy wan...r didn't want to air his views when his mates in Parliament were putting their hands in the till claiming for anything and everything.

He has opened a can of worms and from A LIB DEM surprise, surprise, i.m surprised he wasn't hypaventilling (don't know how to spell it when he said it)

[lager loud]

I suggest you ask many of his sponsors that question and I bet that they will not be as forgiving as you appear to be, I suspect the worldwide ridicule this has attracted will see many of them jump ship and serves him right, one last thing be totally honest do you really believe his primary objective was protecting his family or protecting his 'boy next door' image?, in light of what has happend I know where my vote would go.

I don't know what his motives were - you may be right. So does that mean that any aspect of anyone's private life is fair game if they work? Or is this something that only applies to famous people? or the rich? or only to sexual indiscretions?

I have nothing to forgive him for as it's none of my business.

[lager loud]

Anyone in the public eye is fair game, I do agree that footballers and suchlike come at the bottom end of the scale. However, I can't agree that if they commit an indiscretion and it is discovered they can pay for an injunction and the public remain blissfully ignorant.

It is only newsworthy when a high profile name is involved as they earn millions in salary and endorsements and their name appears on kids shirts throughout the world.

A law must be absolute it must apply to everyone you cannot create a situation whereby a footballer is exempt while a politician is not .

The tabloid press is not perfect but I far prefer to have their intrusiveness than the alternative of wealthy individuals being able to surpress information which shows them in a bad light..

Up to a pointI agree with your last paragraph, and there are plenty of things that I wouldn't want the rich and famous to be able to hide. I just don't think that infidelity is one of them, for someone who (whatever his public image might be) hasn't, as far as I know, made a point of upholding any particular moral standards.

I really don't think that someone's earnings, or where they come from, is significant for this sort of indiscretion. As I said in another post, if he'd done something illegal, fair enough.

[Fiale]

Well his actions have earned him an update on Wikipedia - as its one of the largest online (or any) resources for finding information in the whole world I can only say he has truly shot himself in the foot - anyone looking to hear about him, history now can see this for eternity... bet the bite the bullet and let people forget it in a week or two looks like the better option now.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Giggs#Personal_life

[spudski]

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Up to a pointI agree with your last paragraph, and there are plenty of things that I wouldn't want the rich and famous to be able to hide. I just don't think that infidelity is one of them, for someone who (whatever his public image might be) hasn't, as far as I know, made a point of upholding any particular moral standards.

I really don't think that someone's earnings, or where they come from, is significant for this sort of indiscretion. As I said in another post, if he'd done something illegal, fair enough.

The total immorality of this story is, she claims that she never stated she would or intended to go to the press when this affair ended. She claims he took out this injunction as an insurance policy. Also the Welsh ***** because he is rich and famous can afford to take this super injunction to protect his anonymity but name her with impunity (just read the actual judgement, she is named throughout that judgement) because she can't afford a super injunction and accuse her of blackmail into the bargain is a disgrace and reason enough for this scumbag to be named and shamed even for his minor infidelity. There were 2 people in the affair and one is a coward and the other has been treated unfairly by another rich and famous footballer who thinks that the old male addage (pun intended) that an upright cock has no conscience is a good enough excuse.

As a father and a grand father, I would hope that my daughter and grand daughters would never end up in this position (again pun intended) however if they did I for one would want to kick the living shit out of this toady welsh egotistical coward for the way he has just thrown her to the sharks.

[lager loud]

The total immorality of this story is, she claims that she never stated she would or intended to go to the press when this affair ended. She claims he took out this injunction as an insurance policy. Also the Welsh ***** because he is rich and famous can afford to take this super injunction to protect his anonymity but name her with impunity (just read the actual judgement, she is named throughout that judgement) because she can't afford a super injunction and accuse her of blackmail into the bargain is a disgrace and reason enough for this scumbag to be named and shamed even for his minor infidelity. There were 2 people in the affair and one is a coward and the other has been treated unfairly by another rich and famous footballer who thinks that the old male addage (pun intended) that an upright cock has no conscience is a good enough excuse.

As a father and a grand father, I would hope that my daughter and grand daughters would never end up in this position (again pun intended) however if they did I for one would want to kick the living shit out of this toady welsh egotistical coward for the way he has just thrown her to the sharks.

All getting a bit specific here, but I've just read that judgement. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear that the judge believed she had given permission to The Sun to identify her in the original article - so Giggs didn't name her in the first instance. The judge says it's "ironic" that she should then complain about being named whilst he wasn't. The judgement also clearly states that "the claimant" didn't describe what was going on as blackmail, but that's what the evidence seemed to be pointing to. The judge also says (section 12) that he thinks there is ample reason not to trust her account of things.

I don't know any more than is in that judgement, as I haven't read any of the Press coverage (and wouldn't believe anything I read in the Sun without corroboration anyway). Based on the judgement, though (which is the opinion of the judge at the time) I would say the likeliest explanation of events is that she tried to kiss and tell, and possibly tried to get some money out of him.

None of which makes what he did in having an affair morally defensible, but does paint a rather different picture of the court case from the one you describe.

As a father, if my daughter slept with someone and tried to make money out of it I hope I'd react in the same way I would if she told me she was a prostitute - because it's effectively the same thing - which would be to say "I love you, but you should get yourself a proper job."

Anyway, signing off now. Not sure this belongs in the football forum, but nice to have a proper debate without it turning into a slanging match.

[Nibor]

The total immorality of this story is, she claims that she never stated she would or intended to go to the press when this affair ended. She claims he took out this injunction as an insurance policy. Also the Welsh ***** because he is rich and famous can afford to take this super injunction to protect his anonymity but name her with impunity (just read the actual judgement, she is named throughout that judgement) because she can't afford a super injunction and accuse her of blackmail into the bargain is a disgrace and reason enough for this scumbag to be named and shamed even for his minor infidelity. There were 2 people in the affair and one is a coward and the other has been treated unfairly by another rich and famous footballer who thinks that the old male addage (pun intended) that an upright cock has no conscience is a good enough excuse.

As a father and a grand father, I would hope that my daughter and grand daughters would never end up in this position (again pun intended) however if they did I for one would want to kick the living shit out of this toady welsh egotistical coward for the way he has just thrown her to the sharks.

So remind me, who asked who for money and who went to the press?

If she was shagging a married man (rather than just lying and blackmailing) she's got no ******* cause for complaint and deserves what she gets.

Bottom line is, super injunctions are stupid, she's either a liar or a slag and Giggs is either innocent or a scumbag. You've no idea which.

[Fiale]

All getting a bit specific here, but I've just read that judgement. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear that the judge believed she had given permission to The Sun to identify her in the original article - so Giggs didn't name her in the first instance. The judge says it's "ironic" that she should then complain about being named whilst he wasn't. The judgement also clearly states that "the claimant" didn't describe what was going on as blackmail, but that's what the evidence seemed to be pointing to. The judge also says (section 12) that he thinks there is ample reason not to trust her account of things.

I don't know any more than is in that judgement, as I haven't read any of the Press coverage (and wouldn't believe anything I read in the Sun without corroboration anyway). Based on the judgement, though (which is the opinion of the judge at the time) I would say the likeliest explanation of events is that she tried to kiss and tell, and possibly tried to get some money out of him.

None of which makes what he did in having an affair morally defensible, but does paint a rather different picture of the court case from the one you describe.

As a father, if my daughter slept with someone and tried to make money out of it I hope I'd react in the same way I would if she told me she was a prostitute - because it's effectively the same thing - which would be to say "I love you, but you should get yourself a proper job."

Anyway, signing off now. Not sure this belongs in the football forum, but nice to have a proper debate without it turning into a slanging match.

The thing is blackmail is illegal, and the case can be brought to prosecution without naming the parties involved. So if she was blackmailing him, then charge her. This of course will not happen as we all know she was not blackmailing him (unless instead of having a chance getting off free she decided to ruin her life on purpose). There is also the case she was not told of the 2nd trial date, so could not defend herself. Since when can someone be put on all intents and purposes trial without being told about the proceedings, or being given a chance to defend themselves ?

The whole thing stinks....

The end of it is - if you sign a Non disclosure agreement or something similar you should keep quite - else everyone has the right to tell the truth without the threat of being jailed for it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

super injunctions are stupid

Well, I think this is something we can all agree on!

[Nibor]

The thing is blackmail is illegal, and the case can be brought to prosecution without naming the parties involved. So if she was blackmailing him, then charge her. This of course will not happen as we all know she was not blackmailing him (unless instead of having a chance getting off free she decided to ruin her life on purpose). There is also the case she was not told of the 2nd trial date, so could not defend herself. Since when can someone be put on all intents and purposes trial without being told about the proceedings, or being given a chance to defend themselves ?

No, we don't and in fact the judge who granted the injunction seemed to think it was a distinct possibility.

If this affair did happen, you can bet your bottom dollar that Mrs Giggs would find out anyway and prefer not to have it in the paper.

The only person who benefits from it being published is the tart that shagged a married man isn't it?

Why should she earn money for that?

The whole thing stinks....

Totally agree.

The end of it is - if you sign a Non disclosure agreement or something similar you should keep quite - else everyone has the right to tell the truth without the threat of being jailed for it.

If you allow that these types of damaging allegations which can't really be proven may be false - how do you protect people from false accusation? How many times have we seen outright lies published in red tops who later have to pay compensation and publish a quiet apology on page 27?

Anyway - why shouldn't we have privacy? There is no public interest case in stories like this. I mean, I know people like a gossip but I'm talking about how publishing a kiss and tell could possibly be of general benefit to the public?

It can't, so the papers should simply be banned from covering private lives. People need to learn not to make up these fantasy heavy role model characters in their head and then be all disappointed when they're not quite as imagined.

Giggs is a footballer, and he's been the best in the world over the last two decades. That's all you should expect of him - he's not a marriage counsellor or a preacher or someone who has to make moral judgements on your behalf like a politician so how he conducts his personal life is nobody's business but his and his family's.

[Mr Popodopolous]

It can't, so the papers should simply be banned from covering private lives. People need to learn not to make up these fantasy heavy role model characters in their head and then be all disappointed when they're not quite as imagined.

All well and good, but people do- rightly or wrongly- view footballers and other public figures as role models. Especially kids. This can help them get endorsements, as pointed out by EMB and others. As for privacy law- surely a global agreement would be needed for this, or it'd be pointless- King Canute springs to mind. Besides, these superinjunctions can gag quite serious, non tittle tattle based activities, as our judges seem to be either unable or unwilling to distinguish between the two.Open justice is a must IMO.

[Nibor]

All well and good, but people do- rightly or wrongly- view footballers and other public figures as role models. Especially kids. This can help them get endorsements, as pointed out by EMB and others.

Yeah I've heard that before and don't agree. Let me put it this way, your average 7 year old will continue to believe Ryan Giggs is a fantastic footballer and want to play like him and buy the boots he wears irrespective of whether he nobs everything with a pulse or not. Your average 7 year old will not, when faced with a moral dilemma, think "What would Giggsy do?" will he?

People will start talking about it being unfair for somebody in the public eye to "portray" themselves in some way and that they deserve it for not living up to their image. I think the people who take such delight in toppling public figures from pedestals are either upset at having the false image they've constructed of somebody shattered or just generally one of those the bitter types who think they've been hard done by in life and resent those more successful.

IMO Giggs doesn't really do anything other than portray himself as a great footballer. I've never seen him promote himself as a bastion of moral fortitude or lecture anybody on sexual promiscuity.

In any case, even if people did find those sorts of fantasies useful, why does it help to fracture them?

As for privacy law- surely a global agreement would be needed for this, or it'd be pointless- King Canute springs to mind. Besides, these superinjunctions can cover non tittle tattle based activities, as our judges seem unable to distinguish between the two.

Other countries have much better privacy laws that seem to work. They also have much more relaxed and understanding approaches to the divide between public and private life. Interesting bit is which came first?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Yeah I've heard that before and don't agree. Let me put it this way, your average 7 year old will continue to believe Ryan Giggs is a fantastic footballer and want to play like him and buy the boots he wears irrespective of whether he nobs everything with a pulse or not. Your average 7 year old will not, when faced with a moral dilemma, think "What would Giggsy do?" will he?

People will start talking about it being unfair for somebody in the public eye to "portray" themselves in some way and that they deserve it for not living up to their image. I think the people who take such delight in toppling public figures from pedestals are either upset at having the false image they've constructed of somebody shattered or just generally one of those the bitter types who think they've been hard done by in life and resent those more successful.

IMO Giggs doesn't really do anything other than portray himself as a great footballer. I've never seen him promote himself as a bastion of moral fortitude or lecture anybody on sexual promiscuity.

In any case, even if people did find those sorts of fantasies useful, why does it help to fracture them?

When you put it like that, yeah they're unlikely to turn to him for moral guidance. He may not have self-promoted in this way, but he does seem to have the image for some reason- well he had the image. There will doubtless be countless references on google if you type in 'Giggs, family man' etc. I dpn't tend to jump on the moral panic bandwagon, but some might say that Giggs and others have a profile in the public eye, and use the media for their own ends so can't complain if exposed in this manner. Interesting debate and diversity of views from a legal angle too.

Other countries have much better privacy laws that seem to work. They also have much more relaxed and understanding approaches to the divide between public and private life. Interesting bit is which came first?

Yeah, our privacy laws are a bit of a mess. Nonetheless, to have any chance of stopping stuff disseminating on Twitter, a global agreement would surely be a must- whatever Eady thinks, his jurisdiction does not extend to the rest of the world for a case like this. It needs clarification at the very least I think.

[screech]

If you allow that these types of damaging allegations which can't really be proven may be false - how do you protect people from false accusation? How many times have we seen outright lies published in red tops who later have to pay compensation and publish a quiet apology on page 27?

Agree with that. How many times do you see on the front page with the bird with her left tit out with the headline

HAD 36 HOUR WILD SEX (It's always wild sex, why they cant have normal sex is weird) and the following week a measly little The Sun wishes to apologies for falsely naming Mr X on some page next to the horoscopes.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

So remind me, who asked who for money and who went to the press?

As you said we have no idea, the judgement uses the word believe/elieved a lot and is the version of events from only his perspective and of course the bits his legal team told him to say.

If she was shagging a married man (rather than just lying and blackmailing) she's got no ******* cause for complaint and deserves what she gets.

and if he has been caught out as a married man and it's TRUE he also deserves what he get's, that is the chance you take when you embark on an affair with a reality star whose only talent is a pair of big tits and no visible means of support.

Bottom line is, super injunctions are stupid, she's either a liar or a slag and Giggs is either innocent or a scumbag. You've no idea which.

incredibly stupid and now proved to be totally unworkable, hopefully this law which is only for the rich and famous and is not reliant on evidence but mainly belief and it is not investigated to check it's voracity and is totally one sided, should be scrapped now.

[slartibartfast]

Agree with that. How many times do you see on the front page with the bird with her left tit out with the headline

HAD 36 HOUR WILD SEX (It's always wild sex, why they cant have normal sex is weird) and the following week a measly little The Sun wishes to apologies for falsely naming Mr X on some page next to the horoscopes.

Yes, what is this WILD SEX?

I assume it is similar to when I broach the subect to Mrs Slarti and she tends to go off on one!!

[Nibor]

I feel fairly confident that Giggs didn't go to the press or ask her for money. Who benefits from her story being sold to the press? Only the press, and one other person.

I agree if he did it he deserves what he gets - but his wife and kids don't. That's why we need properly legislated and enforced privacy laws rather than this ridiculous injunction situation.

[SC_Red]

Gossip sells. always has and always will.

People can argue the rights and wrongs and papers can pretend its a freedom issue, but the bottom line is it sells papers and people love to read it.

whatever the truth of it Giggs would of been better taking a leaf out of Beckhams book and just accepting it goes with the territory and getting on with his life.

[downendcity]

I feel fairly confident that Giggs didn't go to the press or ask her for money. Who benefits from her story being sold to the press? Only the press, and one other person.

I agree if he did it he deserves what he gets - but his wife and kids don't. That's why we need properly legislated and enforced privacy laws rather than this ridiculous injunction situation.

Giggs is no mug, and as a celebrity in the public eye he knew exactly what the fall out would be - both to him and his family - if news of the affair got into the press. I agre that a celebnritiy's family do not deserve the hurt that comes their way in cases like this, but unfortunately it comes with the terriitory. If Giggs ( or any celebrity) wants to protect his family from media hurt and embarassment then then the only fail safe way would be not to start an affair in the first place. The actions of the women are a smokescreen for Giggs' original choice to cheat on his wife and family, as I presume she didn't blackmailed him into it!

If any married man sets out on an affair he knows that he risks destroying his family, whether or not he is in the public eye. Why should Giggs or any other celebrity be accorded any more favourable consideration than you or I?

[funky monkey]

I would pi$$ myself with laughter if giggs came out and said " that me and my wife have an open relationship and this was the way we both would like our relationship to be.And our marriage is as strong as its ever been and we both very happy, also this is not the first person i have slept with whilst married and it certainly wont be the last ".

Personally i think he is absolute class and been a model pro footballer. who knows what the situation and state of his private life is. private being the main word there.

[Nibor]

Giggs is no mug, and as a celebrity in the public eye he knew exactly what the fall out would be - both to him and his family - if news of the affair got into the press. I agre that a celebnritiy's family do not deserve the hurt that comes their way in cases like this, but unfortunately it comes with the terriitory. If Giggs ( or any celebrity) wants to protect his family from media hurt and embarassment then then the only fail safe way would be not to start an affair in the first place. The actions of the women are a smokescreen for Giggs' original choice to cheat on his wife and family, as I presume she didn't blackmailed him into it!

You and I don't even know if there was an affair or if there was just a blackmail attempt.

"It comes with the territory" is not a good argument.

If any married man sets out on an affair he knows that he risks destroying his family, whether or not he is in the public eye. Why should Giggs or any other celebrity be accorded any more favourable consideration than you or I?

I haven't suggested any more favourable consideration and agree there shouldn't be. I think there should be privacy laws that apply to everybody.

[Guest]

I think SC Red called it right, Beckham just brushed off the allegations of Rebecca Loos and we don't know if that's got anymore truth than this one. The difference is Beckham just let it run and within a week or so everyone had forgotten about it. Sadly Giggs will always be known as both one of the best players of his generation but also the man who tried to keep said allegations out of the press.