BensGrandad
New member
If that is the case how did he qualify to play for an England youth team which I am sure he did, not arguing just enquiring.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
NSFG - Gyan Riggs
- Thread starter CHAPPERS
- Start date
If that is the case how did he qualify to play for an England youth team which I am sure he did, not arguing just enquiring.
ATFC Seagull
Aberystwyth Town FC
Because he was at school in England, which is how the England schoolboys is selected.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
a sad and strange indictment of people in this country. why do you want him or anyone to have their reputation ruined? not that i think it would make a jot of diffence to the memory of his footballing, i note that all this hasn't impacted his game.
I don't have any issue with him or his private life, but the sychophantic canonisation of Saint Ryan is a bit much to take. Winning SPOTY 18 months ago on the back of half a dozen decent games was the crowning example.
Lord Bamber
Legendary Chairman
Scottish Sunday Herald publish Giggs photo with his eyes blacked out (wonder if this is GaGa makeup?) as the player involved.
acrossthepond
Active member
You have to be Welsh - sorry boyo...Can anyone bang her or do you have to be called giggs? if so, wheres the q? can i go last.?
ben andrews' girlfriend
Nurse Laura
Hehehe
*allegedly*
*allegedly*
Common as Mook
Not Posh as Fook
- Jul 26, 2004
- 5,642
This
DT Withdean
New member
- Mar 5, 2011
- 1,089
Spot on.
After shagging around for years as a single guy, he then carefully crafting with advisors the image of the reformed settled-down family man, enhancing his image rights = ££££.
No crime committed, but he can't have it both ways in using the media for a false image, and then try to block them for exposing the lie.
NMH
Banned
I wonder how different the sympathies would be if he was BUMMING some geezer - he'd be getting the "sensitive gay lad, deserves to have his privacy protected, he's not 'out' and the media would be wrong to do that to him"
On the Left Wing
KIT NAPIER
May I suggest that Bozza or a Mod DELETE this entire thread now or NSC and Bozza could be is serious legal trouble
ben andrews' girlfriend
Nurse Laura
They were saying on the news yesterday that it's the sources itself that can get into trouble - if you're repeating what has already been said then it's ok.
On the Left Wing
KIT NAPIER
AS a newspaper editor of some 20 years standing (with full legal training) that is not the case. The original injunction applies to all English and Welsh media (not Scotland because they have a different legal system and hence the Herald front page). NSC can be viewed as UK online media. To breach an injunction is a serious criminal offence and if convicted can lead to a VERY heavy fine and imprisonment. That said, the unnamed footballer may well be seeking to recall the injunction today or tomorrow so he can go to California and take legal action against Twitter and the author of the original tweet.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
Technically this thread could put NSC in trouble. Even the Sunday Herald kept this front page off the web, ie what could be seen outside Scotland.
The reality is that this player has far bigger concerns than this board, these is absolutely no way at this stage of the game his lawyers would bother with us, the reach is very low in relative terms, and the damage slight. Legally, you could also argue that the majority of readers already knew.
Obviously this has reached farce proportions, I am one of those who thinks the privacy laws are being totally abused by footballers/celebs. They are not there to protect them over affairs, I think that should be a free for all. If you get found out, tough.
The answer, IF you're that bothered about damage to your reputation, is not to do it. For me privacy is there to protect, say people who are victims of a terrible and unsolicited family tragedy from press intrusion.
However, while I am not a fan of 'paid-for' privacy, I would defend anyone's right to protect their reputation from being libelled. Apart from in a clearly satirical context, you can't just lie about people in widely-seen forums and media that could do them real damage, and if you do, you risk paying for it.
One of the problems we are seeing with the social media phenomenon is people essentially put in a position of power and responsibility over 'words' without the right training. Formerly, the only way you could reach thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people was through being a print or broadcast journalist. All those people had/have training in media law. Now you have enthusiastic amateurs with little or no knowledge of libel/defamation law getting themselves in trouble. It's a bit like putting someone on the frontline at work without the correct H&S training, an accident waiting to happen. Bizarrely, much as I have no time for this footballer's privacy, I can see him having a case against Twitter as an organisation for contempt. It's just whether it's worth pursuing for the grief.
The reality is that this player has far bigger concerns than this board, these is absolutely no way at this stage of the game his lawyers would bother with us, the reach is very low in relative terms, and the damage slight. Legally, you could also argue that the majority of readers already knew.
Obviously this has reached farce proportions, I am one of those who thinks the privacy laws are being totally abused by footballers/celebs. They are not there to protect them over affairs, I think that should be a free for all. If you get found out, tough.
The answer, IF you're that bothered about damage to your reputation, is not to do it. For me privacy is there to protect, say people who are victims of a terrible and unsolicited family tragedy from press intrusion.
However, while I am not a fan of 'paid-for' privacy, I would defend anyone's right to protect their reputation from being libelled. Apart from in a clearly satirical context, you can't just lie about people in widely-seen forums and media that could do them real damage, and if you do, you risk paying for it.
One of the problems we are seeing with the social media phenomenon is people essentially put in a position of power and responsibility over 'words' without the right training. Formerly, the only way you could reach thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people was through being a print or broadcast journalist. All those people had/have training in media law. Now you have enthusiastic amateurs with little or no knowledge of libel/defamation law getting themselves in trouble. It's a bit like putting someone on the frontline at work without the correct H&S training, an accident waiting to happen. Bizarrely, much as I have no time for this footballer's privacy, I can see him having a case against Twitter as an organisation for contempt. It's just whether it's worth pursuing for the grief.
Record-breaking Ryan Giggs leads family celebrations as Man United wins another title | Mail Online
Such a shame... great footballer, fantastic acheivements but will be known for this whole 'episode'
Such a shame... great footballer, fantastic acheivements but will be known for this whole 'episode'
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
How are media organisations supposed to know there is a super-injunction on a certain piece of information? serious question, if every website or blog is considered to be media
On the Left Wing
KIT NAPIER
My own legal warning aside: I agree with all of this
