Giggs Super Injunction......

[Hectic]

Well, it's been named and for all those who want to talk about it, do so here.

Please leave the twitter thread for just that, news about other United players on twitter.

It's not a football story, and doesn't belong in that forum. Keep all related comments to this one thread please.

Thanks for your patience...Go ahead.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

Cheers Hectic.

But for some reason now that I'm allowed to say it I don't want to anymore.

This is boring.

 

[Ivor Ballokov]

Has Rio said anything funny on Twitter today?

 

[Hectic]

Probably asked Rooney for some legal advice.

Seriously though, am I alone in not caring much about this? I'm more disappointed with how it broke out and the actual timing, compared to the act of what he did.

Maybe I'm a pessimist or skeptic, but these days footballers (well not these days really), just aren't the same, and to look at them like perfect people will probably just end up letting you down.

I'll still judge him on the merit of his football and achievements, as I'm sure all will, but that's all I care about really.

 

[Mick1991]

The presumption of guilt and sanctimonious bollix from journalists, politicians and commentators is sickening. Like rabid dogs dying to get the bit between their teeth all under the guise of 'Public interest'.

I don't think I've heard one person on the telly say 'Hold on, maybe he is innocent and doesn't want his name dragged through the mud?' but no, they have always commented on the side of removed

 

[Ivor Ballokov]

PR consultant Max Clifford told Sky News: "The whole thing is developing into a Whitehall farce because everybody knows who he is.

The winner in all this, is there a more odious little scrote in Britain?

 

[Fergie's Man]

Probably asked Rooney for some legal advice.

Seriously though, am I alone in not caring much about this? I'm more disappointed with how it broke out and the actual timing, compared to the act of what he did.

Maybe I'm a pessimist or skeptic, but these days footballers (well not these days really), just aren't the same, and to look at them like perfect people will probably just end up letting you down.

I'll still judge him on the merit of his football and achievements, as I'm sure all will, but that's all I care about really.

I couldn't care less what he did with HIS life, but without doubt this will be a team issue and a huge pile of ammo for the haters of the club.

 

[phelans shorts]

As we all know it's a nothing story, yeah MP John Hemming has named ********* as CBT, as was expected.

Can we ignore the untrue stories like suing twitter which was never the case, they were just trying to find out unobtrusive details of an account which named him.

Can I add anything naming him should actually say "named by MP John Hemming" as technically that's all that can be said.

 

[Aaron]

As we all know it's a nothing story, yeah MP John Hemming has namedremoved as CBT, as was expected.

Can we ignore the untrue stories like suing twitter which was never the case, they were just trying to find out unobtrusive details of an account which named him.

Can I add anything naming him should actually say "named by MP John Hemming" as technically that's all that can be said.

Of "an" account?

How could you possibly sue one person and ignore the 500,000 others who have also named him?

 

[SteveJ]

I hope he has the game of his life on Saturday, a shitty performance and the stick he'll get will be unreal.

Why? He's had an absolutely exemplary career, been loyal to our club and has rarely if ever let us down performance-wise or off-field. I doubt that his legacy depends on one bad match, let alone the whims and hypocrisy of an amoral press.

 

[MalteseRedDevil]

The papers would love to get the opportunity to bash him in the build up to the final.

Very subtle headlines about him leading the family celebrations. They praise him and list his achievements both on and off the field, setting him up for a fall when they eventually get to reveal him

 

[phelans shorts]

Of "an" account?

How could you possibly sue one person and ignore the 500,000 others who have also named him?

It was just the one, the same account that wrongly announced Jemima Khan the other week.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The presumption of guilt and sanctimonious bollix from journalists, politicians and commentators is sickening. Like rabid dogs dying to get the bit between their teeth all under the guise of 'Public interest'.

I don't think I've heard one person on the telly say 'Hold on, maybe he is innocent and doesn't want his name dragged through the mud?' but no, they have always commented on the side of removed being guilty.

This is true and the presumption of guilt is just as rife on here, a website populated by United fans.

 

[Aaron]

The papers would love to get the opportunity to bash him in the build up to the final.

Very subtle headlines about him leading the family celebrations. They praise him and list his achievements both on and off the field, setting him up for a fall when they eventually get to reveal him

I don't think we can blame the press here. They wanted their pound of flesh weeks ago, it'd been interesting for about 48 hours, then we'd have moved on. Some time in April, it all would have been over.

 

[Hectic]

we can discuss this, but right now we aren't naming the player, regardless of what is happening elsewhere - please adhere to these simple rules. I will be editing out all mentions of said player. If you must mention him, use the 'cbt' alias as before.

 

[rednev]

As we all know it's a nothing story, yeah MP John Hemming has named removedas CBT, as was expected.

Can we ignore the untrue stories like suing twitter which was never the case, they were just trying to find out unobtrusive details of an account which named him.

Can I add anything naming him should actually say "named by MP John Hemming" as technically that's all that can be said.

His lawyers didn't attempt to sue Twitter, but they did request the details of Twitter members, presumably either as an attempt to launch legal action against them or to use it as a public scare tactic (which spectacularly backfired).

And on the last point, the injunction is still technically in place, but it is now unenforceable.

 

[Aaron]

This is true and the presumption of guilt is just as rife on here, a website populated by United fans.

Well people can hardly be tried for having an affair so there's no way of having the 'guilt' proven.

If we had the assumption of innocence, we'd believe everyone in these circumstance, even John Terry and Ashley Cole and David Beckham.

 

[Fergie's Man]

Why? He's had an absolutely exemplary career, been loyal to our club and has rarely if ever let us down performance-wise or off-field. I doubt that his legacy depends on one bad match, let alone the whims and hypocrisy of an amoral press.

Steve.... That is too much common sense..... we all know the Press couldn't care less what a footballing hero he is.

To them he is a famous love cheat that has created a huge media storm and has frustrated their efforts to report the same.


They are going to hammer him!!

 

[stubie]

He's let the club down aswell as his family. This is the sort of negative publicity the club does not need in its most important week of the season.

 

[esmufc07]

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

 

[Aaron]

Steve.... That is too much common sense..... we all know the Press couldn't care less what a footballing hero he is.

To them he is a famous love cheat that has created a huge media storm and has frustrated their efforts to report the same.


They are going to hammer him!!

They're going to hammer him because of this debacle. Footballer with virtually no showbiz profile having an affair, would have been chip paper faster than the headline 'Cannon and Ball invest in stocks'

 

[Donkey's Ears]

He's handled it badly for sure but I won't just slag him off based on the fact he got an injunction to prevent a story from being released in the Sun.

 

[Hectic]

read first post....

 

[Irwinwastheking]

we can discuss this, but right now we aren't naming the player, regardless of what is happening elsewhere - please adhere to these simple rules. I will be editing out all mentions of said player. If you must mention him, use the 'cbt' alias as before.

1> What does 'cbt' stand for??

2> Will some of the guys that were banned over this issue be allowed back? With the week that's in it CL and all that I think you could show some forgiveness now for some very active members.

(maybe they were temp bannings anyway?)

 

[Fergie's Man]

This is true and the presumption of guilt is just as rife on here, a website populated by United fans.

If he was innocent, he has behaved like a very guilty man. Either way, he has brought a shitstorm and it isn't welcome.


Let's see what this week brings.

 

[phelans shorts]

1> What does 'cbt' stand for??

2> Will some of the guys that were banned over this issue be allowed back? With the week that's in it CL and all that I think you could show some forgiveness now for some very active members.

(maybe they were temp bannings anyway?)

CBT was a court given alias for said player.

 

[WeasteDevil]

Nobody actually knows if it's true or not, or what exactly happened. You'll see soon enough if he launches a liable case or not.

 

[prateik]

Tried to put it off until the end of the season
He seems to have sorted things out with his wife, was with him at twice in the last week when she couldve easily avoided it.

Married man shags someone 3-4 times. Not perfect, but there are plenty of people who would

Didnt affect the team, didnt affect his form, didnt create any divisions within the squad. It is his private life and as long as he can sort things out with his missus, I dont care.

about the whole twitter thing, cant be arsed. Dont care

 

[Mick1991]

Well people can hardly be tried for having an affair so there's no way of having the 'guilt' proven.

If we had the assumption of innocence, we'd believe everyone in these circumstance, even John Terry and Ashley Cole and David Beckham.

If he was to come out publicly and deny then what would your stance be? I think only Becks out of that list came out and denied (could be wrong on that).

 

[Red Defence]

Even so, i don't think the manager will be anything other than incandescent with rage, at this point.

In fairness though, anyone who couldn't see this coming needs their head examined. I wonder if removedwas acting on the advice of his own people or in consultation with the club.

Fergie will be feeling fine and focussing on the CL final on Saturday. He old enough and wise enough to know how to handle issues like this with relative ease.

 

[WeasteDevil]

If he was innocent, he has behaved like a very guilty man.

Not if he was simply trying to protect his family, and especially his children, from mindless gossip. As I said, we'll see now if he launches a liable case against whoever publishes this now.

 

[SteveJ]

He's let the club down aswell as his family. This is the sort of negative publicity the club does not need in its most important week of the season.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Still, is it any surprise that this story is being highlighted at such a prime time for the club? It's nothing to do with morals, 'role models', feckless footballers and grab-handing glamour models; it's about selling newspapers, and a distraction from proper news that truly affects people (the economy, for example).

 

[Fergie's Man]

Nobody actually knows if it's true or not, or what exactly happened. You'll see soon enough if he launches a liable case or not.

Is that the same as a libel case?

 

[Hectic]

1> What does 'cbt' stand for??

2> Will some of the guys that were banned over this issue be allowed back? With the week that's in it CL and all that I think you could show some forgiveness now for some very active members.

(maybe they were temp bannings anyway?)

1) Player in question, no idea the names.

2) No, they were given strict warnings not to post or mention anything about the player, they failed to do so.

 

[Widnes]

Not sure why there is such a big deal I thought the judge said something about the injunctions getting granted because she was a bit of lying tart who was trying to blackmail.

Aslong as it doesn't affect his form then it doesn't bother me he is payed to play for football & aslong as he is doing that well he can bang who he wants, yes cheating on your wife maybe wrong but It's not like everyone doesn't know atleast one person who has cheated on a wife/partner so who is that bothered really? this country is just a farce with it's celeb obsessions.

 

[rednev]

Not if he was simply trying to protect his family, and especially his children, from mindless gossip. As I said, we'll see now if he launches a liable case against whoever publishes this now.

If he was innocent and wanted to protect his family, simply releasing a statement of denial is what he would have done. That's what Jemima Khan did when Twitter speculated she was somebody who had taken out another injunction.

He obviously is the person who took out the injunction.

 

[WeasteDevil]

That's the point, it might be true, it might not.

 

[Hectic]

Can posters please stop mentioning his name, read the first post or several bolded ones.

 

[Solius]

It's on BBC news now, surely we can say the name?

 

[esmufc07]

Can posters please stop mentioning his name, read the first post or several bolded ones.

I'm posting from Spain, can I say his name?