Messages

It now seems that the Claimant may well have been "set up" so that photographs could be taken of Ms Thomas going to one or other, or both, of the hotels. Although the position is not yet by any means clear, the evidence before me on 14 April appeared to suggest that Ms Thomas had arranged the hotel rendezvous in collaboration with photographers and/or journalists. He first began to "smell a rat" when she told him at the first April meeting, perhaps feigning innocence, that she had been followed and recognised when she visited the first hotel.

tr**p or not?

Yeah, married man with two kids meets single woman in hotel for extra marital sex...he's a complete tr**p

I'd prefer not to reveal my preference

[Gerard Giggs Terr]

It's amazing the amount of United fans who 'couldn't care less what Giggsy does'! If it was Terry or Gerard however and they'd be the moral guardians of us all!

And its amazing the amount of the ABU brigade are falling over themselves like schoolgirls to get in on the gossip. Gerard Giggs Terry - who gives a shite what they get up to.

Some night out there!!

EG as you ignored my post I can only assume that like a well organised residents group you are going out of your way to take offence.

Assuming you mean post #772, I can honestly say I was not "ignoring" it, out of a desire to take offence or for any other reason. Rather, you will see that I had been trying to respond to other posters in turn, before first, I got overwhelmed by the volume and second, the thread veered way off course.

However, if you really want an answer, here it is.

"EG the Ulster Council is the body which is responsible for outreach and was represented by it's President who shook the Queens hand. Because some County Boards opted out should not be taken as representative of the views of the majority of members. As a life long Gael I don't really care wether Tom Elliott wants to go to matches or not, his recent comments show exactly where he stands. I welcome the Queens visit as a symbolic gesture to our shared history and as a Gael have no issue with it. However I do understand that some events from the recent troubles are still raw for some members e.g. Aiden McAnespie, Crossmaglen's ground, Sean Brown etc... In the same way Unionist victims still hurt. These view points must be respected you can't force healing. But yesterday was a small step along the way. The Irish ethos of the GAA is going to be an impediment to most Unionists embracing it in the short term, but in the long term who knows. Progress though could be heard in the sounds of silence from Sinn Fein and these Countys who did not fully endorse the visit. In the past there would have been significant protest."

In that I am a soccer fan, I am in one sense rather glad to observe the GAA's (frankly abject) failure to appeal to the Unionist community in NI. But leaving aside selfish interests, as a bit of a fan of all sports and someone who wants to see better uinderstanding between people, I wish it were otherwise.

So, considering it is the GAA's stated aim to be open to all in Ireland, how are they doing so far? You clearly see the glass as being "half full". I consider it to be "half empty" (if that).  In support of your contention, you point to the progress whicyh has been made so far, which you believe all the more significant because of the context of McAnespie/Crossmaglen/Brown etc.

But without wishing to appear callous, such grievances have no great significance to, or impact upon, the people whom the GAA professes its anxiety to influence (ordinary Unionists), since as you acknowledge, they/we have hurts and grievances of our own to look to.

And in  any case, if the logjam of mistrust, ignorance and misunderstanding etc is to be broken, the first* move must  surely come from the GAA, since it is no great loss to Unionists if that doesn't happen? In which context, the conscious and deliberate snub by the northern GAA Reps at Croke constitutes, imo, a step backwards   rather than forward, since Unionists may reasonably ask if eg the Queen may go to the Garden of Remembrance and bow her head to the people comemorated there, why cannot those Reps then go to Croke Park and shake her hand?

Would the sky really have fallen in over Clones? 

P.S. It is not the "Irish ethos" of the GAA to which Unionists (may reasonably) object, but rather its Nationalist  ethos.


* - Of course, if the GAA were to extend their hand in friendship and Unionists still refused to reciprocate, then they (GAA) would be justified in concluding that there was no more they could or should reasonably do. However, even if a minority insisted on standing apart, I would not expect that from the generality of Unionists.

[probably one of the few if only slip ups]

Picture of him with his kids on the Indo today. You'd have to feel sorry for his family. In fairness to Giggs its probably one of the few if only slip ups he's made in a long career. Gonna pay dearly for it though.

Giggs moved out of the family home for a short time in 2005 following an alleged affair.  I'd say by the weekend you might be revising your opinion.  The tabloids will probably make him pay dearly for trying to stop them selling more papers.

Why does everybody care so much about it, at least she wasnt seeing one of his club and country team mates!
I see it as a opputunity for all the united bashers to slag off a red legend, to be honest i couldnt care less if giggs cheats on his wife 100 times, as long as he keeps winning trophies for united and as long as he doesnt get stuck into his team mates WAGS

Giggs' wife was previously engaged to his "best friend".  Shagging your best mate's missus?? Disgraceful

No I understand parliamentary privilege what I am saying is the MP didn't name Ryan Giggs as the player with the injunction in the same way as other MP's named  Goodwin last week. What the MP actually did was say Giggs is the player Twitter users have named. He then implied that was correct. From a legal point of view I am surprised the BBC and the Guardian for reporting the story as 'MP names Giggs as the premiership player with the injunction' or worse still 'Giggs is the player with the injunction'. I would have thought both those types of reports would have been in breach of the Super Injunction.

Amazingly since the injunction is still (technically) in place Imogen Thomas cannot name Ryan Giggs as the footballer she claims to have had an affair with.  Law, ass etc.

I see the drip, drip of news has started with Giggs.  One paper reports that before becoming involved with Giggs, his now wife Stacey Cook, was engaged to Giggs' "best friend".

Shagging your best mate's missus??  He really is a lowlife tr**p

Best of all, the law firm Giggs used to make a balls of keeping his name out of the papers was...Schillings!

"Ulick is not the (banned) poster formerly known as Donagh"

Donagh was banned? Why?

Evil Genius a Mod??...Who'd have thunk it

WTF was it with Inda's introduction of Obama   Sounded like he was auditioning to be the DVD trailer voice over man.

[it's impracticable to lock them up for breach of the injunction]

Lib Dem MP John Hemmings named Giggs as the person at the centre of the Imogen Thomas injunction under parliamentary privilege.  He also named Giles Coren as the journalist threatened with jail for revealing on Twitter the name of another Premiership footballer with a super injunction.  The Guardian say they have taken legal advice and have been cleared to name Giggs.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/.

Update:  After also taking legal advice the BBC names Giggs as the man at the centre of the super injunction.

In The clip I heard on the radio earlier he actually said something along the lines of" Ryan Giggs is the Premiership player 75,000 people have said on Twitter is the one with the super injunction, and it's impracticable to lock them up for breach of the injunction".  That's fairly different from Ryan Giggs is the player with the super injunction. As a result from a legal point view I'm surprised at how the media have reported it

I'm all for super injunctions by the way

By naming Giggs they have breached the injunction...ergo...Giggs is the one with the injunction??

[What are Irish privacy laws like?]

That its Ryan Giggs or whoever involved doesn't matter. This has wider implications for all of us. Football isn't as important as this.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/u/14/URFTI0uZ488

What are Irish privacy laws like?

Banty trying to get an injunction as we speak

The Guardian reporting that Giggs is now trying to get an injunction to stop journalists contacting him.  Is there no end to his legal fees budget??

Giggs (or his legal team) should have done a bit of research on this:

The Streisand Effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

I just hope this doesn't distract Utd in the run up to the final now, it is my wish that the press leave him in peace.

That might be a folorn hope Doogie.  The Sun tried to have the injunction overturned earlier today and failed.  They'll probably do a right hatchet job on him tomorrow

Why do they want to name him in there? Surely they have more important things to be talking about?

It's more about a struggle between politicians and the judiciary over the clandestine introduction of a privacy law in the UK.  Giggs is in the firing line because he appears to have taken bad legal advice.