Bbc Name Ryan Giggs

[Kurt Barlow]

To be honest, I think you've rather missed the point.

Why are judges covering up affairs for the rich? Just because they can afford it. The judicial system should apply to all, as opposed being a shop with various products - the richer you are the more you can have access to.

It's not about where Giggs puts his manhood. Although, he's made a spectacular fool of himself.

+100

[interestrateripoff]

How did all these people find out?

Can someone explain exactly what the law is?

If I gossip to someone on the internet is that reporting what has gone on?

Seems to me the judges are trying to do what King Canute demonstrated can't be done.

Will this lead to more attempts to censor the internet?

I think the law means you have to "know" who it was. Did 75000 people on twitter know or merely repeat the gossip? You can only break the injunction if you "know" who the person is, as that information was secret it's highly unlikely 75000 people knew who the injunction was actually by. However the only person who could interpret this is a judge and I bet that no one will test this in a court case for the fear of opening up pandoras box.

Another problem is there simply isn't enough court time to have 75,000 people in court each person is entitled to their own defence, own case etc..., from a govt point of view they won't want the press going on about twitter users clogging up the system with muggers and rapists etc... walking the streets.

[interestrateripoff]

This is the point, some shyster lawyer was hinting that the injunctions were granted to prevent blackmail

This is an absolutely disgusting excuse, because blackmail is illegal and if this was the case the blackmailer should have been prosecuted.

Instead another persons (poor) reputation is dragged through the mud in order to protect another persons (rich) reputation.

The Judiciary and lawyers in this country are interested in only one thing - how much money is in your wallet.

If it was blackmail then why haven't the police been informed? In fact why didn't the judge actually direct his lawyer to contact the police if that was the case? Considering the judges comments why aren't the police investigating automatically.

Thomas got stitched up, the judge never queried Gigg's character being a man who will have had to lie to his wife whilst cheating.

[Ologhai Jones]

Not that it makes a difference to anything, but I don't think I'd recognise Ryan Giggs if I fell over him.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Not that it makes a difference to anything, but I don't think I'd recognise Ryan Giggs if I fell over him.

Yes, this Gigs of which they speak, is it a measurement of online storage capacity?

[arrgee1991]

You can even access the internet via a laptop in McDonalds

How's that going to be traced back?

The laptop itself could be identified (panopticlick), but in all truth it is highly unlikely that anyone would put the effort in unless you were in an Al-Qaeda cell.

In general the likes of the RIAA/BPI will go after the easy targets such as those whose broadband is maxed out with uploads/downloads and can be traced to a particular property. Even then there are enough people who don't have basic protection on their wi-fi, and it is easily cracked, so anyone could upload/download.

[Riedquat]

The laptop itself could be identified (panopticlick), but in all truth it is highly unlikely that anyone would put the effort in unless you were in an Al-Qaeda cell.

In general the likes of the RIAA/BPI will go after the easy targets such as those whose broadband is maxed out with uploads/downloads and can be traced to a particular property. Even then there are enough people who don't have basic protection on their wi-fi, and it is easily cracked, so anyone could upload/download.

So they're unlikely to bother me unless I really stick my neck out (dynamic IP, so they'd have to go at least as far as pestering my ISP). Not for this post, though, since I'm sitting at work waiting for my computer to finish doing something.

[arrgee1991]

So they're unlikely to bother me unless I really stick my neck out..

Yes. They always go for the low hanging fruit except in the case of very serious crime. It would be a waste of resources to track down someone downloading the odd music track in McDonalds. There are plenty of people with laptops/tablets who don't have their own broadband, and just use public networks. They are hard to track down.

[Mrs Bear]

Just out of interest, is there anyone in the universe except me who didn't know who it was until yesterday? I don't Twitter and wasn't interested enough to google it.

Young colleague told me yesterday, about the same time the MP broke it in Parliament.

I will admit I did ask him, since it's a mite irritating to have something plastered all over the news and feel you're the only one who doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Riedquat]

Just out of interest, is there anyone in the universe except me who didn't know who it was until yesterday? I don't Twitter and wasn't interested enough to google it.

No, you're not the only one. I couldn't care less who it actually is (I know now since it's been plastered all over the news). The issues surrounding it are pretty interesting but I can't for the life of me think why anyone much would actually care about who the people involved are (other than to spite the system).

[inflating]

In answer to the OP's question, not in the slightest. I would however like to know how they justify their obscenely high incomes.

[R K]

Not really - this case came to light because of Imogen Thomas being so badly treated by the law.

And it involves extremely important democratic principles.

What 'case'?

Which important democratic principles?

The one where the Murdoch media are above the law? (Let's face it they run the govt. by proxy as it is already - Blue or red)

As for the girl, she's just the patsy who demanded cash after allegedly sh4gging a footballer. Same old snakes with t1ts meme. What else does she do? Ah yes, cry on morning TV........endless talent.

So, which democratic principles? Your right to know who every person in the UK has sex with? Don't be so pathetic.

[Injin]

What 'case'?

Which important democratic principles?

The one where the Murdoch media are above the law? (Let's face it they run the govt. by proxy as it is already - Blue or red)

As for the girl, she's just the patsy who demanded cash after allegedly sh4gging a footballer. Same old snakes with t1ts meme. What else does she do? Ah yes, cry on morning TV........endless talent.

So, which democratic principles? Your right to know who every person in the UK has sex with? Don't be so pathetic.

How about the right to say the truth?

[General Melchett]

How about the right to say the truth?

Feck me..... I'm in absolute agreement with you. (and it seems pretty much everyone else on this thread). WTF is HPC coming to?

In answer to the original question, I refer to Ologhai Jones post

[Riedquat]

How about the right to say the truth?

Indeed. A great demonstration of how trying to restrict is both unjustifiable and counter productive (if there hadn't been any restrictions the tabloids would've gone "Ooh" for a couple of days and everyone would've forgotten this by now).

[R K]

How about the right to say the truth?

Straw man Injin. You usually don't approve of that.

So, tell us, what is the 'truth' concerning Giggs and Thomas and their alleged affair?

You seem to believe everything you're told by the media these days which is a tad disconcerting.

Perhaps you mean the 'truth' issuing from this man's mouth? The MP using parliamentary priveledge to mention Giggs' name when to do so outside would be contempt?

Here's the 'truth' concerning Mr Hemmings from your pals in the media:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328895/Love-cheat-MP-John-Hemmings-200k-loan-paid-YOU.html

[Injin]

Straw man Injin. You usually don't approve of that.

So, tell us, what is the 'truth' concerning Giggs and Thomas and their alleged affair?

You seem to believe everything you're told by the media these days which is a tad disconcerting.

Perhaps you mean the 'truth' issuing from this man's mouth? The MP using parliamentary priveledge to mention Giggs' name when to do so outside would be contempt?

Here's the 'truth' concerning Mr Hemmings from your pals in the media:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328895/Love-cheat-MP-John-Hemmings-200k-loan-paid-YOU.html

No idea what the truth is.

And I am banned from hearing different sides, making it difficult to find out more.

[R K]

No idea what the truth is.

And I am banned from hearing different sides, making it difficult to find out more.

No, you don't.

You're not banned from anything.

Ring up Rupert and ask him what Thomas told him and how much he was paying her. I'm sure it'll be riveting stuff.

No-one is stopping you, fill yer boots.

[Injin]

No, you don't.

You're not banned from anything.

I am banned from hearing different sides. Alright, it's a shit ban I can work around but the effort is still there.

And still wrong.

Ring up Rupert and ask him what Thomas told him and how much he was paying her. I'm sure it'll be riveting stuff.

No-one is stopping you, fill yer boots.

Ignore people, look at principle.

[R K]

I am banned from hearing different sides. Alright, it's a shit ban I can work around but the effort is still there.

And still wrong.

Ignore people, look at principle.

Banned from hearing different sides of what?

Straw men argument again.

You haven't been banned from hearing anything.

Talk sense.............show me where you have been banned from hearing and what it is you think you've been banned from hearing.

You're not a principle so using your own rule you've failed yet again.

And I'm out so talk to yourself, as usual.

[Injin]

Banned from hearing different sides of what?

Straw men argument again.

You haven't been banned from hearing anything.

Talk sense.............show me where you have been banned from hearing and what it is you think you've been banned from hearing.

You're not a principle so using your own rule you've failed yet again.

And I'm out so talk to yourself, as usual.

You are right, i am going to dig at it until i get a coherent answer, which will stop your rant about murdoch.

lets just both imagine I've done the work then, eh?

[Tonkers]

Now Alex Ferguson is overheard and broadcast discussing banning a journalist from a press conference.

Biting the hand that feeds much?

[Daft Boy]

What a farce. As he was cuddling his kids on the pitch the other day, did he believe there was a single person in the crowd who did not know he had been banging an ex-Big Brother media whore?

What a thicko.

Its a wise child that knows its own father

[Guest eight]

nasty...

is this the work of rk, an act of vengeance?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13530027

I doubt many journalists drive Mk. IV escorts. Looks more like the kind of scrapper you would buy cheap just to trash it.

eight

[stormymonday_2011]

Looks like Twitter is willing to hand over posters details and they may face court

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13546847

I did not get the impression from the BBC article that the US owners would be rushing to hand over details of users in this particular kiss and tell civil injunction farce.

It is likely to be different should comments be made on a criminal court case that break the sub judice rules

The owners of Twiiter will be well aware of the fate that has befallen BEBO, MYSPACE and some other social network sites that have fallen out of favour

There are lots of other outfits out there keen to get a share of the micro blogging market

Your rival is only a click away and once users quit your service in numbers the momentum of decline can be unstoppable.

Basically these companies dont have much to offer apart from access to other users. By their every nature it is the punters that make them and break them. Rushing to shag over your posters to save the blushes of some sex crazed premier league footballers or to pander to the pretence of omniscience of the English judiciary is a quick route to internet palookaville.

The wiki article on Microblogging is quite interesting since it highlights that a relatively small group of active users drive the discussions (as is the case with most online forums)

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

Sites that sacrifice these key users to the authorities probably dont have a long term future

Anyway if the UK courts are so stupid as to create Twitter Martyrs then there are several relatively big name individuals who posted on this topic in plain view so they dont need to trawl the companiy's logs for their victims.