[Archived] Twitter

[deftangel]

oh yea haha

is there an official one then?

Not really, at least not one that's in proper use.

[Mc Love]

our gangster owner Barry White

http://twitter.com/#!/Balaji_Rao

[HemelRover]

our gangster owner Barry White

http://twitter.com/#!/Balaji_Rao

or not.

[Mc Love]

That footballer is trending on twitter and they wont put it up! Spoilsports

[philipl]

So have I got this right. You open a Twitter account and you get a shot at Imogen Thomas?

[Mc Love]

Ha ha post of the year so far philip!

[Tim Southampton Rover]

So have I got this right. You open a Twitter account and you get a shot at Imogen Thomas?

Awesome. What gun can we use?

[Ricky]

If Twitter can get sued so can we!!!

A long time poster really should know better.

[Mc Love]

Oops sorry!

[tony gale's mic]

Ryan Giggs.

Not that we didn't know already...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847

[Beta Ray Bill]

Nope, all the BBC are reporting is that an MP named Giggs as the person he believed was involved. When reporting the actual case its still an unnamed married premier league footballer...

[Grabbi Graeme]

Would of made more sense for the unnamed married premier league footballer to just let the newspaper run the story, it would of been forgotten news in no time.

Doing it this way has just strung it out longer, the MP only named him, as the footballer who's name has been put on Twitter was trying to sue Twitter and the people who had circulated his name on the website.

The Sun newspaper tried again to get the injunction lifted after the MP had named Giggs in parliment, but that request has again been turned down, will be interesting to see what happens next.

[Paul]

what are people`s views on these twitter 'super injunction' busters?

Completely and utterly disinterested. Why should I care who slept with who? IF it is Ryan Giggs I would be disappointed in him as a person but other than that who cares.

If these super injunctions related to important matters the issue would be different. As it stands it's about nothing other than rag newspapers wanting to publish more scurrilous rumours and wealthy individuals wishing to hide their poor behaviour.

Phone tapping anyone?

[cmb211087]

There is another footballer, and a drunken BBC guy exposed him on twitter. Plays for Man City. Have fun :-)

[Grabbi Graeme]

Completely and utterly disinterested. Why should I care who slept with who? IF it is Ryan Giggs I would be disappointed in him as a person but other than that who cares.

If these super injunctions related to important matters the issue would be different. As it stands it's about nothing other than rag newspapers wanting to publish more scurrilous rumours and wealthy individuals wishing to hide their poor behaviour.

Phone tapping anyone?

Hit the nail on the head there, these stories are not really in the public interest, as you say just the people who can afford it trying to cover their seedy tracks, the papers will lap it up as they know it will sell, thats why the Sun is keen to get this injunction lifted as they can legally run the story, because as stupid as it is and the alleged footballers name now being out there, the newspaper cant run the story.

But saying that Sky news having been all over it since it broke this afternoon, and being as the Sun is in the same stable, I wouldn't be surprised if they print the story.

[Glenn]

I've been keeping my powder dry on this one for a while now, but what you're seeing is only the beginning of a long line of super-injunction drama that will hopefully see both privacy and publishing laws changed in the UK.

As for the Giggs story in particular, firstly nobody is trying to sue twitter, they are simply asking twitter to hand over the identities (ip address and email address) of the first few posters of the news (in the hope the IP address will confirm them as a UK resident and therefore liable to prosecution for contempt of court*). Given that twitter had already going out of it's way to avoid this for the FBI, they are hardly likely to bow to an English law firm.

However, I think in this case people should take the time to read the actual injunction to see WHY is was granted. You may suddenly have a little more compassion for Mr Giggs (clue. It's not even close to Gary Flipflop's injunction a few years back).

The full text is here http://bit.ly/mqro35 (the site also contains Rovers vs The company that insured Martin Dahlin, if anyone cares). http://bit.ly/mqro35

[* Even my tame solicitor couldn't confirm if somebody who hadn't received the injunction would be guilty for breeching it ]

[Paul]

That's interesting Glenn and I see why some may feel some "compassion" (sympathy for his situation would be better) for Giggs. The link shows why it's so difficult to limit discussion on a topic - yes I'm going to go off topic - and how we, the public, only receive limited information from our press. As I drifted off to sleep last night my wife commented at the BBC news story "If he kept it in his trousers he wouldn't have a problem." What I say next is difficult because I don't want to sound like some great moralist whose never done a thing wrong in his life but there is a point here.

Ryan Giggs has a strong image as a clean living family man, he is regarded by many, myself included as a "proper" footballer who simply gets on with life. I used him as an example of a decent person / footballer who would not be written about in this way when discussing the case with a friend BEFORE Giggs name came out. Ironic or what? Those of us who are married or in longterm relationships surely know the ground rules; there is much a partner will forgive but sleeping with another man / woman - be it once or a thousand times - puts the whole relationship at risk. If I behaved this way I would hope, but not expect at all, to be forgiven. I very much doubt I would be forgiven because relationships and marriages are built on trust. Break the trust and the relationship is severly damaged.

I have no sympathy for Giggs as an individual but do have sympathy for the whole family. Giggs for more than 20 years has cultivated a certain image, it's been a powerful one and was apparently deserved. He deserves no sympathy for his behaviour and should his wife forgive him he is a very fortunate man. The family do deserve sympathy because The Sun, or whichever newspaper, is denying the family the right and opportunity to heal this problem in private. The Giggs family should have the chance to rebuild their life in private without the prying eyes of the press, that's how it would be for the majority of us and the Sun looks to deny this right for the sake of a front page headline. On this basis I'd argue the injunction is very valid and should be in place. There is no public interest here.

If I'm hammering Giggs it's fair we look at Thomas's involvement. Here we have a young woman prepared to sleep with a married man, exploit the situation, apparently attempt to blackmail him, attempt to set him up at subsequent meetings and sell her story to the media. If Giggs should learn to keep it in his trousers then Thomas should learn to keep her knickers on. No doubt she'll be able to sell a subsequent story about what a nice girl she really is and how she's been tricked at every turn.

Then we move to the press and Twitter. I think my views on tabloid journalism are well known. This story clearly demonstrates why ALL journalism presented in the tabloids should not be trusted. These newspapers sell scandal and pander to their readership's desires, they are not even "news"papers but simply purveyors of scandal designed to tittilate. I'd no more believe what is written on the front page as the back page. Any journalist worth his salt wouldn't consider writing for a paper which earns it's circulation out of this type of reporting, soft porn and photographs of women's underwear as they climb from taxis. I now sound like my mother but she was right, 40 years ago!!

As for Twitter. I've followed some of Glenn's tweets and see the value of them to him and others he is communicating with. I've also read many other tweets and reached the conclusion 99.99999% of Twitter is junk. The people who have chosen to publish this information on Twitter are no better than, in fact probably worse, than The Sun "journalists" (a loose description) and have probably tweeted this information for no reason other than to improve their "standing" on Twitter.

So no sympathy for Giggs as an individual but every sympathy for him and his family that they are denied the opportunity to rebuild their lives in private, the increased pressure on the family will do nothing to aid this. Giggs and his family have every right to privacy in this matter.

What is public interest? Giggs has an image, it can be argued this is false and there is public interest in showing this. But does it really matter? Ultimately he is only a good footballer and this is the only reason for his fame. There is no true public interest, just a public with an apparently insatiable desire for titillation and a media prepared to satisfy this in anyway possible. If this was a politician building a career by championing "family values" it becomes more difficult but this is only a footballer, an insignificant man except for what he can do on a football pitch.

Apologies but these things are never simple

As an aside I switched on the telly earlier, perhaps around 5.00am, and caught 2-3 minutes of the Jeremy Kyle Show. What a disgusting example of the broadcast media this programme is. I could really go off on one with that junk.

[brian_gallagher85]

Correct me if I'm wrong, (it's early), but is this the counter claim from the Giggs camp?

So we're supposed to believe an adulterus footballer over a z list celebrity hmmm.

Personally it might sound callous but I have zero sympathy for Giggs or his family as to me it's just an excuse to try and cover his tracks and protect his apparent clean cut image. I'm also delighted as it attaches some more scandal to that club I loath.

You've made your bed Ryan now you'll have to sleep in it.... on your own this time though.

[ABBEY]

If Giggs Mrs wants comforting I'm sure I could grow me goatee back and tickle her fancy..

[Biddy]

What is public interest? Giggs has an image, it can be argued this is false and there is public interest in showing this. But does it really matter? Ultimately he is only a good footballer and this is the only reason for his fame. There is no true public interest, just a public with an apparently insatiable desire for titillation and a media prepared to satisfy this in anyway possible. If this was a politician building a career by championing "family values" it becomes more difficult but this is only a footballer, an insignificant man except for what he can do on a football pitch.

Excellent read Paul.

I too take issue with papers always citing "It's in the public interest". No, its usually only really in their interests to sell their red top rags. However, as you have noted earlier, Giggs did portray an "image" which he successfully sold when fronting Reebok adverts, Fifa games, deodorants etc etc. The public buy into that image and indeed those advertisers spend a fortune paying him to front their campaigns. I'm sure they would see it in their interest that they should know the kind of person they are spending this money on and the fact that he indeed is no longer the role model a lot of us (including yourself) took him for.

[RoyRover]

There's a big difference between 'public interest' and what is interesting to the public. What Giggs has been up to is definitely the later and is frankly none of our business.

[Paul]

Excellent read Paul.

I too take issue with papers always citing "It's in the public interest". No, its usually only really in their interests to sell their red top rags. However, as you have noted earlier, Giggs did portray an "image" which he successfully sold when fronting Reebok adverts, Fifa games, deodorants etc etc. The public buy into that image and indeed those advertisers spend a fortune paying him to front their campaigns. I'm sure they would see it in their interest that they should know the kind of person they are spending this money on and the fact that he indeed is no longer the role model a lot of us (including yourself) took him for.

Yes I can see the point, especially on product endorsement. My interest in Giggs as a role model, and I certainly still see him as one on the pitch, is as a professional sportsman. I think very few people would argue against the view he has set standards on the pitch any young player should aspire to, in terms of talent, behaviour and application. Until recently the same would have been said of his private life, that is now questionable. The companies which employ his image will have plenty of questions to ask.

If I still had young children I'd be happy to see him endorse products but I would be having an appropriate discussion with them about moral behaviour when the right moment arrived. We certainly would not sit down with the specific intention of discussing his behaviour, just wait and see what turned up. For me I would never buy a product because a celebrity endorsed it, I'm not that stupid.

I only knew Ryan Giggs was involved because John Hemmings announced this to Parliament, that itself being a questionable, and probably uneccesary, action.

Ultimately this is a private matter. Whatever the papers print I doubt it will have a thousandth of the impact of the words Mrs Giggs will have used. If Giggs is still at the family home he's a lucky man.

[Ozz]

Those demanding the `outting` of the unnamed people in these cases seem to confuse "In The Public Interest" with " Of Interest to the Public".

And it is only really of any "interest" to the shallow immature people who are likely to buy a newspaper that pays people to kiss and tell.

Giggs situation is an almightly damp squib of a story to me-who cares?

[Grabbi Graeme]

Thanks for posting the link for injunction application, it was an interesting read, as it stands the injunction is still in place which means Imogen Thomas can't tell her side of the story.

The question is, that with revelation of Giggs being named, how long will it be before the injunction is lifted and his family have to go through it again as they see the headlines when Miss Thomas has her say.

[Glenn]

Great read Paul.

I'm still being careful what I write because I believe there are more twists and turns to come and I don't want to say something I'll later regret.

However I do believe that neither parliament nor the internet should be exempt from the law (and I consider parliament privilege being abused the way it was as being tantamount to breaking the law) , instead the law quickly needs updating to cope with modern publishing.

BTW, the BBC's ongoing view on the moderation of this topic mirrors our own http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2011/05/moderation_and_superinjunction.html