If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Laws can either guarantee your rights, or curtail your freedoms.
NOpe, you have the freedom to pick up the sea shell. I could be wrong here, but doesnt the term say "freedom of speech" and not "right of speech".
Rights guarantee you something, and freedoms well, you are free to do until it effects someone else.
I understand and I completely agree. I have nothing else to add, but I didn't want you to feel like you were bashing your head against a brick wall .
As for whether or not he should "fuck around", well, it takes two to tango and one partner shouldn't be allowed to profiteer through a bit of revenge. Thomas is just as culpable for shagging a married man yet she can walk away with a sackload of cash? Sorry, but no.
The cost of injunctions is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason why most injunctions are granted in favour of rich people is that poor people are of insufficient public notoriety to need one. It's nothing to do with "protecting the rich"; Thomas could have told his wife in private at any time.
I fully understand the point you are trying to make- that because Giggs cheated he loses all rights to privacy- and that is complete and utter bollocks. The freedom to speak does not trample over the obligation to keep the private private, the rights of Giggs and his family should be considered just as much as the rights of Thomas to engage in self-publicity. As I said before, the bloggers Belle du Jour and Girl with a One Track Mind both managed to carve out a successful story without revealing their own identity (indeed, both were "exposed" by newspapers) or the identity of their sexual partners. Keeping names anonymised doesn't stop you telling your story.
You're the one who brought "well he shouldn't have shagged around should he" into the argument. In what way is that relevant? Giggs doesn't market his personal life and doesn't claim to be a moral standard-bearer, he didn't use corruption in favour of Thomas, he was simply a footballer who had an extra-marital affair. So why should he lose his right to privacy (the right to a private home life is also in the Human Rights Act and is as much a "right" as the right to free speech)?
There's always a balancing act between the right to privacy and the right to free speech. The judges should continue to exercise discretion, as Mr Justice Eady so clearly did so. The law is working.
Apropos of nothing, should we name rape victims? They're protected by the exact same law- their right to keep their names out of the paper trumps my right to name them on Twitter.
There is a little bit of me that is quite pleased to see Ryan Giggs end up in quite so much bother over this though. If he'd left it be, then for a day or two, he'd have been another cheating footballer. As it's turned out, he's a massive massove story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8455841/A-mother-is-threatened-with-imprisonment-for-talking-to-her-MP.html
That is an excellent example of what I mean. That is absolutely fucking disgraceful. Obviously I cannot and will not mention who it is and what the alleged actions are, I don't fancy being up on a contempt of court charge too, but if you look on Twitter you will probably find the answer very quickly. How the courts and police can do this to a pregnant woman and go to sleep at night is absolutely beyond me. The only thing I would add is that the woman has given birth safely and is now safe from the UK courts.
This is the problem with the whole argument. Whilst innocent women are jailed for speaking to their own MP about their problems, the world wants to know which premier league footballer has kicked some slapper's back doors in. Someone's got their priorities wrong.
I am not sure you would be since John Hemmings has, some time ago, named her in the same way as he later named Giggs.
Also published by parliament :
http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/bydate/20110426/mainchamberdebates/part004.html
Also published by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph - though Artic Roll's point still stands
I read the details of that injunction, in the same way that many have. Basically disgraceful doesn't even begin to cover the offensive nature of this action. You wonder how some people sleep at night.