Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Ryan Giggs is innocent

The weight of opinion is CTB is Ryan Giggs. But are we really sure? The man hasn't admitted it and nor has his alledged mistress, Imogen Thomas.

John Hemming who outed Ryan Giggs on BBC Parliament (as has been commented, the BBC should perhaps be given the award for outing the first name which is irritating as I had a tenner on the Evening Standard) maybe wrong. He, like the rest of us has been joining the wall of Tweets and assumed it was right.

This in the problem with injunctions. Too much secrecy, nod, nod, wink, wink.


Max Clifford has confirmed it was Ryan Giggs. So there.



  1. Gutles, gutless Giggs....

  2. You want gutless? How about the alleged failure of the Metropolitan Police to investigate illegal phone hacking by the company for which the creator of this blog allegedly works? Funnily enough, the granting of a judicial review into this has been knocked off the front pages by the Giggsy story. John Hemming should be proud of himself. 'I have declared war on Mr Murdoch': another broken Lib Dem promise.

  3. It's not the problem with injunctions per se. It's the problem with people who are pretending they are interested in big issues but really just don't care about privacy laws. It's all about feeling superior...which is unfortunately what this blog sounds like.

  4. +1

    This matter hasn't ever been about freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It's been about the Murdoch papers (and it is predominantly the Murdoch papers) demanding the right to pry into every last detail of people's private lives, and ruining them at a whim. As I look down the list of judgments on the left, I see "CTB v NGN", "Goodwin v NGN", "TSE v NGN", etc.

    If there's anyone left in Britain that genuinely thinks this is about rich people covering up their misdeeds, or not having the right to gossip, then we need to catch them before they reproduce - there's no room for that sort of stupidity in the gene pool.