phoenix Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 How would any of you like it if an affair you had was plastered all over the papers etc? We reap what we sow and infidelities are one of our favourite gossips.....t'was ever thus. People gonnae talk whether down the pub , on the phone , by text or email ; there's no escape. Infidelities when exposed cause much anguish and destruction not only to the individuals involved but also to their families. Children are amongst the most often upset at a crucial time in their emotional development. I do not think affairs are as harmless as you imply , maybe the odd one or two without children...but men and women who settle down to get married have committed and from then on in are building something deeper and more meaningful...something which involves trust. If this is not what is wanted , do not get married. It is easy to understand the heat of the moment lapse , especially today when sex is even more 'in your face' but this is why everyone who has committed to marriage should be so self-disciplined , because a casual f u c k can cause irreperable damage. The victims in the affair , the ones cheated on , are going to be hurt except in a minority of circumstances and there ain't nothing quite so scary as sexual jealousy.....baaad vibes maaaan.....baaad for children. The mantra should be more love , less sex. Link to comment
spamspamspam Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 We reap what we sow and infidelities are one of our favourite gossips.....t'was ever thus. People gonnae talk whether down the pub , on the phone , by text or email ; there's no escape. Infidelities when exposed cause much anguish and destruction not only to the individuals involved but also to their families. Children are amongst the most often upset at a crucial time in their emotional development. I do not think affairs are as harmless as you imply , maybe the odd one or two without children...but men and women who settle down to get married have committed and from then on in are building something deeper and more meaningful...something which involves trust. If this is not what is wanted , do not get married. It is easy to understand the heat of the moment lapse , especially today when sex is even more 'in your face' but this is why everyone who has committed to marriage should be so self-disciplined , because a casual f u c k can cause irreperable damage. The victims in the affair , the ones cheated on , are going to be hurt except in a minority of circumstances and there ain't nothing quite so scary as sexual jealousy.....baaad vibes maaaan.....baaad for children. The mantra should be more love , less sex. I agree, sort of, well not at all actually when it comes to less sex but anyhoo Its totally different people speaking down the pub and a national newspaper making money out of peoples misery and using some shoddy excuse about their image rights making it legitimate public fodder. Its time the likes of the Sun, NOTW, Record, Mail and all the other red topped rags were taken to task. They are not the reason behind some of societies downfalls but they dont help when the company that produces them sack a man for saying suck this but print pics of 19 year old girls with their tits out saying I bet you'd like to suck these. Link to comment
K-9 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 So all the folk calling Ryan Giggs a dick etc have never cheated on anyone then? Your moral standing in the community must be exceptional. The difference between normal folk cheating and Ryan Giggs cheating is one thing. The press don't give a flying f**k about you but they do about giggs. His super injuction is basically the same as you telling porkies to a partner to try and save your relationship.Giggs is a thick twat in this case. Has affair with a gold digger who has in past dated footballers and when they split she sold stories to papers. How stupid is he thinking it wouldn't happen to him and he could keep it quiet? Edit: Although not half as stupid as taking out super injunctions meaning instead of being in NOTW 1 week, accepting he did wrong and getting on with trying to save his marriage he keeps it going for months and keeping it in the news despite everyone knowing it is him!! Link to comment
BrianFaePerth Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 but print pics of 19 year old girls with their tits out saying I bet you'd like to suck these. Zoe, 19, from Essex doesnae say that sort of thing at all. She usually quotes some 18th century poet while discussing a news headline of the day. Link to comment
K-9 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 why should he not be able to keep his private life out of the media? its not as if the story is of any genuine public interest whatsoever.The way things are. If he'd had enough brains not to have affair with a media whore with past in this kind of thing then he may just have gotten away with it but prettymuch only himself to blame. Although apparently sales of his Yoga DVD have rocketed in last couple of weeks on back of all this!! Link to comment
Foster14 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 3spams gets in right there for me. she is blatantly a gold digger, desperate for another pound of flesh. i fee l sorry for giggs. women like her are predatory bunny boilers. and she greeted on tv. ha ha. I don't get why you would feel sorry for Giggs. When someone makes a massive amount of money through a career in the public eye, he knows fine well the risks that go with that. He has done something stupid (the super-injuction does confirm that, the injunction is based on privacy, if it were not true, it would be blocked on that basis) and he deserves everything that comes to him for it on a personal level and on a celebrity level he will ride through it like so many others have (maybe lose a wee bit of cash from sponsors Tiger styley). For me, I feel sorry for myself. I feel sorry that each time I pick up a paper, turn on a tv news show or have a browse on the internet, I am subjected to this type of "news". That is a reflection on society though, and this constant requirement to make celebrity and then try and ruin them. People blame the papers and such like, but they are just driven by what people want. Which is why the super-injunction is an issue. People don't like not knowing such things. Most of the media don't give a toss, they just print the story without a name, say super-injunction and everyone still laps it up. Even better, they claim such injustice to create even more interest in the story. Load of nonsense. Link to comment
K-9 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I don't get why you would feel sorry for Giggs. When someone makes a massive amount of money through a career in the public eye, he knows fine well the risks that go with that. He has done something stupid (the super-injuction does confirm that, the injunction is based on privacy, if it were not true, it would be blocked on that basis) and he deserves everything that comes to him for it on a personal level and on a celebrity level he will ride through it like so many others have (maybe lose a wee bit of cash from sponsors Tiger styley). For me, I feel sorry for myself. I feel sorry that each time I pick up a paper, turn on a tv news show or have a browse on the internet, I am subjected to this type of "news". That is a reflection on society though, and this constant requirement to make celebrity and then try and ruin them. People blame the papers and such like, but they are just driven by what people want. Which is why the super-injunction is an issue. People don't like not knowing such things. Most of the media don't give a toss, they just print the story without a name, say super-injunction and everyone still laps it up. Even better, they claim such injustice to create even more interest in the story. Load of nonsense.Me neither - the only victims in this are his wife and kids and that blame lies solely with him himself. Link to comment
phoenix Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I agree, sort of, well not at all actually when it comes to less sex but anyhoo Sexual appetites vary....once a night , once a week , once a month.The libido is strongest in youth , a man loses his testosterone levels by 1% per year after age 40. There is the 'zen' amount for the individual tho' ie the 'spot on' amount.....go over or under it and your body suffers.....eventually. Hairloss is understood to be a side-effect of sexual overindulgence.....and being knackered. We do not get something for nothing. Get it up ye while ye can maybe.......but there's a price tae pey.....there always is. Link to comment
amancalledbuck Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I've missed you, phoen. :genius: Link to comment
phoenix Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I've missed you, phoen. :genius: The feeling is mutual , 'buck. Link to comment
Bluto10 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Me neither - the only victims in this are his wife and kids and that blame lies solely with him himself. not necessarily. the story could be: a) complete and utter fabrication b)entrapment and /or blackmail c)a thousand other possibilities other than the default ''married premiership megastar had an affir with big bro slag''. the player is sporting aristocracy and she is tabloid gutter trash. there is only one person to gain from that relationship, get what i'm saying?doesnt really fit does it? him, his wife and kids look pretty happy in recent pics. perhaps he's not done anything wrong at allinnocent before proven guilty, is all i'm saying. Link to comment
tup Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Bluto is deeply immersed in a river in Egypt. How dare anyone criticise any aspect of Man U? What's the world coming to? Of course the injunction is justified. This girl, this whore, is attempting to derail the good train Manchester United, and upset the applecart ahead of a vital Champions League game. How dare she? They're the huns of England. Link to comment
Bluto10 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Bluto is deeply immersed in a river in Egypt. How dare anyone criticise any aspect of Man U? What's the world coming to? Of course the injunction is justified. This girl, this whore, is attempting to derail the good train Manchester United, and upset the applecart ahead of a vital Champions League game. How dare she? They're the huns of England. nah tup, i just dont buy her innocent little sweet girl attitude who needs clifford to hold her hand. i'll stay out of it cause its nae my business and make my judgement when i know the facts. i'm a perfectly critical of man united. but this has nothing to do with it. Link to comment
tup Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Anything that involves Max Clifford involves skullduggery. He's Murdoch's public face. Link to comment
Bluto10 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 he does wind me up.well he woudl if i gave a sh*t. smarmy little f**ker.making millions from other non stories like this. Link to comment
amancalledbuck Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 he does wind me up.well he woudl if i gave a sh*t. smarmy little f**ker.making millions from other non stories like this. He's a staunch socialist, too. Good lad. Link to comment
Bluto10 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 He's a staunch socialist, too. Good lad. ah, lazy spongeing f**ker you mean Link to comment
tup Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 He's the Willie Miller of Murdoch's mendacious operation. A flak jaikit. Link to comment
Bamber Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 MP just mentioned his name in Parliment under parlimenatry privalage Link to comment
tup Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 By f**k I could have a field day if I was given a couple of hours of parliamentary privilege. Link to comment
redtildead88 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Is it possible Giggs didn't shag her and that he wanted the injuction because, even if innocent, it harms his reputation? Link to comment
Bluto10 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 course it is. no one knows the truth. meanwhile this, whatever it is, there is a tart milking her time in the limelight, and no doubt making a fortune from it. Link to comment
Old Wing Stand Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 course it is. no one knows the truth. meanwhile this, whatever it is, there is a tart milking her time in the limelight, and no doubt making a fortune from it. Good on the lass if she can make a couple of quid from it Link to comment
Foster14 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 course it is. no one knows the truth. meanwhile this, whatever it is, there is a tart milking her time in the limelight, and no doubt making a fortune from it. Really? Why would they go to get a super-injunction on privacy grounds? Why would it not be on the grounds that it was no true? The newspaper in question must have had the evidence to publish. The fact that part of the reason for the injunction being upheld appears to be the attempted extortion of money by the skanky bint, yet no proceedings have been taken against her for that attempt speaks volumes too. As for no-one knowing the truth, I'd imagine the two involved do, and the newspapers and judges will have a fair idea of what the truth is... Link to comment
johnstrac Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Good on the lass if she can make a couple of quid from it I sort of agree, he (whoever he is) didn't have to shag her. Link to comment
OddJob Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 A particularly prescient poster I like it Link to comment
muttondressedaslamb Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 My point still remains that it is inherently unfair that someone with lots of money can attain a gagging order whilst the same privilege cannot be granted to 95% of the population. And what right did he have to anonymity when he wanted to name the Tweeters in a court of law, whilst still being CTB. I agree that everyone has a right to privacy but unfortunately our society thrives on celebrity culture who seem to be role models for so many people nowadays and who make a lot of their money from being celebrities. Maybe if we had more freedom of speech we may not go all sensationalist when rich people try to gag others. And it's not just celebrities who find themselves tabloid news when they have committed an indiscretion. Someone close to me, in a very normal job, had an affair with a married man and it made a full page spread in the Sunday Mail or Sunday Mirror, some tabloid anyway. It was published and she had to deal with it. It was talked about for a while but the general public move on. Now we've got to put up with Imogen, Giggs getting hounded and Max Clifford for the next few days/weeks. By the way Max Clifford may be a c.unt but was with his wife for 40 years until she died, I admire that! Link to comment
dj_bollocks Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Get your new Man Utd strip now - new signing S. Injunction 11 is currently the most popular order, unfortunately it costs 100 grand to print ! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now