maaarsh Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 http://order-order.com/2011/05/22/bet-giles-coren-wishes-his-tweets-were-sub-edited/ Different footballer, same twatish letigiousness.
green genie Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 http://order-order.com/2011/05/22/bet-giles-coren-wishes-his-tweets-were-sub-edited/ Different footballer, same twatish letigiousness. Rags done better Citeh on this one
no balls Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 bloody hell, that's ugly! I wouldn't go that far, but she's not exactly a stunner, though as a woman that'll make me "bitchy" saying that. The eyebrows are a bit on the Charlie Cairoli side.
floyd Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 bloody hell, that's ugly! You wouldn't notice if she was biting the pillow.
DC08WFC Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Different footballer, same twatish letigiousness. Would this be the fella who headed against Jussi's bar from half a yard out yesterday?
superjohnmcginlay Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Video-MP-Names-Footballer-At-Centre-Of-Gagging-Order-In-House-Of-Commons/Article/201105415997439?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15997439_Video%3A_MP_Names_Footballer_At_Centre_Of_Gagging_Order_In_House_Of_Commons
DC08WFC Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 God bless Parliamentary Privalage. Worst kept secret over the past month. Does this mean the printed media can report it now?
no balls Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Thing is, I'm not sure how many people cared. I hope she comes out now and says he was a shit shag!
maaarsh Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 God bless Parliamentary Privalage. Worst kept secret over the past month. Does this mean the printed media can report it now? Yup, and the TV - Sky as usual 90 minutes in front of the bbc - when you employ that many people on ?100k+, I suppose they need to justify their roles by debating whether to go to air with something, hence the delay.
DC08WFC Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Thing is, I'm not sure how many people cared. Thats true. If he hadn't taken the injunction out I don't think it would of gotten out, until she sold her story in 12 months time. Now the media/twitter are abit pissed off with him so I can see them going to town printing the story. He'll get some stick for it.
tyldesley_white Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 God bless Parliamentary Privalage. Worst kept secret over the past month. Does this mean the printed media can report it now? So some MP knows better then the judges, it which case thats get rid and let the MPS decided who should go to jail, save tax payers money on judges and gets MPS to earn they money
Big_Sharps Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 He has probably made it worse for himself as they will dig up absolutely anything and everything he has done for time he has been there now.
Zico Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 You've not really looked into this before posting, have you? A few points: 1. He's been named in anpther country so it's not "whoever". 2. Both she and the tabloids have stated at no point have she peddled her story. 3. She wanted to keep the same anonimity which at 50k proves the law is on the side of rich in this case. This is why the "super injunction" is now being called into question. He's making a tit of himself the stupid Welsh git. This would've been tonight's chippy tea paper if he hadn't been such a sanctamonious prick. The rumours were not started by the woman. hahahah and you beleive that? I reckon that's Max Clifford's stance too well, maybe only after her blackmail attempts fell through that was an easy conclusion to come too without the link below but as for wanting to keep anonymous herself, I'm not so sure.... http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html
no balls Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 hahahah and you beleive that? Prior to him acting the cunt, yes I do.
Carlos Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 So some MP knows better then the judges, it which case thats get rid and let the MPS decided who should go to jail, save tax payers money on judges and gets MPS to earn they money How dare a democratically elected member of parliament, the place where laws are constituted, behave in that manner!!!
Zico Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 Prior to him acting the cunt, yes I do. solidarity sister out of interest, at which point, do you think, he started acting the cunt?
no balls Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) solidarity sister out of interest, at which point, do you think, he started acting the cunt? It depends on what story you read. If I'm wrong fair enough, but this one seems very different to the usual. Nice to see his wife's forgiven him though. Edited May 24, 2011 by no balls
tyldesley_white Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 How dare a democratically elected member of parliament, the place where laws are constituted, behave in that manner!!! What I was getting at his that the judge is in possession of a large number of facts on which he made his ruling, what right as a MP who as not got the facts but a name to release it to the world, it?s relevant that?s it already out there, I mean it?s not if the country as not enough issues to worry about that what some jumped up football as ALLEGED to have done and that?s the magic word alleged.
no balls Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 Tyls, I think what has annoyed people over here, including the MP is the superinjunction farce. If you read his speech, it is Giggs wanting to sue twitterers (if that's a word), some of whom the MP says are constituents.
Zico Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 It depends on what story you read. If I'm wrong fair enough, but this one seems very different to the usual. Nice to see his wife's forgiven him though. probably because it's probably the most impartial one going around, all be it, based on their evidence in court still cunts from the off I say, pair of them, her more so though
tyldesley_white Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 Tyls, I think what has annoyed people over here, including the MP is the superinjunction farce. If you read his speech, it is Giggs wanting to sue twitterers (if that's a word), some of whom the MP says are constituents. Maybe, but what annoyes me more is that its sells papers and people seem to give a fuck whos shagging who, the world as got major issue going on and we've, the media, judges and MP's wasting ther fucking time on some rich footballer who cant keep is knob in his pants, hes not the first and will not be the last
Carlos Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 What I was getting at his that the judge is in possession of a large number of facts on which he made his ruling, what right as a MP who as not got the facts but a name to release it to the world, it?s relevant that?s it already out there, I mean it?s not if the country as not enough issues to worry about that what some jumped up football as ALLEGED to have done and that?s the magic word alleged. I think you've assumed the judge(s) were in possession of the facts and the MP(s) weren't. What right has an MP got? Well parliamentary privilege, that's what right. Also, the MP didn't release the name to the world (actually, the world apart from England and Wales already knew), the press did that, they fell over themselves once they were allowed to do so. The MP released it to parliament, as they are allowed. Judges don't dictate what can and cannot be expressed by our democratically elected representatives, and rightly so. I don't think the word "alleged" comes into play when the other party is admitting to it, it's more "accused". Giggsy is free to add the people making the accusation to the list of people he's taking action against, good luck to him!
Sluffy Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) What I was getting at his that the judge is in possession of a large number of facts on which he made his ruling, what right as a MP who as not got the facts but a name to release it to the world, it?s relevant that?s it already out there, I mean it?s not if the country as not enough issues to worry about that what some jumped up football as ALLEGED to have done and that?s the magic word alleged. The bigger picture - forgetting the footballer for now - is that it is not the judiciary?s job to MAKE the law, but merely to administer it. It is we the people - (through our democratically elected MP's) that make the law - and the judges who apply it - not the other way around. Let's face it the 'injunction' was primarily about protecting the players 'image' rights and the millions of pounds he gets from it, more than anything else. Such injunctions are only available to those wealthy enough to 'pay' for one. It is the inequality in that this course of action is not opened to the vast majority of people and the fact that the judiciary are seemingly taking it upon themselves to decide what is good for the people - rather than the other way about - which as prompted MP's to speak out (this is not the first time recently - the Goodwin injunction was also 'outed' this way)due to their Parliamentary priverledge to do so, without the fear of arrest and imprisonment. Edited May 24, 2011 by Sluffy
no balls Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 Giggsy is free to add the people making the accusation to the list of people he's taking action against, good luck to him! Surely he's given up the ghost now. As said earlier, if he'd just said "yes, I shagged her, wouldn't you, the missus is proper pissed off but seeing as I'm loaded she's decided it's best to stop with me", it'd be in a paper recycling bin now. Ironic thing is, the papers have got loads more mileage out of this than a middle page spread ever would.
Recommended Posts