Yogi, as I understand it, all they're trying to do is find out who leaked it (breached the injunction) in the first place.
The lawsuit is supposedly to force Twitter to reveal the names of the perpetrators.
You ermmmm, don't suppose they used a kind of made up name Fluffers, do you?
Yogi, as I understand it, all they're trying to do is find out who leaked it (breached the injunction) in the first place.
The lawsuit is supposedly to force Twitter to reveal the names of the perpetrators.
You ermmmm, don't suppose they used a kind of made up name Fluffers, do you?
A made up name? Surely not! I mean, who would do such a dastardly deed? 
I keep reading this thread title as Gypsie is suing twitter.
I keep reading this thread title as Gypsie is suing twitter.
shoulda gone to specsavers
well,
off to bed cos telly is boring and ive got a new crossword book
have a good night everyone
I keep reading this thread title as Gypsie is suing twitter.
shoulda gone to specsavers
I'm due my check-up, and I think it shows.
I keep reading this thread title as Gypsie is suing twitter.
What's Gypsie been up to then?
I keep reading this thread title as Gypsie is suing twitter.
What's Gypsie been up to then?
Nuffin - just my dodgy eyesight.
Bit precious ain't he?
Reputatation eh? 
Thing is right; only someone who knows 'the footballer' or Imogen would have started the gossip. It wasn't Dave the plumber from down my road... or harry the butcher, or any of anyone's neighbours on this board! it was OBVIOUSLY someone close to one of them. Mr and Mrs 'average member of the public' didn't start it off, because we didn't bloody know about it! I didn't even know about it til 2 weeks ago, when Imogen started bleating on morning telly. So why is this 'secret footballer' threatening to sue people on twitter? All they are doing is chatting about gossip started by Imogen and that footballer's friends and acquaintances!
if the tweeter who exposed giggs on twitter tweets from his mobile and its a pay as you go, they have no chance of ever tracing him..
if the tweeter who exposed giggs on twitter tweets from his mobile and its a pay as you go, they have no chance of ever tracing him..
He/she will still need an ISP to do that and it is through the ISP's address that they can be traced. Not really anything to do with the type of phone contract.
And cupcake they are not trying to sue anyone, they are just trying to find out who leaked the info and therefore breached the injunction.
I keep reading this thread title as Gypsie is suing twitter.
Me too
He's just fanning the flames with all this "outrage" .Folk that didn't bother before about it do now..twit that he is.
Beeb doing a damage limitation exercise for him today, (from 7 mins 20 secs in) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/default.stm
Scots law is different to English law the current injunction does not apply in Scotland.Oh dear!
what a twat
can you imagine trying to get about half a million people in the court room?
Good on him - at the end of the day he, just like everybody else is entitled to his privacy. What he gets up to inhis private life is his business and he has a right to protect that. At the end of the day it is not only him being hurt by this story it is his wife and young children who are completely innocent in all this.
There's quite a few people I'd like to slap a super injunction on.
what a twat
can you imagine trying to get about half a million people in the court room?
Good on him - at the end of the day he, just like everybody else is entitled to his privacy. What he gets up to inhis private life is his business and he has a right to protect that. At the end of the day it is not only him being hurt by this story it is his wife and young children who are completely innocent in all this.
if it's good enough for him.....it should be good enough to protect imogen thomas too.......but her name has been all over the papers....his protected........he wasn't thinking of his wife and children when he was knocking her off.......i suspect this is more to do with protecting his sponsorship deals than anything else......he's been found out and he's hiding behind a super injunction and letting her deal with all the shit that's flying
what a twat
can you imagine trying to get about half a million people in the court room?
Good on him - at the end of the day he, just like everybody else is entitled to his privacy. What he gets up to inhis private life is his business and he has a right to protect that. At the end of the day it is not only him being hurt by this story it is his wife and young children who are completely innocent in all this.
if it's good enough for him.....it should be good enough to protect imogen thomas too.......but her name has been all over the papers....his protected........he wasn't thinking of his wife and children when he was knocking her off.......i suspect this is more to do with protecting his sponsorship deals than anything else......he's been found out and he's hiding behind a super injunction and letting her deal with all the shit that's flying
From what I have seen Imogen is the one who has put herself in the media spotlight here. Furthermore there has been nothing stoppig Imogen taking out an injunction however it appears to me that she is actually enjoying all this attention - certainly revived her swindling career. Everybody regardless of who they are has a right to privacy - his actions are not in the public interest and so for that reason he has every right ot ry and protect them.
He's very hairy - he never looks clean - i'd hate to see his willy 
I agree AND disagree with you pretty P. I agree that Imogen is probably enjoying all the attention... although I fail to see how it is reviving her career (did you mean dwindling, not swindling BTW? 
) because she doesnt have one: she is just a bimbo with a pretty face and no talent, so I do agree with you there. But I also think that it's wrong that he can remain anonymous, while she cannot. He knew what he was doing too, he was the one with a wife and kids etc... yet he is acting the victim... Both were at fault. So if 'he' can remain anonymous, then she should too.
He's very hairy - he never looks clean - i'd hate to see his willy
Ewww, thanks for that Renton! 
what a twat
can you imagine trying to get about half a million people in the court room?
Good on him - at the end of the day he, just like everybody else is entitled to his privacy. What he gets up to inhis private life is his business and he has a right to protect that. At the end of the day it is not only him being hurt by this story it is his wife and young children who are completely innocent in all this.
I agree re his right to privacy, irrespective of his motivation for wanting that....
I thought that the action re twitter was about the person who leaked it on there, suspected to be a journalist as I understand it, who, if that is correct, has breached the injunction?
what a twat
can you imagine trying to get about half a million people in the court room?
Good on him - at the end of the day he, just like everybody else is entitled to his privacy. What he gets up to inhis private life is his business and he has a right to protect that. At the end of the day it is not only him being hurt by this story it is his wife and young children who are completely innocent in all this.
if it's good enough for him.....it should be good enough to protect imogen thomas too.......but her name has been all over the papers....his protected........he wasn't thinking of his wife and children when he was knocking her off.......i suspect this is more to do with protecting his sponsorship deals than anything else......he's been found out and he's hiding behind a super injunction and letting her deal with all the shit that's flying
From what I have seen Imogen is the one who has put herself in the media spotlight here. Furthermore there has been nothing stoppig Imogen taking out an injunction however it appears to me that she is actually enjoying all this attention - certainly revived her swindling career. Everybody regardless of who they are has a right to privacy - his actions are not in the public interest and so for that reason he has every right ot ry and protect them.
are imogen thomas' actions of public interest?.........certainly giggs is more of a name than hers.....as for her taking out an injunction.....as far as i can gather she a) couldn't afford it.....and b) the papers went after her first.....giving giggs plenty of time to get his injunction in place.......
if you believe everyone has a right to privacy....that includes imogen thomas.if you believe his actions are not in the public interest.....neither are hers
yes she has been in the media spotlight.......but the media want their gossip.they can't go after giggs who is protected.....so they go after her.....she has a right to put her side of the story.particularly when hers is the name splashed all over the papers......giggs doesn't have to say a word.....he's protected
I agree AND disagree with you pretty P. I agree that Imogen is probably enjoying all the attention... although I fail to see how it is reviving her career (did you mean dwindling, not swindling BTW? ) because she doesnt have one: she is just a bimbo with a pretty face and no talent, so I do agree with you there. But I also think that it's wrong that he can remain anonymous, while she cannot. He knew what he was doing too, he was the one with a wife and kids etc... yet he is acting the victim... Both were at fault. So if 'he' can remain anonymous, then she should too.
I did mean dwindling (damn typo's) - thanks!! But there has been nothing stopping her remaining anonymous - she can take an injuntion as well. Yes he is the one with the wife and kids but what I am saying is none of this is their fauls and the only way they can be protected in this situation is by him remaining anonymous - by naming him they are the ones that have been hurt the most. The thing that shocks me more than anything though is how bothered some people are by this at the ned of the day it is his life and I couldn't care less what he or any other so called celebrity gets up to in their personal life - it never ceases to amaze me however how much others doseem to care about other people's personal lives.
oh and all the 'she knew he was married' stuff......yes she did know.but then he knew he was married too.....it didn't stop him...he still had the affair.....it takes two to have an affair.....and he is jointly responsible..........she didn't force him into it..he could of said no and thought of his wife and kids who he supposedly is now trying to protect..he didn't
if it's good enough for him.....it should be good enough to protect imogen thomas too.......
Spongey I agree, assuming that she honestly didn't want the story to come out/ had no intention of selling her story to the papers.....If so, she really would have been well advised to keep schtum, then there really wouldn't have been anything much of a story here
CUPCAKE - anytime hunny - its no bother at all 
what a twat
can you imagine trying to get about half a million people in the court room?
Good on him - at the end of the day he, just like everybody else is entitled to his privacy. What he gets up to inhis private life is his business and he has a right to protect that. At the end of the day it is not only him being hurt by this story it is his wife and young children who are completely innocent in all this.
if it's good enough for him.....it should be good enough to protect imogen thomas too.......but her name has been all over the papers....his protected........he wasn't thinking of his wife and children when he was knocking her off.......i suspect this is more to do with protecting his sponsorship deals than anything else......he's been found out and he's hiding behind a super injunction and letting her deal with all the shit that's flying
From what I have seen Imogen is the one who has put herself in the media spotlight here. Furthermore there has been nothing stoppig Imogen taking out an injunction however it appears to me that she is actually enjoying all this attention - certainly revived her swindling career. Everybody regardless of who they are has a right to privacy - his actions are not in the public interest and so for that reason he has every right ot ry and protect them.
are imogen thomas' actions of public interest?.........certainly giggs is more of a name than hers.....as for her taking out an injunction.....as far as i can gather she a) couldn't afford it.....and b) the papers went after her first.....giving giggs plenty of time to get his injunction in place.......
if you believe everyone has a right to privacy....that includes imogen thomas.if you believe his actions are not in the public interest.....neither are hers
yes she has been in the media spotlight.......but the media want their gossip.they can't go after giggs who is protected.....so they go after her.....she has a right to put her side of the story.particularly when hers is the name splashed all over the papers......giggs doesn't have to say a word.....he's protected
No her actions aren't of public interest. The papers may have gone after her first but if she just kept quiet the story would have faded away however she has chosen to sell her story to anyone who will listen and for that reason she is keeping it in the public eye. He on the other had has chosen to avoid that. Of course she has a right to privacy but to do that she needs to stop talking to all and sundry regarding this.
he is acting the victim
Is he? How do you work that out? As far as I can see he's saying nowt and instructing his lawyers try and prevent his name being splattered all over the papers, (albeit highly unsuccessfully!)
*STANDS ON SOAP BOX*
RIGHT . . . have you all seen Imogen's sex tape (the filthy mare)
Well she's hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to self publicity BUT as soon as it doesn't go her way she's all, "I'm a victm"
Yeah love well wot about the wife and the kids in all this??
And Ryan Giggs - a thousand shames on you matey.
Then trying to hide instead of facing the music like a man - you bloody coward
. . .and you look filthy all the time
And relax . . .
mucky cok
if it's good enough for him.....it should be good enough to protect imogen thomas too.......
Spongey I agree, assuming that she honestly didn't want the story to come out/ had no intention of selling her story to the papers.....If so, she really would have been well advised to keep schtum, then there really wouldn't have been anything much of a story here
absolutely soopes...hi btw xx
i still maintain if giggs was stupid enough to drop his keks and sleep with her he has to have an idea it would end like this...he had no intention of leaving his family....though he allegedly told her he would.......so surely it would go through his mind she may run to the press when it ended........he's had his fling and now he's covering it up...i still say it's to protect his image and sponsorship deals..........he wasn't thinking of his missus and family in the 6 months he was sleeping with imogen thomas.....he certainly wasn't bothered about hurting them then......if he had...he wouldn't of done it
I watched her interview on This Morning Spongey, the lawyer on there was saying that she should have just said no comment from the outset to protect herself http://thismorning.itv.com/thi...en-thomas-speaks-out
It's just my opinion pretty p, that is he acting the victim... I think that he is a bit of a rogue who has been a naughty boy ... he played with fire and got his fingers burned, and now he is smarting because he has been caught out and 'outed,; and he is acting like his shit don't stink.. when he only has himself to blame. That said, I do agree with you that Imogen is just as guilty. I am not saying he is a bad man, just that he is - in my opinion - acting like he is so sorry for himself, when he has nobody to blame but himself, and this threatening to sue twitter folk is absurd, because it can only be his friends or family - or Imogen's - who started the gossip.
Yes renton, Imogen is also 'acting the victim,' and she is no 'victim.'
spot on soopes......she made a mistake admitting it.......badly advised?..keen to sell the story?.we can only guess......however giggs must of had an idea it would end that way.........there's enough kiss and tells in the papers.....he's either incredibly stupid or thick or both!!
if he didn't want the hassle....he shouldn't of slept with her in the first place
