The one her ex released, without her knowledge, while she was in BB?

Have you watched it? 

Doesn't that make you the 'filthy' one? 

Yes - i'm a mucky pup

Me thinks she knew wot she was doing as she helped to film it!!

Hiya Spongey, maybes, just maybes they really 'fell for each other' and 'trusted' each other? I don't think she has a track record for kiss and tell stories does she? So why would he think she'd do that? I'm not excusing either of their behaviours btw, but lets face it, it's far from uncommon for people to have affairs, yeah they take BIG risks in doing so but tbh I don't blame him for trying, (monumentally unsuccessfully!) to keep his name out of the press, whatever he's trying to protect in doing so, if I were him I'd be doing the same.....Suppose I just get a bit more with the gutter gossip press than I do with either of them tbh 

No, nor would I have any desire to...wasn't that released by her ex boyfriend? Oh and why filthy  weren't they engaged in consensual sexual acts

Not for public consumption, though.

Well i blushed LOL

its filthy cos Imogen knew fine well that this probably wasn't gonna be the man of her future children and was simply a seedy tape made with noteriety in mind.

Don't think she aint the bringer of her own misfortune.

Other than that the tape was great  - ha ha ha!!

Dunno Spongey, only time will tell I suppose, she did seem genuinely upset on This Morning, but then again, maybe she's just devastated if she's been 'dumped' and accused of blackmail etc. if that's not true. She claimed that she had no legal advice/money for injunctions, but she did seem to hot foot it to Max Clifford's door pdq. She also had advance warning that the press were outside of her place but still went home.....We're all different I know, but if it had been me, I know what I'd have done, not gone home, rang a lawyer and pleaded the Fifth!

Firstly, how can you possibly know what she was thinking?

Secondly, that's a very misogynistic and hypocritical attitude you have there! 

Yes Blizzy - i'm quite complex LOL

It seems to some that the woman is dirty ,filthy and the  weak  willed poor men are led astray...jeez.

Not the word I'd use, tbh. 

Well i don't think that at all - i love wimmin - i just do not like her attitude

Giggsy is a terrible example of how to behave

Ancient attitudes prevail! 

Blizz...catch up sweetheart, reading people's minds is a free gift, given out when you sign up for any kind of internet chat...you telling me you didn't get yours?

OK, who sole mine!? 

A Scottish newspaper has named him - English law doesn't count over the border. He has apparently already confessed to his wife, so all he's really trying to protect are his lucrative sponsorship deals. Not a good enough reason, pal. If he's getting sponsors on the strength of his clean-cut image, the people paying the dosh deserve to know if he's really a lying, shagging hypocrite.

Look what happened to Tiger Woods and his wholesome family image...ahem!

As soon as news came out that this over-inflated ego was trying to silence Twitter, his name went viral. Everyone on it was adding his name to their posts - at one point it was appearing 16 times a minute. Sort that out, Mister Wealthy Shagging Footie Player and lawyers!

I get the feeling that these old bewigged dinosaurs of the courts ain't got a clue....

He shoud be asking his legal team for a refund.

Ridiculous route to go down,as for Imogen she will be loving the attention.

They're making the law up as they go along, and the real law-makers (MPs) ain't happy. There's nothing in the statute book to allow any of these super-injunctions, but most M'Luds are probably the types with so many mucky goings-on in their own private lives, they're automatically on the side of other wealthy scumbags.

There is a sort of precedent about this though - John Terry failed to keep his dirt out of the papers, after arguing it would damage his commercial interests, rather than saying it would affect his family.

The judge in that case said JT losing money wasn't a good enough reason - and if this latest shagger's missus now knows all about it (as we're told she does) all he can be really trying to safeguard is his sponsorship cash too. But if JT couldn't, this one shouldn't either.

Genius

If an average person did the same dirty deed and got caught out they wouldn’t be able to afford protection. The ability to use money to suppress the truth creates a level of unfairness between social classes.

Super-injunctions favour the rich and famous and leave the poor to fight the consequences alone. In a supposedly democratic society, how is this fair?

And they may be able  to trace a mobile tweeter and  his isp, but only if he resides here.

Should the Gagging order be rename to the "Gigging " order.

He's bleeding rank too,I can't see the attraction myself.

Oh Quagmire from "Family Guy" just came to mind..."Giggity,Giggity!"  or maybe Giggsy Giggsy..

"Family Guy" how ironic

Now his picture is on Twitter  http://twitpic.com/50z730

I cant see your reply?

Hiya JB, I asked this somewhere else 'cos I really don't get it: Why would an 'average person' need to 'afford protection'..surely the press/twitterers etc. would have no interest?

I have a super injunction 

Well the "Average"person would just go down the next street or whatever and knock seven bells out of the "perpetrator". Hah!

What a twit he is!

Giggs and Imogen have become a bit of a sideshow now. The main debate centres on the freedom of the press and free speech and who exactly is making the laws in this country now.

The judges and lawyers seem to be manipylating the 'uman rights act to allow various very wealthy people to protect their own interests. Kerching for the lawyers...they are the true winners, everyone else loses out