- May 25, 2011 at 10:44 am #9491
So…given that MP John Hemming has outed Ryan Giggs as the quivvering coward hiding his lurid private life behind a Superinjunction Shield, and the media are now talking freely about Giggs…is it safe for us lowly peasants to mention his name now?
A few weeks ago, I said that public interest in the sex lives of footballers and other celebrities is negligible. It’s the tabloids who churn up these salacious stories and sensationalise them. However, based on the last few years of ‘revelations’, it would seem that it’s actually commonplace for famous people to screw around. Why?
- They’re incredibly attractive, and in an industry filled with other incredibly attractive people. And they generally attend lots of booze-fueled parties.
- Simply by being famous, they have fans who’d do anything to climb into bed with them, not to mention the cottage industry of slappers who go by the name of “WAGS”, but are actually human plankton – pretty, fake-tanned, cosmetically perfected bimbos who seek out footballers for a combination of the lavish lifestyle they can afford and the reflected glory from their footballing achievements.
- These celebs are most commonly flanked by “their people”, who will mostly ensure that only the right people get near the “inner circle”. This also has a shielding effect – they make sure the really audacious story-selling types are kept at arms length, the press are also held at bay, and our heroic footballers can do whatever they like behind closed doors.
As for the superinjunctions. Should they really be there to allow a man to cheat on his wife and then hush up the evidence? Especially when the ‘mistress’ is being left to take an astounding amount of flack in the national press?
You’ll notice I haven’t mentioned Ryan Giggs or Imogen Thomas much in the course of this post. That’s essentially because I’m still not interested in their alleged affair.
What’s really piqued my interest in the last few days is how the press and Twitter have managed to raise the issue of superinjunctions to the point where Giggs has been outed in flagrant violation of the court ruling. The way I perceive it, there are a large number of journalists (tabloid and otherwise), who use Twitter as a sounding board and a place to vent their frustrations. I see those guys as agitators who’ve managed to stir up the Twitter villagers to the point where they’re baying for free speech.
The thing is, what they’re really achieving isn’t free speech. It’s just a way of discrediting the enormous roadblock that superinjunctions represent for the press. However, even I found it ridiculous over the last week that although Giggs’s name was being widely discussed, people and websites have been afraid to use his name for fear of legal reprisals. What actually compounded this effect was the fact that Giggs’s legal team did nothing to deny the allegations, making it look like he did, in fact, have something to hide.
Sorry for the elongated post – and in the forum too(!) – but I wanted to get my thoughts on this out of the way. I’m pretty sure some of you will want to share your opinions on what’s been the biggest (celebrity) news story in the last month…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.