Ryan Giggs Shagged Imogen Thomas
Dear Ryan,
I'm sorry to have to break your 'superinjunction' like that (although since it's been broken so many times now, you're probably getting used to it. Not so much as a 'superinjunction' as a... not-very-super-not-very-injunctiony-thing, right?).
Anyway, apologies aside, I've decided to write this letter for a reason. I don't care if you sue me. I'm very easy to find with a bit of internet poking (although, given that you don't understand the internet very well, you might want to pay someone to do that for you). Also, I don't have much stuff that you could take. Unless you're very interested in women's size 5 shoes (shit, did I just break another superinjunction? It's hard to keep up).
Here's the thing, Ryan - I didn't know who you were until a few days ago. I mean, I was aware that you were a footballer, but I don't know who you play for, who you're married to, or where you're putting your knob, and nor do I care. This post explains why I don't. I didn't know much about Imogen Thomas either, and frankly, if someone had tried to explain to me, I'd have let the words 'Big Brother' escape their lips and then zoned out. But I know who you are now, because you've pissed me off. Why have you pissed me off? I'll try and explain it as simply as I can, but put basically, it's because you're a selfish cunt.
Everything that has happened so far with this whole debacle is a result of you being a selfish cunt. Every single thing. And every potential consequence which I will explain will also be the result of you being a selfish cunt. Here's why:
Firstly, and basically, just to set the scene - putting your knob in someone who isn't your partner (presumably) without her knowledge or consent = selfish cuntery. I'm not holding up monogamy as an ideal, but if that's what you've promised someone, that's what you give them, and it's selfish, and cuntish, to do otherwise.
Then you got a superinjunction. Now, as I said before, I don't care about your private life, but I do care about the way the media is regulated. The media shouldn't be free to run roughshod over poor people's lives (see: Chris Jeffries) while not being allowed to talk about rich people's lives. What we need is a tougher, and more accountable, press regualtion scheme. That would solve both problems. Instead, what we get is superinjunctions. What this means is that poor people continue getting fucked over because the rich people (like you) are happy, because they can afford legal recourse.
Then, the shit kind of hit the fan, and here's where you pissed me off. You decided to take Twitter to court in order to obtain the details of those who had broken the superinjunction. It's kind of obvious that this has blown up in your face, and it's tempting to just laugh, think it serves you right for trying to censor the internet and move on. But I can't.
You've started a dangerous ball rolling here, Ryan. If you'll excuse me here, I'm going to give you a short lesson in how law works so you can understand my worries. Parliament makes a law, and it is the job of the judges to interpret this law. This is because Parliament can't anticipate every situation, so they make law intentionally quite vague, and then the judges refine it. Think of it like taking an off-the-peg suit to a tailor to have it made to fit you. Sometimes, the suit is just too ill fitting, and we can see that it was never made to be worn by someone your shape, and sometimes it just requires a few clarifications, and it's you all over. That's lesson number one.
Now, in order to keep things reasonably stable in these interpretations, we use systems called 'judicial precedent' and 'persuasive precedent'*. What judicial precedent means is that if a case with similar facts has been decided by a higher court, we have to apply the decision reached by the higher courts to the case we're looking at. Persuasive precedent is where a court looks at decisions from other (lower or foreign) courts to help it reach a decision. This isn't binding, but it's how a lot of decisions are made.
Got that? OK. Here's why you pissed me off:
1) When you act like a selfish cunt and then selfishly go to get a superinjunction using s.8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, you're helping to develop this judge-made law further and have it apply to more and more situations, just to suit your needs. That's all well and good for you, but what about if the law that you helped extend is then used to censor something that undeniably is in the public interest - like the Trafigura case? Then people get hurt. People get really hurt. Not like 'my husband is porking a z-list celebrity' hurt, but physically hurt. And you helped that.
2) If you eventually do succeed in forcing Twitter to hand over the details of anonymous users that apparently broke your superinjunction, then (aside from it being insanely hypocritical) you've potentially made it so that Twitter can be forced by other companies and agencies to give out details, because of the whole 'judicial/persuasive precedent' thing. I'm going to assume that you were too busy bumping uglies with wannabes to pay attention to current affairs, but there's been a lot of civil uprising recently, and a lot of it has been brought to attention via Twitter. Now, if you get your way, and Twitter are forced to give up the details, what's to stop other agencies using it? What's to stop the government getting the details of everyone who talks about protests on Twitter and using the pre-arrest tactic more often? What's to stop governments that are a bit more torture-happy from getting details of protestors from Twitter?
I don't think you thought about this. You just wanted to get your end away and suffer none of the ill-consequences. But you've started it, and the decent thing to do now would be to stop it, before the ripples from a few illicit fucks and your selfish cuntery lead to a lot worse things than repressing the media.
*I'm trying to write so a footballer can understand.
I'm sorry to have to break your 'superinjunction' like that (although since it's been broken so many times now, you're probably getting used to it. Not so much as a 'superinjunction' as a... not-very-super-not-very-injunctiony-thing, right?).
Anyway, apologies aside, I've decided to write this letter for a reason. I don't care if you sue me. I'm very easy to find with a bit of internet poking (although, given that you don't understand the internet very well, you might want to pay someone to do that for you). Also, I don't have much stuff that you could take. Unless you're very interested in women's size 5 shoes (shit, did I just break another superinjunction? It's hard to keep up).
Here's the thing, Ryan - I didn't know who you were until a few days ago. I mean, I was aware that you were a footballer, but I don't know who you play for, who you're married to, or where you're putting your knob, and nor do I care. This post explains why I don't. I didn't know much about Imogen Thomas either, and frankly, if someone had tried to explain to me, I'd have let the words 'Big Brother' escape their lips and then zoned out. But I know who you are now, because you've pissed me off. Why have you pissed me off? I'll try and explain it as simply as I can, but put basically, it's because you're a selfish cunt.
Everything that has happened so far with this whole debacle is a result of you being a selfish cunt. Every single thing. And every potential consequence which I will explain will also be the result of you being a selfish cunt. Here's why:
Firstly, and basically, just to set the scene - putting your knob in someone who isn't your partner (presumably) without her knowledge or consent = selfish cuntery. I'm not holding up monogamy as an ideal, but if that's what you've promised someone, that's what you give them, and it's selfish, and cuntish, to do otherwise.
Then you got a superinjunction. Now, as I said before, I don't care about your private life, but I do care about the way the media is regulated. The media shouldn't be free to run roughshod over poor people's lives (see: Chris Jeffries) while not being allowed to talk about rich people's lives. What we need is a tougher, and more accountable, press regualtion scheme. That would solve both problems. Instead, what we get is superinjunctions. What this means is that poor people continue getting fucked over because the rich people (like you) are happy, because they can afford legal recourse.
Then, the shit kind of hit the fan, and here's where you pissed me off. You decided to take Twitter to court in order to obtain the details of those who had broken the superinjunction. It's kind of obvious that this has blown up in your face, and it's tempting to just laugh, think it serves you right for trying to censor the internet and move on. But I can't.
You've started a dangerous ball rolling here, Ryan. If you'll excuse me here, I'm going to give you a short lesson in how law works so you can understand my worries. Parliament makes a law, and it is the job of the judges to interpret this law. This is because Parliament can't anticipate every situation, so they make law intentionally quite vague, and then the judges refine it. Think of it like taking an off-the-peg suit to a tailor to have it made to fit you. Sometimes, the suit is just too ill fitting, and we can see that it was never made to be worn by someone your shape, and sometimes it just requires a few clarifications, and it's you all over. That's lesson number one.
Now, in order to keep things reasonably stable in these interpretations, we use systems called 'judicial precedent' and 'persuasive precedent'*. What judicial precedent means is that if a case with similar facts has been decided by a higher court, we have to apply the decision reached by the higher courts to the case we're looking at. Persuasive precedent is where a court looks at decisions from other (lower or foreign) courts to help it reach a decision. This isn't binding, but it's how a lot of decisions are made.
Got that? OK. Here's why you pissed me off:
1) When you act like a selfish cunt and then selfishly go to get a superinjunction using s.8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, you're helping to develop this judge-made law further and have it apply to more and more situations, just to suit your needs. That's all well and good for you, but what about if the law that you helped extend is then used to censor something that undeniably is in the public interest - like the Trafigura case? Then people get hurt. People get really hurt. Not like 'my husband is porking a z-list celebrity' hurt, but physically hurt. And you helped that.
2) If you eventually do succeed in forcing Twitter to hand over the details of anonymous users that apparently broke your superinjunction, then (aside from it being insanely hypocritical) you've potentially made it so that Twitter can be forced by other companies and agencies to give out details, because of the whole 'judicial/persuasive precedent' thing. I'm going to assume that you were too busy bumping uglies with wannabes to pay attention to current affairs, but there's been a lot of civil uprising recently, and a lot of it has been brought to attention via Twitter. Now, if you get your way, and Twitter are forced to give up the details, what's to stop other agencies using it? What's to stop the government getting the details of everyone who talks about protests on Twitter and using the pre-arrest tactic more often? What's to stop governments that are a bit more torture-happy from getting details of protestors from Twitter?
I don't think you thought about this. You just wanted to get your end away and suffer none of the ill-consequences. But you've started it, and the decent thing to do now would be to stop it, before the ripples from a few illicit fucks and your selfish cuntery lead to a lot worse things than repressing the media.
*I'm trying to write so a footballer can understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment