Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Retribution: Fergie bans hack for asking about troubled Giggsy...

Sir Alex Ferguson has banned an AP journalist from attending Friday's pre-Champions League final press conference for asking about Ryan Giggs. In banning this journalist the manager has sent out a clear message that asking about Ryan Giggs is off-limits.

Giggs is at the centre of a self-inflicted crisis, but notwithstanding the fact that he is to blame for the mess he finds himself in, many will surely agree that Giggs should pursue the well known journalist who outed the Welshman.

The super-injunction granted to the veteran winger was put in place in a bid to protect his private life, that privacy has been breached and someone should pay. The journalist in question could get up to years in jail.


  1. The Hack is only doing what a Hack does, in the light of the recent backlash against what is a percieved misuse of a super injuction. I would be looking at the sloppy handling of this by his legal team, perhaps the head of that firm should be jailed and also sued for incompetence

  2. I don't agree with press intrusion into the private lives of those in the public eye - not unless it is serious crime.

    It is none of our business what Giggs does in his private life. Whoever broke this story on Twitter deserves all that is hopefully coming to them...

  3. Hear, hear James. It's a sad comment on society that what what was once seen as being the bastion of a gossiping, nosey neighbour is now seen by many as vital and in the public interest. We have no right to know. Yes, Giggs created this mess for himself but at no point have any of the hack, gutter press nor the right-to-knowers ever spared a thought for the innocent parties involved. I could only imagine the horrors those children would have to endure if the gutter merchants were camped on their doorstep. And to top it all off there's a brainless bint gagging at her muzzle for the chance to make her riches for doing nothing but lying on her back and acting like she's anything but a whore.

  4. Just a couple of points........ (1) Alex(bully)Ferguson has not,and cannot ban a journalist from Fridays press conference.UEFA organize and invite the press, NOT MAN UTD. (2)Ryan Giggs according to his own legal team did not take out a "super injunction" but rather an injunction. But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good moan/rant.The said hack asked a question about Giggs role in the team,NOT ABOUT HIS PRIVATE LIFE.But of course THE BULLY doesnt see it that way.

  5. >> The said hack asked a question about Giggs role in the team,NOT ABOUT HIS PRIVATE LIFE.But of course THE BULLY doesnt see it that way.

    Are you saying that the hack was sincerely asking about Giggs' role in the team and only that?

  6. Fergie is a bully, but he is our bully. Giggs is one of our players and Fergie will do whatever he can to control the press ahead of the final because quite obviously he doesn't wasn't any distractions. Talking about Giggs was off limits for obvious reasons.

    I have zero sympathy for the media who all too often go out of their way when systematically dismantling those stars' who've they've built up in the past only to knock them down again.

    I don't agree with what Giggs has done, but it should be a private matter. The soooner this country has a privacy law the better.

    Another poster came on this blog earlier this week and posted "what about Giggs's poor old wife?"... well yes, we all feel for her in this situation; but ask yourself this, has the media made things better for her or worse? Anyone who says the former is totally and utterly crazy.

  7. I forgot to add that the sooner these social networks are brought under control the better. Twitter has been at the centre of too many damaging rumours lately and it has to stop.

  8. So free speech is not something you care a lot about?

    Your comment about bringing twitter under control is something belonging to north korea and the likes. The revolutions in north africa would never have happened withouth twitter and the likes of it.

  9. RAG,
    It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has everything to do with privacy.

  10. RAG, unlike North Korea and the likes, you don't get shot for misusing Twitter over here :D

  11. Since when is tabloid journalism newsworthy? And why is blocking a tabloid journalist from a press conference a violation of free speech? Anonymous called Sir Ales a bully simply for blocking this tabloid journalist, but isn't the journalist the bullying for spilling this nonsensical story where a protective injunction was broken? Seems to me the said journalist is the bully.

    But we have no one to blame but ourselves. We buy the tabloids of gossip and diminuendo.

  12. I think that is a very good point. Because those of us who buy newspapers must take some of the blame, albeit indirectly. Exposing Giggs for what he has done is mainly about the pursuit of money, I am referring to the newspapers...

    Further to which, it came as no great surprise to hear David Cameron stating that it wasn't fair that the newspapers couldn't name Giggs, when he'd been named on Twitter. It was disappointing - if not in the least bit surprising - that Cameron has taken this line, but hopefully sense will prevail and soon we will end up with a privacy law, one that will help protect the rights to privacy for all.

  13. The thing I reacted about was "the sooner these social networks are brought under control the better." Twitter and the likes should be of no concern of any goverment and is not for anyone (except twitter themselves) to control.

    When it comes to most newspapers theres another thing. We have a few bad ones here in Sweden but at least they usually don't run news of whos sleeping with who. But a lot of the ones in England seems a different kind that just relies on gossip and lies (Sven learned that).

    The story of Giggs has reached some swedish newspapers but not because of who he slept with. It is because of the injunction and that such a thing exists that seems absurd to me/us swedes.

    I think he did himself a huge dissfavour (is that even a word?) when he took out that injunction. No one would have cared about it if he had not.

  14. RAG,

    I understand your points of view, but the fact remains that we do need a privacy law; one that will hopefully help protect the privacy of everyone including high-profile soccer stars.
    Twitter has been at the centre of several damaging rumours lately and so it most certainly does need to be brought into line. By that I mean Twitter should be forced to reveal the id of those who have created so much hurt and legal action should follow where appropriate.


Our Comment Policy. Do NOT post spammy unrelated comments for the purpose of link building - as they WILL be removed...Comments containing foul and vile abuse will be deleted.

Follow by Email