If Ryan Giggs had an affair with an attention-seeking Big Brother contestant then this is none of our business - it is between himself, his wife, and Imogen. This is in no way in the public interest. These rags don't want a privacy law purely because they know that prurient stories like this sell newspapers - no other reason. This is just the gutter press in action.

it is important to us = but not because of the footballer or the woman. the core issue here is privacy - and whether that's something you can buy, or something that one is entitled to.

Well, the answer to that, then, is to extend the protection of the law to everyone - through Legal Aid - rather than DENY everyone the protection of the law! You are placing yourself on the side of Rupert Murdoch who purely wants to continue his kiss-and-tell trash.

It's right to out ryan giggs because all these rich people think that they are above the law and can buy their way out of everything. If you accept sponsorship money e.t.c. then you better lead a moral life and not commit adultery. The girl is a very plain girl , look down any high street you'll see a hundred girls as pretty. Keep in your trousers ryan. I bet your lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank you ignoramus !

Let's not pretend this story is nothing but celeb gossip trivia. It's an insight into the workings of the judicial system, their independence to make up law as they go along, and their lack of hangups about selling privacy for cash.

If some embarrassing story about my private life is judged by the media to be a cash crop, I am powerless to stop them from printing it because I'm not rich. It is inconceivable that any judge would move to prevent the media from ever embarrassing anyone again, so this is purely a mechanism for deciding who deserves privacy. And the answer is clear - the rich deserve privacy, the poor are for laughing at.

Obviously the media are contrived in their motivations - the original article states that very clearly. But there are very important symbolic ramifications in the present, and very ominous potential ramifications soon to come. Unless the law has changed recently, a company has the same legal status as a person - definitely the same right to protection by the law. What happens when a judge grants RBS a superinjunction over any bad press regarding the economic meltdown? In the public interest is entirely subjective, and make no mistake they that make the decisions will be all too aware of this as they desperately scramble to protect the society crumbling around them.

A right to privacy the legal profession attempted to create behind parliament's back - for those who can afford it.

>> t's right to out ryan giggs because all these rich people think that they are above the law and can buy their way out of everything. If you accept sponsorship money e.t.c. then you better lead a moral life and not commit adultery. The girl is a very plain girl , look down any high street you'll see a hundred girls as pretty. Keep in your trousers ryan. I bet your lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank you ignoramus !

>> A right to privacy the legal profession attempted to create behind parliament's back - for those who can afford it.


Well, technically, the "poor" people that you talk about are actually very, very rich compared to the majority of people in the world. Yes, thats right, you lot are very rich. You've got a lot more money than most people in the world.

Therefore, by your arguments, you should have all your legal rights took away because you are rich.

I'd argue that Ryan has about a billion times more issues with privacy that you lot will ever have. Therefore he has an additional need to protect his privacy that you will never need.

If this was about providing homes to the homeless, then Ryan wouldn't have that need, somebody else would who needs more than everyone else. You going to pick on that person too? Just because they need more than you?