Leading regional newspapers today named Ryan Giggs as the footballer at the centre of a gagging order over an alleged extramarital affair after he was identified in Parliament.
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to name the Manchester United star during an urgent Commons question yesterday on privacy orders.
The Press Association newswires carried a report naming Giggs shortly before 6pm last night and this morning he has been named in many of the big regional dailies.
Newspapers which have now named the star on their websites include the Manchester Evening News, Birmingham Mail, Western Mail and Northern Echo.
The revelation came despite yesterday’s decision by a High Court judge that the gagging order should remain in place.
Writing on his blog last night, Northern Echo editor Peter Barron said the law was now a “shambles” and claimed it would be “ridiculous” for his title not to name the player.
He said: “Has the law ever been in a bigger shambles than it is now in the wake of the mass anarchy which has resulted in Ryan Giggs being unmasked as the footballer whose alleged affair was being kept secret by a super-injunction?
“The Manchester United star’s name is on every news website tonight, as well as radio stations and television bulletins…..yet the High Court continues to reject bids by The Sun to lift a gagging order which has become meaningless and unsustainable.
“The Northern Echo will be naming Giggs on its front page tomorrow morning. It would be ridiculous for us not to join the rest of the world in identifying the player.
“We are left in a state of complete chaos, with Parliament, the judiciary and the media on collision course.”
Scottish Sunday title the Sunday Herald was the first UK mainstream media outlet to name Giggs in this Sunday’s edition of the paper after more than 50,000 Twitter users had named him.
However it took Mr Hemming’s intervention in the Commons yesterday before the rest of the UK media followed suit.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
This argument that ‘everyone else has named him so we have to’ is almost as pathetic as the argument that there is some high minded principle at work here. There’s not, it’s just irrelevant tittle tattle and intrusion into private lives. Not a day to feel proud of our industry.
Report this comment
I’m getting heartily sick of his whole injunction/super injunction affair, and well done to the Media for having the courage to expose this for the farce that it is.
What I’d say to the panicking Judiciary though is that if you people spent half as much time, energy and money on pursuing and prosecuting REAL criminals as you did on safeguarding spoilt rich kids with poor ball control, this country would be a safe place once again!
Report this comment
In many ways, we’ve only got ourselves to blame. We’ve put up with this creeping censorship for too long. See my blog post: http://www.ctjt.biz/blog/blog/0/pcc.html
Report this comment
I think you’ve all lost the plot here. I’m tired of all this high minded stuff about freedom of expression. It’s just irrelevant tittle tattle and the argument that ‘everyone else is doing it so we have to’ is just pathetic. People deserve a private life, whoever they are (and more importantly, so do their families). Let’s be honest here – it’s about one thing, selling gossip and nonsense that none of us have any right to know about. No wonder our reputation is so poor.
Report this comment
Am I alone in thinking it is no business of the public if Ryan Giggs has a bit on the side. We should all be a little more grown-up about life. It happens!
He has never claimed to be a saint. It suited the national media to build him up as such; now they will enjoy knocking him down.
There is no public benefit in knowing if Giggs or anyone else had an affair- just pervie interest. It’s just an excuse to sell more papers and fill up more radio and tv time with gossip. The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming- and it is not coming from Giggs.
As for the MP- he should be sacked for abusing privelege.
Let’s have one law for everyone- articles about the private life of ANYONE must be proved to have some public BENEFIT, not just prurient interest to sell papers.
Report this comment
I’m with benefitclaimer on this one. It should be fairly simple to assess the public interest defence, eg:
Politician who makes much play of ‘family values’ during elections, then turns out to be an adulterer? Public interest.
Footballer who generally says b**er all about anything except football, then turns out to be an adulterer? No public interest
Report this comment
Yes, of course.
WE did this.
I would have joined Cleland Thom in his protest chained to the railings in The Strand if I only I’d have known.
Report this comment
Benefitclaimer is absolutley right … all this high minded rubbish about freedom of speech is just a front for peddling tittle tattle. Even the Indie and Guardian were at it today. and the defence that ‘everyone else does it so we have to’ is ridiculous. As my grannie used to say, ‘if so-and-so jumped in the river, would you do it?’
Report this comment