Former Shrewsbury MP defiant over Giggs naming
Thursday 26th May 2011, 4:33PM BST.
A former Shropshire MP was today revealed as being among those who defied a court gagging order in naming footballer Ryan Giggs, but said he did not fear being prosecuted by the star’s lawyers.
Paul Marsden, who served as Shrewsbury and Atcham MP between 1997 and 2005, revealed that the Manchester United winger was the celebrity who had an alleged affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas in breach of a super-injunction.
He released the information on his online blog on May 21 – before MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to reveal Giggs’s identity in the Commons.
It came after 75,000 Twitter users had also named Giggs, including celebrities Piers Morgan, Dom Joly, Toby Young and DJ Boy George, who may all now face legal action.
But Mr Marsden said he believed any attempt by the 37-year-old footballer’s lawyers to bring action against him would be “absurd”. He said: “If his solicitors wish to try and make something of this then I would be very happy to sit down in court and argue that this was in the public interest.
“It would be absurd if his solicitors attempted to push this through. I was fully aware that by publishing it I could face consequences but we shall wait and see.”
Mr Marsden said super-injunctions should not be used by the rich and famous to cover-up affairs.
UK News
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
- The Bleak Old Shop of Stuff doesn't raise a smile
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Does anybody,(apart from Giggs), really care about this trivia? There are much more important things going on that people would like to know about.
Report abuse
There is a theory that is popular in the UK that rich people can buy the privacy that poorer people cannot.
When I say popular, I mean it’s popular with the press.
When I say theory, I mean generally accepted fact.
The press (who are fond of money, let’s not forget) cannot tell the difference between ‘In the Public Interest’ and ‘Of Interest to the Public’ – let me correct that, they know perfectly well what the difference is but they like to blur it to the point where it no longer exists. They therefore dislike judges who take no notice of such sleight of hand.
As for the generally accepted fact that rich people buy privilege…well, duh! What’s all that money for if not to live a more comfortable life.
Report abuse
I agree with Colin, but perhaps someone as famous as Ryan Giggs should keep it in his pants and think twice about the effect it has! If there was no injuction then it would be in the papers for one day and forgotten, he has made it worse for himself!! Idiot!!!
Report abuse
More publicity for Mr Marsden. How wonderful. I bet that gives him a warm glow inside and makes him feel very, very special.
Report abuse
How about asking something pertinent…like why are we at ‘war’ in Afganistan
Report abuse
‘I would be very happy to sit down in court and argue that this was in the public interest.’
And how would he argue that I wonder? It’s just celebrity tittle-tattle which would, perhaps, have been used by the News of the World or some such rag to sell papers but that is hardly ‘in the public interest’ in the sense that normal people would understand the term. As Nistagamus says, the press and Marsden (whose constituents ought to be asking why he isn’t doing something more useful with his time) are attempting to blur definitions.
There might just be an argument that, if Giggs was trading off an image as a family man of upstanding morals to (eg) sell something in an ad, then it would be in the public interest. As far as I know, though (and I live out of the country), he hasn’t been doing that. Hence no public interest at all.
Report abuse
Apparently there are 80 super-injunctions in place, so ‘super’ that we are not even allowed to know that they exist. The rumour is that some of these ‘injuctees’? are right at the top in business, politics and banking, people in important decision making positions concerning our daily lives and not all about horizontal shenanigans. I can’t help feeling the cold hand of the Dirty Digger somehow involved here so all power to those like Marsden who ask questions and refuse to be cowed by people who can afford to buy the law.
Report abuse
Agree 100% with your essential point but the original article suggests that Marsden is concerned mainly with the Giggs case. It makes no mention of people in business, politics, banking etc. I still don’t see where the ‘public interest’ is with regard to Giggs.
I made a mistake earlier in referring to Marsden’s constituents, having missed the point that he is not Shrewsbury and Atcham’s current MP. What is he now then? Full-time celebrity blogger?
Report abuse