Privacy and Giggs – an undeserving sacrificial lamb

I AGREE with GP Taylor’s article about celebrities who crave publicity but want none of the inconveniences that go with fame (Yorkshire Post, May 28).

However, it is unfortunate that a huge portrait of Ryan Giggs was planted right in the middle of the page, brilliantly drawn as it was. The collapse of privacy rights was inevitable but I can’t imagine a more undeserving sacrificial lamb than the Manchester United legend.

I am sure he is ashamed of himself and so he should be but we are not talking about a show-biz show-off who is famous for being famous. This is one of the most self-effacing characters ever to enter the sporting arena. His disciplinary record is exemplary. The longevity of his career and his fitness are testament to his professionalism. His work for good causes is well-known.

I wonder how the self-righteous gloaters would handle the relentless attention of beautiful women. Significantly, a dignified female Man United supporter, interviewed on television, was unmoved by the revelations.

Mr Giggs took out the injunction with no other motive than to protect his family: unlike the shallow celebrities GP Taylor rightly despises. I do hope history will be kind to him.

From: Martin Hickes, High Street, Leeds.

HOWEVER mottled the reputation of journalists and certain newspapers might be in the eyes of the public, it is surely right that newspapers and the “traditional” media should fight their corner against the seemingly feral ways of the social networks, especially with reference to celebrity super-injunctions.

While the notion of celebrity privacy might be the ultimate oxymoron, as to how much we need to know, perhaps all parties in the debate could do worse than to turn to the much-missed musings of Yes Prime Minister:

Sir Humphrey: “Now go in there and inform me of their conversation.”

Bernard Woolley: “I’m not sure I can do that, Sir Humphrey. It might be confidential.”

Sir Humphrey: “Bernard, the matter at issue is the defence of the realm and the stability of the government.

Bernard Woolley: “But you only need to know things on a need-to-know basis.”

Sir Humphrey: [indignantly]: “I need to know everything! How else can I judge whether or not I need to know it?”

Bernard Woolley: “So that means you need to know things even when you don’t need to know. You need to know them not because you need to know them, but because you need to know whether or not you need to know. And if you don’t need to know you still need to know, so that you know there is no need to know.”

From: David Dunk, Nethergate, Nafferton, Driffield.

AM I alone in thinking that the standards of the UK media have reached a new low?

Really, with all the important things happening in this world, just what are the media doing giving headline news to some overpaid footballer, Ryan Giggs, betraying his wife and children?

It is muckraking of the worst sort.