Cat's out of the bag.

So it's Ryan Giggs - well that's a surprise (not!).  We've talked about this before, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but in my view we are asking the wrong question.  Using Giggs as an example just for convenience, the question being asked is whether Ryan Giggs should be able to use the law to prevent details of his private life being published.  Whereas I think the question which should be being asked is whether the press should be allowed to potentially destroy - or at the very least damage - Ryan Giggs's life and possibly career just to sell newspapers.  The question of relevance comes to the fore here as well - we discussed this in relation to Max Mosley (see 26/7/08).  Ryan Giggs is a footballer.  What relevance does his sex life - extra-marital or otherwise - have to his worth as a footballer?  None that I can see.  Of course the really depressing aspect of all this is that it's all about money - the press want to sell more papers, the lady in question wants to sell her story to said papers, and I'm sure that part of Ryan Giggs's motivation in seeking an injunction was the protection of the money he gets from sponsors and advertising.  So there's no moral high ground here.  But I still think we're asking the wrong question.