The revelation that the Manchester United player, Ryan Giggs, paid for his sister-in-law’s abortion of their child blows apart any justification for the ‘super-injunction’ that shrouded Giggs’ sordid private life, protecting his precious image and keeping hundreds of thousands of fans unaware of his disgusting behaviour. I am not one given to moralising, but the question has to be asked: Why did a judge think that it was right to protect Ryan Giggs from the furore that would be unleashed on him had the world known that he made his brother’s fiancée pregnant? Giggs holds the Order of the British Empire (OBE), is this worthy behaviour of such a decoration?
Only last week the UK Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve MP, castigated internet users for breaking court injunctions saying that he would reluctantly but inevitably institute proceedings against those who flouted the law. They would, he said, be in for a “rude shock” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13666912. He was referring to possible imprisonment of those who transgressed injunctions on twitter. We should, therefore, analyse who has recently been ‘outed’ despite the protection of a super-injunction: Andrew Marr, the BBC anchorman withdrew his legal protection before his extra-marital affair was exposed; the reviled former bank chief, Sir Fred Goodwin had his affair with a colleague at the Royal Bank of Scotland successfully covered up thanks to judicial protection by super-injunction.
Grieve has generally voted against gay rights in Parliament, although he did support civil partnerships. Is the coalition government proud of its Attorney-General in his robust defence of the legal shrouding of their less-than-savoury personal lives? What does this say about Mr. Grieve’s history of voting against equality for gay men?