He’d fit right in with their organisers. Half of them been sacked for making ridiculous remarks.
Giggs trial
- Thread starter AshRK
- Start date
I think Giggsy is borderline ferrel.
I see that the Red Pill philosophy has truly gone mainstream.
As a young father who has a young daughter, shame on you. Comments like these, you know why they are made, to put doubt against women which will create backlash towards them, and in turn hope for women to stop coming forth when dealing with abuse. This mentality is so wrong. It isnt as if Ryan Giggs has no history. He was shagging his brothers wife for 8 years and didn't bat an eyelid! He is certainly not a beacon for morality or a man to put trust in, especially throwing such accusations to a woman who came forth against him.
You just know he’d be a massive fecking knob end with about 10 wives if the world ended.
Oh dear! I don't think anyone can twist those words,and you can add 'Giggs' Expert' to your list of talents.
He'd be a Commander in the Gilead world created by Margaret Atwood
I was thinking of Negan out of Walking Dead but yeah, I think he’s quite unsavoury.
Sounds like a right fecking wrong’un.
He isn't quite as charismatic as Negan. Giggs' hasn't any leadership skills but would probably see it as his duty to service women for the benefit of mankind
Oh, I see. Bloody auto correct. Does it with he'll too. Hell....
How is he still manager of Wales?
I don't think they have death penalties in Wales.
Is it though? I think Giggs is a scumbag of a person for shagging his brother's wife and smacking women around, but then why would a sane woman willingly want to get with Giggsy. I'm not victim blaming, but to question the sanity of any woman dating Giggs is not that farfetched. Anyways, so far it's still in the "allegedly phase" so let's see what the discovery process produces.
Way to shit all over your legend Giggsy.
I don't really know what you are on about but the point is the last sentence of your post. You don't have to make up things in order to wait and see, you don't have to insinuate anything about anyone.
Found the incel.
One of lifes dickheads. Wont shed a tear if he's off the streets.
Because he has power, prestige, looks, wealth and massive fame etc. Tons of woman want to date thundercunts providing they are "alpha" and all that. Even serial killers in prison get tons of offers.
This post is actually worse than the first post.
How anyone with any sense of morals can defend Giggs off the field is a tad baffling. He's scum.
I think the 3 years of coercive behaviour is actually the worst if found guilty of that he will be definitely be looking at jail time..
And so it should be. I'm just glad it's a crime now. Some people have had their lives destroyed by that kind of abuse and it can take a long time to recover.
At this point none knows the facts other than Giggs and the lady in question. All we can do is hypothesize.
My point is that if we accept that Giggs is a scumbag (which I do) then this woman is not normal either for wanting to be with him- she's after money, fame, prestige or whatever... As such we should suspend judgment and refrain labeling either party until all the facts come out.
That's it
100% agree
You doubling down astonishingly makes your first post seem more measured. Absolute nonsense your speaking.
So to be clear, you are not disagreeing with me? You do realize that I didn't label anyone and crititicized a poster for trying to twist things in order to put the alleged victim in a bad light? Also the reasons why the woman was with Giggs are totally irrelevant, it doesn't justify the alleged assault and doesn't even mitigates it.
So if someone doesn't have anything valuable to say, it's best to say nothing.
You are having a mare.
If your whole point was maybe Giggs is innocent, then you could have just said that.
To be fair, this doesn't explain nor justify the coercion charges. But then again, those are just allegations, and as usual there are people who can't wait to stick the knife in after hearing only one side of the story. Not much to post about until the next stage of the trial.
Can someone explain what this mean, what constitutes coercive behaviour?
Abusive and controlling behaviour, basically 24/7 stuff destroying someone’s life.
Nice try - but in the real world if there is no proof and this becomes a "he said - she said situation" the reasons why the woman was with Giggs in the first place are absolutely relevant to the case. A competent defense attorney will be able to paint the alleged victim as hungry for money, power, fame etc, which would put her in a bad light.
It's not that complicated.
In broad terms it means a pattern of controlling or threatening behaviour including some form of physical, emotional, financial or sexual abuse.
Things that could form that pattern of behaviour would include things like stopping someone from seeing their friends/family, depriving them of basic needs (food, electricity, etc.), monitoring their online activity, controlling when they can leave the house, controlling what they wear, controlling who they talk to, constant put-downs and belittling, humiliating them or forcing them to do humiliating things, controlling someone's access to money, stopping them from being able to work, threatening to reveal/publish embarrassing private information, etc.
In Giggs' case we know one accusation is that he threatened to send emails to her friends and employer about her sexual behaviour, for example.
Which happens to be irrelevant in the case of whether the assault happened or didn't happen . You do realize that you are not in a court of justice and that you do not have to judge anyone or make up anything about someone you know nothing about? There is no compelling reason to pick a side, let alone make up things about either side on a football forum.
Thanks.
Oh no, I thought we were in a court of law and not on a football forum. My bad, now I realize you're patronizing AND obtuse.
Only Giggs and his (ex) gf know exactly what happened. Unless, there's proof of what allegedly happened, this becomes a "he said - she said situation". In such case the characters and motivations of both parties are absolutely relevant to discovering what allegedly transpired. It's not picking a side or making up stuff, it's called logical thinking.
I'm team no one in this affair, so feel free to comment further amongst yourselves.
I'm the one being patronizing after you invoke "the real word" and you are the one commenting with yourself, I asked you several times about what you are talking about and you keep going into tangents that have nothing to do with the post you initially quoted even though I told what I was responding to.
As for the rest of your post, that's why we both agree on this statement of yours.
Innocent until proven guilty. Isn't it her word against his? Is there any real evidence or is it just a big snowball of smearing his reputation?