John Huggan on Monty....again.

Not just drivel. These super injunctions are offensive to the idea of justice and transparency. Celebs and philanderers such as Woods and Terry have used them, mostly granted by one judge, and if Monty has joined them, he deserves the opprobrium that will be poured on him when the injunction is lifted.
 
He must have an axe to bear, as you said he gets paid for writing this. Better comments than Huggans on the forum for free.
 
Huggan has had an axe to bear with monty for years. Whenever i see an article from him on Monty i just don't read it.

Heard a story that it goes way back when both were junior golfers and Monty made the break and he didn't. That could be lot of rubbish though :rolleyes:
 
I like a lot of what John Huggan writes but it does seem that on the subject of Monty he does become a lot more direct and bringing up Monty's childhood, getting drunk as a teenager etc seems nothing more than trying to score more points on top of the point about his adultery.
 
he deserves the opprobrium that will be poured on him when the injunction is lifted.
Why not just use the word disgrace Ethan. It's not an Oxford forum ;)
 
Is there a story in there??

Huggan....I have yet to read anything he has written (or sometimes looking more like copied)that has left me wishing to read more from the guy.
 
Fair enough. I wasn't at Oxford. Disgrace doesn't fully cover it. An element of scorn is needed too.
Too clever for me mate :) Good answer ;)
 
Re: John Huggan on Monty....again. *DELETED*

Irrelevant when it comes to media libel and defamation laws with regard to our responsibilities as publishers of the website
 
Re: John Huggan on Monty....again. *DELETED*

Irrelevant when it comes to media libel and defamation laws with regard to our responsibilities as publishers of the website

True. The same justice who issues the super injunctions has been known to be rather celeb-friendly when it comes to slander and libel, although privacy is the new defamation.
 
Top