Blade always enjoys the musings of former schoolfriend Nigel Hanson, for some time a journalist but in recent years a media lawyer with Foot Anstey. Here he writes about the Mosley judgment, one which he sees as wholly inimical to freedom of expression and whose “morality-free logic has implications that feel, well, odd.” For example, says Hanson: “Would a married Prime Minister attending brutal S&M sessions be entitled to keep such information private? Quite possibly, in the light of the Mosley ruling – unless there were political hypocrisy that justified publication to expose double-standards, or some other exceptional circumstances.”
Blade begs to differ. Indeed, Blade suspects that if, say, Gordon Brown was found to be enamoured of S&M sessions with sundry prostitutes in a Chelsea basement, an editorial conference might go something like this:
Ed: Have we got pictures and/or video?
News editor: Yes – both.
Ed: Are any of the girls onside?
News ed: Yes, one of them.
Ed: Is she reliable?
News ed: As reliable as can be expected.
Ed: Has she sworn an affidavit and given a statement?
Duty lawyer: Yes.
Ed: How much are we paying her?
News ed: £50K.
Ed: A bargain. Let’s see the pictures.
He looks at an array of images revealing, among many other things, that Gordon Brown is not so boring after all.
Ed: Brilliant! Great story. Let’s get on with it.
Duty lawyer: Er, following Mr Justice Eady’s comments in the Mosley judgment, I ought to point out the courts are likely to conclude that there is no discernible public interest in the Prime Minister’s admittedly intriguing sexual habits.
Ed: Of course the public will be interested! They’ll love it!
Duty lawyer: That may be, but as Eady put it: ‘Where the law is not breached, the private conduct of adults is essentially no one else’s business. The fact that a particular relationship happens to be adulterous, or that someone’s tastes are unconventional or ‘perverted’ does not give the media carte blanche.”
News ed (a literary type): I’m sure there’s a comma missing in that second sentence.
Ed: Where?
News ed: After ‘perverted’.
Ed: That’s an interesting stylistic point, but I’m not sure I agree.
News ed: Let’s call Giles Coren – he’s bound to know.
Ed: Don’t be so stupid. Coren will be out for a nosh somewhere. How much are we in for in damages?
Duty lawyer: At least £60,000, though there is, perhaps, significant solace in the fact that Eady didn’t award exemplary damages.
Ed: And legal costs?
Duty lawyer: Half a million to a million.
Ed: Excellent. A fraction of what we’ll make in sales.
A pause. The news editor looks at his boss expectantly. The duty lawyer ruffles through the pages of Mr Justice Eady’s judgment in the infamous but less-than-landmark Mosley case. Suddenly the door bursts open.
Giles Coren (for it is he): I’ve written a column about the PM which ends with an unstressed syllable and a joke about a truncheon. If any of you f****** mess with it you’ll hear from myself via email. Goodbye.
Exit Coren. Silence, save for the shrieks of sub-editors as he bashes their heads en route through the newsroom.
News ed: I like Giles. I understand where he’s coming from. Sometimes the subs go too far.
Duty lawyer: For what it’s worth, I agree.
Ed: This may come as a surprise, but so do I. I wouldn’t change of a word of his copy for all the brutal S&M stories in Chelsea.
Another pause as the trio read Coren’s column. At first, they are seen chuckling to themselves, then their laughter becomes more audible, until finally it is a cacophony drawing astonished glances from the newsroom. Eventually, wiping tears from their eyes, order is restored.
Ed: Now where were we?
News ed: We were going to ignore the lawyer’s protestations and the likelihood of being in receipt of a legal claim which we have no hope of defending in favour of the splash of the century, one which will cement our reputations and provide astronomical sales figures.
Ed: Quite right. Publish, and be damned!
