Privacy Law: the nonsense never ends

May 17, 2011
Privacy

Interesting piece in the The Guardian about Imogen Thomas and her experience of the dread superinjunction.

Here in the Swordplay labyrinth we’re particularly struck by Mr Justice Eady’s comments about Ms Thomas’s behaviour coming close to blackmail. The good judge said there was “ample reason not to trust” Ms Thomas, who, he says, all but blackmailed a professional footballer. It seems that the former Big Brother contestant initially asked for £50,000 from the married footballer with whom she had had a fling, or an affair, or a dangerous liaison, or, if we were to allow some tabloidese, a RED-HOT ROMP, and then increased the sum to £100,000. The implication is clear: she was asking for hush money, with a tabloid in collusion.

We make no comment on whether Ms Thomas did any such thing, but will instead observe that comment about Eady’s ruling – he upheld the bulk of the superinjunction – has been full of the usual dismaying nonsense. Let us point out again, in the vain hope that someone will understand the point:

Mr Justice Eady is not “introducing a privacy law by the back door”. He is not single-handedly, and for dubious motives, changing the law. He is not on the side of secrecy for secrecy’s sake, as if part of a conspiracy to protect the rich and famous.

He is simply a judge charged with looking at each case on its own facts, in light of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and existing judicial precedent.

Er, that’s it.

 

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

If you’re Joey Barton, attack is not the best form of defence

May 17, 2012

Interesting times, these, in the life of Joey Barton.

If the violence displayed by the QPR captain at Manchester City last Sunday was remarkable, his subsequent conduct on Twitter has been astonishing. Barton appears to have radically reinterpreted the notion that attack is the best form of defence, lashing out at all and sundry via a series of tweets whose ultimate effect is entirely self-destructive.

In the past 24 hours, Barton has accepted one charge of violent conduct at the Etihad Stadium but denied another. The FA seems set to throw the book at him, and his club has declared that it will deal with the matter after the result of the FA investigation. Conspiracy theorists might conclude that QPR’s management team and board hope that the FA ban Barton for so long a period (four months and more) that their reported desire to rip up his contract can only be bolstered.

What, then, should Barton do? Should he:

(a) Keep his head down and say nothing, or

(b) Issue a sensible statement in which he acknowledges that both his conduct at the Etihad and subsequent tweets have brought QPR into disrepute, and

(c) Add an apology to said statement, or

(d) Go to Portugal, log onto Twitter and tweet that the world is against him but that he doesn’t care because everyone is a moron and he’s worked really hard to get where he is and if anyone is nasty to him again he is going to expose their secrets.

The answer is not (d).

The moral of the story is that if you’re a loose cannon, when you turn attack into defence there is a danger that you will blow yourself up.

Gunning foglessly for clarity

May 15, 2012

A fine piece, this, on Winston Churchill’s gift for language and the obscurantism that goes with so much corporate communication.

But wait, what’s this? Could this injunction have been phrased rather more successfully:

Be concrete, not abstract. Use metaphors to get your message across.

Metaphors are, by definition, not exactly concrete. But be that as it may: there is a lot of sound advice in Clare Lynch’s piece and a revelation, too. We had never heard of the Gunning Fog Index.  But it exists, and reveals the age at which someone would have to leave full-time education to understand given text.

We’re pleased to display our own Gunning Fog rating for the above words. That of the Churchill speech cited by Ms Lynch was 9.698.

The Gunning Fog index is 9.585

Spin at the Leveson Inquiry

May 9, 2012
Leveson witch hunt

The idea that Lord Justice Leveson and his Inquiry’s QC, Robert Jay, are in need of PR advice is intriguing.

Surely their respective tasks ought to be immune from spin? Then again, perhaps the way in which they execute them is deserving of some communications advice. Either way, times have changed. A similar inquiry from yesteryear (and such do exist) would surely not have been accompanied, albeit informally, by communications advice.

Pictured courtesy of this Flickr user: a portrait of the Leveson Inquiry.