Ross and Brand: the legal issues

November 6, 2008

georgina-baillie.jpg

Edward Fennell, Times columnist and author of the excellent Kitchen Table Lingo, summarises the various legal issues underpinning Sachsgate, or Manuelgate, or the Ross-Brand affair (but definitely not Satanic Sluts-gate), in this piece in today’s Times.

There are a lot of them, according to the lawyers interviewed by Fennell, ranging from a breach of privacy laws and the Telecommunications Act 2003 to contract, employment and obscenity law issues. Fennell also points out that the BBC’s editorial policy is ripe for scrutiny.

On this point, Blade has this to say: where were Auntie’s lawyers? As previously noted, the BBC has a phalanx of them, and of those who specialise in pre-broadcast risk assessment, all should have been perfectly capable of spotting the myriad legal problems thrown up by the recording. But, having neither heard nor read anything to the contrary, Blade can only assume that a BBC lawyer was not asked to listen to the recording.

If, though, a lawyer did hear it, and either said nothing or approved it, there is another issue: is that lawyer up to the job?

Surprisingly few images of Georgina Baillie are revealed by a Google image search of her name. This one, courtesy of PA, is not only one of the few suitable for Swordplay but also shows her looking rather pleased with herself. We cannot think why, but happiness being as infectious as it is, we are smiling too.

 

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

From the inside of the maze, ethically outwards

February 9, 2012

Curious times in the media; strange days at The Times.

Would ‘Dacre Cards‘ – the system of licensing journalists proposed by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – have prevented the embarrassment now palpable at the Times over the NightJack story?

Times editor James Harding’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry seemed heartfelt and contrite, albeit that the paper’s former long-serving and much-respected lawyer, Alastair Brett, seems to have been, er, rather dropped in it. Clearly, mistakes were made with regard to NightJack by young reporter Patrick Foster who, once he had hacked into NightJack’s account and thus discovered his identity, then embarked on a quest to expose it via legitimate methods. This, as Inquiry counsel Robert Jay QC put it, was “rather like working from the inside of the maze out”.

But had Foster been licensed via a Dacre Card, would this unsavoury episode in the Times’s history have been avoided?

We suspect not. A raft of laws were in existence at precisely the time when many News of the World journalists seemed to believe that they were entitled to hack any phone they liked. Those laws forbade them from doing so, and yet made no difference. Aside from the obvious objection to them – that they will squeeze out freelancers and citizen journalists – Dacre Cards would simply amount to something to circumvent.

What is really required is an ethical shake-up, from top to bottom. Society generally – not just journalists – needs a sense that some things are just plain wrong.

Supreme Court on Twitter

February 6, 2012

Something remarkable happened today. Yes, the Supreme Court launched its Twitter feed. It even has a Twitter policy, one of caveats, disclaimers and little by way of illumination but regardless: who would have thought that the successor body to the House of Lords would stoop to engage with the world of tweets, hashtags and retweets?

We look forward to the day when court business will be conducted via Twitter. Meantime, check out this link for an excellent blog on the Supreme Court.

Not so right said Fred

February 2, 2012
fred hat

So Farewell, then, Sir Fred Goodwin.

Now you are just Fred.

Not Right Said Fred, but plain Fred.

The Forfeiture Committee did for you.

No one had heard of it before,

But Dave said it had to act, and it did.

Trouble is that no one knows what to think.

Is it ‘Alas, poor Fred‘,

Or ‘Hurray! Sir Fred is dead!’?

We don’t know.

Do you?

By A. Mob, aged 1,378 and a half.