Let me tell you about Mrs Beans (not her real name). She loves up the road. Every morning, Mr Beans jumps onto the train at Mill Hill Broadway with a rather large smile on his face. Why? Because Mrs Beans has a rather high libido. Mr Beans may not have quite such a big smile though, if he knew that shortly after he left, Ted the milkman nips in to, shall we say, supply Mrs Beans with some gold top. Once Ted resumes his round, Harry the window cleaner nips in to ensure that Mrs Beans frame is thoroughly serviced. Rumour has it that even Rev Reggie has been known to nip in to take a "private confession" or two. I'm sure you all find this fascinating, but I doubt it will make the front page of the Sun. Why? Because no one has ever heard of Mrs Beans, Mr Beans or her entourage of admirers. They are private individuals. If the Sun did decide to expose Mrs Beans, she's too skint to do anything about it. She'd probably end up doing a topless shoot for them, to help make ends meet, once her little world collapsed. For someone like her, I'd say a superinjunction was fair enough. The Sun could ruin her life. Sadly she hasn't got the means to actually afford one.
What about the Premiership footballers, who use them to silence interest in their shenanigans. Well hang on, don't they receive millions for their image rights? They get paid by companies to promote their products. They put themselves up as icons. What about the likes of Andrew Marr. He claims he didn't want his family to be upset. Well don't shag around then Andrew. You have chosen a career in the spotlight. You have to take it.
A law which protects the rich and famous, who exploit their image for personal gain, but is beyond the reach of ordinary people, who court no publicity and just happen to find themselves in the middle of media storms is a bad law. I don't really care if the Wayne Rooney's of this world wants to pay grannies for sex, I have no interest in whether John Terry shags his mates girlfriends. I don't bother reading those stories. I do however think if these guys are exploiting their image rights, we do have a right to know what sort of image they really have. As for Marr, he's been exposed as a total hypocrite.
I have a small amount of experience of what it's like to be on the receiving end of bad press coverage. When I went to the standards committee in Barnet, Brian Coleman went on the Vanessa Feltz show and told a stack of lies about me. The biggest lie was that I'd abused his 83 year old mum in my blog. Vanessa said "what sort of person abuses someones 83 year old mum" I immediately rang up and told Vanessa that the charge was a lie, and told her to check the blog. She did, I was vindicated and Coleman exposed as a liar. She read what I said about Brians mum and commented that it was extremely complimentary (I'd mentioned in passing she shared the name Gladys with my own mum). They repeated the fact that Coleman had lied all morning (presumably so I didn't charge them with libel). The point is though, if like me you've not committed the crime, then you can do something about it. If like Terry & Rooney, you have then you should man up and take it.
What about the Premiership footballers, who use them to silence interest in their shenanigans. Well hang on, don't they receive millions for their image rights? They get paid by companies to promote their products. They put themselves up as icons. What about the likes of Andrew Marr. He claims he didn't want his family to be upset. Well don't shag around then Andrew. You have chosen a career in the spotlight. You have to take it.
A law which protects the rich and famous, who exploit their image for personal gain, but is beyond the reach of ordinary people, who court no publicity and just happen to find themselves in the middle of media storms is a bad law. I don't really care if the Wayne Rooney's of this world wants to pay grannies for sex, I have no interest in whether John Terry shags his mates girlfriends. I don't bother reading those stories. I do however think if these guys are exploiting their image rights, we do have a right to know what sort of image they really have. As for Marr, he's been exposed as a total hypocrite.
I have a small amount of experience of what it's like to be on the receiving end of bad press coverage. When I went to the standards committee in Barnet, Brian Coleman went on the Vanessa Feltz show and told a stack of lies about me. The biggest lie was that I'd abused his 83 year old mum in my blog. Vanessa said "what sort of person abuses someones 83 year old mum" I immediately rang up and told Vanessa that the charge was a lie, and told her to check the blog. She did, I was vindicated and Coleman exposed as a liar. She read what I said about Brians mum and commented that it was extremely complimentary (I'd mentioned in passing she shared the name Gladys with my own mum). They repeated the fact that Coleman had lied all morning (presumably so I didn't charge them with libel). The point is though, if like me you've not committed the crime, then you can do something about it. If like Terry & Rooney, you have then you should man up and take it.
4 comments:
These so called celebrities justify super injunctions in order to protect their children. Or could it be they just don’t want their kids to know what a scumbag daddy is?
Do you still have milkmen in Mill Hill? Lucky Mrs Beans.
Much more serious is when multi-nationals use superinjunctions as in the Trafigura case
Check this link and then look at the original NY Times story and photographs (there is a link within the story to it)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/technology/internet/19link.html
Important work by journalists & solicitors Leigh Day & Co (and something I am proud to have helped with)
The interesting thing about the Trafigura case is that Carter Ruck had to throw in the towel when the details of the super injunction were disclosed in the Commons under the protection of Parliamentary privilege. Fred ‘the Shred’ Goodwin’s super injunction is currently being considered by a parliamentary committee to see whether an attempt has been made to cover up pertinent facts leading to the downfall of RBS. If so, it is likely that parliamentary privilege will be invoked in order to disclose the details because clearly it would be in the public interest to do so.
Once MPs start using the protection of privilege to allow matters of public interest to be discussed, then the system of super injunctions is likely to break down.
Post a Comment