If Lib Dem MP John Hemming was expecting to wake up this morning to widespread adulation for naming Ryan Giggs during an urgent Commons question on privacy orders then he was likely to be disappointed.
Despite agreement among the media that the injunction used by the Man Utd player to conceal his affair is dead in the water, several also report that many MPs are unhappy at the way Hemming used parliamentary privilege to ask if it would be practical to imprison the 75,000 Twitter users who had also named the player. Even the Guardian is still pondering over what is (or is not) qualified privilege in this instance.
The present muddled situation over privacy laws is clearly unhelpful but it is arguable that Hemming has done little to change things. And before anyone seeks to espouse the cause of press freedom in their newsletters, they should pause to remember that the capricious public apparently still has more time for flawed sportsmen than it does for the noblest of politicians.
2 Comments:
These people are using these injunctions for entirely false reasons. They claim it's to protecyt their family life and protect their children from bullying etc.
In reality it's to stop the wife/partner finding out and to protect their marketable reputation.
There is an easy way around all this - the Courts should insist that in order to get an Injunction then the wife/partner must be present through the entire proceedings.
TRF,
Your solution would make a great plot for a book.
Synopsis:
A married man is having an affair. In order to prevent his spouse from knowing about the affair, the man takes his wife into a court of law and tells a judge that he is having an extra-marital relationship. The wife is now aware of her husband's unfaithfulness but, she cannot tell herself about her partner's adultery because the judge has issued a gagging order.
How will it all end?
Post a Comment