Privacy Rows – The Real Victims
We all know who it is now and I’m sure most would agree that we’re already pretty bored with the coverage of a certain naughty boy man.
Premiership footballers, actors, actresses, MPs; they’re all at it. I can’t help but think we’re making a much bigger fuss than is necessary and to be quite honest, I don’t have much, if any sympathy for the likes of Imogen Thomas, ‘escorts’ or anyone else with tits and legs who become involved with men that they know are married.
It takes two to tango and yes, perhaps these men should have better control of their penises, but why feel sorry for women who have been gagged by their rich lovers when, if they had an ounce of intelligence, they would know that these men aren’t going to want them bragging about it in the press. They really would have to be stupid to not expect some form of gagging order and whatever you think about them being ‘victims’ of super injunctions, they could always have just said, “no.” It’s called having morals.
The Attorney General has said for a second time today that super injunctions will be upheld, despite an MP announcing the name of the footballer at the centre of the latest kerfuffle in parliament today.
Why? Because under the Human Rights Act, everyone is entitled to privacy unless exposing information about them is in the public interest – and, contrary to tabloid belief, that doesn’t mean nosiness.
Shagging aside, I noticed a report in the The Sun yesterday that starkly contrasted against the law’s on-going enforcement of banning the media from reporting on the sex lives of the rich and famous. This one, I feel, a million more times deserving of being kept private. I hardly even want to ‘reveal’ it here, but unfortunately, it has been done already and will no doubt be splashed across all the weeklies tomorrow.
Gail Porter is in rehab after allegedly being sectioned following a suicide attempt last week. The report goes on to reveal explicit details of hospitalisations, injuries and history of mental illness. A Sun reporter even approached her outside her home on return from hospital after being held under the Mental Health Act; they must have sat in wait. I wonder how they sleep.
Privacy laws are there to protect people from intrusion in health, home and privacy. How on earth then, is it understandable to stand up and defend the censorship of kiss and tells, but allow this to be published without hesitation?
You could argue, perhaps, that Gail Porter has spoken openly about her mental health problems, her tendency to self-harm to cope with stress, her post-natal depression and bipolar diagnosis. In her book, she speaks openly about events in her life that have impacted on her, both physically and emotionally. Some would say that someone who has been so honest, who has lived in the limelight and who has shared her struggles in media interviews cannot expect the same level of privacy as someone who has not.
I couldn’t disagree more. She will have written and said those words knowingly, with the same intention as other celebrities such as Stephen Fry and Ruby Wax: to break down the taboo subject that is mental illness. The publication of that information had more than her consent, but her passion to raise awareness of something that too many people either don’t understand or don’t even want to try to understand; something that is hushed and avoided, swept under the carpet, ignored.
The Sun, by sending a reporter and photographer to wait at her home for her return from hospital after such a traumatic event, invaded her privacy in the most sickening way possible. She is at her most vulnerable, unable to speak for herself and it makes my stomach churnto think that the editor thought it was somehow ok to stick this ‘story’ in the showbiz section: just another piece of gossip.
If there are any women we should be feeling sorry for, it’s Miss Porter.Tagged in: gail porter, imogen thomas, injunction, mental health, mental illness, privacy, ryan giggs, super injunction
Latest from Independent journalists on Twitter