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?

Gail Porter Launching Mental Health Festival in 2007

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.

Recent Posts on Notebook

• The Chagos conspiracy
• Ultramarathon man: Fear vs The running power
• Barking blondes: Who's smarter - cats or dogs?
• Diary of an aid worker: The truth about gold mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo
• Remittances could be as sustainable as international development finance

• KBK8

  I agree with your Gail Porter point, and am not sure how any waiting journo can live with themselves. 

  I am more confused by the kiss and tell stories.  Whilst they are a bit cheap – why is everyone acting as though the story is the sole property of the man concerned.  I would have thought it belonged at least 50% to the relevant woman, and that she should be able to talk about her own life and story if she wants to.  I would not be pleased if someone obtained a court order preventing me from talking about some aspect of my life, particularly if I wanted to talk about it.

• opinebre49

  As I have not been provided with the means to comment on this issue in this newspaper, because, why? Are they just trying to avoid legal action.  I would just like to ask one question on a point of law.
  If Imogen Thomas had announced that she had never slept with …and named all the remaining players making up the Premier League squads and left out the one she had slept with, would she still be laying herself open to prosecution?
  She is being denied her right to freedom of speech in my opinion.

• Inkypuss

  The only people in this whole sorry saga who is entitled to any kind of privacy is Ryan Giggs’ wife and children. It is in the public interest and indeed his sponsors interest that a man who trades on his family image has that image exposed as untrue, it is in the public interest that women know he is a philanderer and no matter what he tells you he will never willingly leave his wife, and it is in his wife’s interest to be allowed to know what kind of man her husband is. The public, his sponsors, the potential mistresses and his family have the right to know these details so that they can choose whether or not to continue to support him financially or emotionally. The treatment of Imogen Thomas has been appalling when compared to that of Giggs, it seems she is not rich enough to afford the level of privacy that we are apparently all entitled to and so has been called a liar and a blackmailer by those seeking to cover up the misdeeds of Giggs – the one who trades on his false family image and the one who broke his vows to his wife. Just this one case alone shows that privacy laws are there for those that can afford them, not for everyone and that is not justice.

• http://haditinhollandpark.blogspot.com/ had_it

  Calling all tweeters: it is time we knew the name every sexual partner John Hemming ever had.  He certainly would not object: if it is fair to publish the sex life of one public figure, it is fair to publish that of another. 

  If we do not stop these gagging orders, how can self-publicists and blackmailers prosper? 
  Isn’t anyone who seduces someone famous entitled to get rich on a kiss-and-tell story? 

• Inkypuss

  It’s all out there in the public domain if you can be bothered to look it up. Hemming has never tried to gag the rest of us to protect an untrue image of himself.(Although to be entirely fair, he may well have done so and been much better at it than Giggs et al).  Most public outrage, in my opinion, is not about what Giggs has been up to, but the fact that the full weight of the law has been brought to bear to a) protect an image that he does not deserve b) give him privacy that others cannot afford and c) stop the rest of us talking about something. This type of draconian law should not be invoked to cover up something as trivial as an affair.

• http://haditinhollandpark.blogspot.com/ had_it

  Mr Hemming is a self-publicist who wanted some time in the media spotlight.
  By pretending he had some higher purpose he was, indeed, presenting an
  untrue image of himself.

  a) Giggs never presented himself as a faithful husband, so there was no
  “image that he does not deserve.”

  b) an injuntion does not cost a lot of money to obtain, particularly if the
  ONLY reason to publish is to make money at someone else’s expense

  c) the rest of us are entitled to gossip about who we will, just not to
  publish our gossip if it includes malicious truths or made-up lies.

• Inkypuss

  The point about Mr Hemming is that we actually can speculate that he is only doing this to be self serving, you could even (if you wanted to make your argument stronger) present some evidence that this is the case, he has not gagged us on this matter, you could even bring in his past indiscretions to point out what kind of a man he is in your opinion – no injunction exists (as far as we know).
  a) If Giggs never presented himself as a family man (and by implication a faithful husband) then why was he so keen to cover up this indiscretion? As an extension, sports stars make a lot of money from their sponsorship now, do you think that their image is worth nothing, that it’s all about kicking a ball around?
  b) How expensive is it to obtain an injunction?
  c) People gossiping on twitter apparently now counts as publishing, is this right? If yes, then what if I gossip in an email that goes viral – is that publishing?
  I like the idea of malicious truths being allied with made-up lies (as opposed to the unmade up ones?). The suppression of truth – malicious or otherwise, should be done only for the most serious of reasons – not to cover up a tawdry affair.