Advertisements
 

Watch out sponsors, more sleaze is about to hit the fan

September 15, 2010

I do hope “Roo” has no more skeletons in his closet – or rather tarts in the boudoir. Because something really terrible has happened. No, not Mrs Rooney filing for divorce, though that would be terrible enough for Wayne’s remaining sponsorship deals with EA and Nike.

This is much worse, and has implications not just for adulterous Premier League footballers seeking to protect their sponsorship deals, but celebrities everywhere with peccadilloes to hide from the roving eye of the tabloid press.

And it is? Mr Justice Eady, the high court judge who has done such sterling work in shaping our libel and privacy laws these past few years, is relinquishing responsibility for defamation and privacy from next month. Oh come on, of course you’ve heard of him! The man whose judgements have put such asinine resonance into the phrase the Law is an Ass? Who makes Paul Dacre’s criticisms of him as “arrogant and amoral” seem wise and judicious? Who thought F1’s Max Moseley was perfectly entitled to carry out Kampf-themed flagellation in the privacy of his own sex parlour? Come on, where have you been? It’s all chronicled here, in an earlier post.

The point is this. Eady, whose political views evidently veer just to the left of Judge Jeffreys’, has been the celebrity’s constant friend, interceding with a sympathetic gagging order or superinjunction (can’t say a thing, anywhere, about anything) whenever their, er, vital commercial interests are threatened by the frivolous exposure of some “momentary” lapse of personal judgement.

Eady’s successor, Mr Justice Tugendhat, promises to be much less of a pushover in his interpretation of the Human Rights Act. Tugendhat it was who lifted the superinjunction brought by then Chelsea captain John Terry to muzzle media speculation about an affair with his former team mate’s ex-partner (for God’s sake). Tugendhat has raised the bar much higher for plaintiffs by insisting they prove that media coverage has affected them “substantially” before they can proceed. Watch out sponsors, lots more sleaze may be about to hit the fan.

Advertisements

Pinning the donkey’s tail to Eady’s ass

December 14, 2009

The appropriately-named Mr Bumble, in Oliver Twist, first coined the phrase “the law is an ass”. Charles Dickens stopped well short of naming names, however.

These days we are more fortunate in being able to pin the donkey’s tail on someone’s posterior: that of Mr Justice Eady. Eady has emerged from the lofty otherworldliness of his profession to deliver some judgements of stunning asininity over the past couple of years.

I don’t often find myself in agreement with Paul Dacre, editor in chief of Associated Newspapers. But last month I was prepared to let bygones be bygones when he castigated Eady for his “arrogant and amoral” judgements which were “inexorably and insidiously” imposing a privacy law on British newspapers.

You’ll probably need no reminding that it was Eady who found in favour of Max Mosley, former president of the FIA motor racing body, in his privacy case against the News of the World two years ago. To let Dacre paraphrase: Eady “effectively ruled that it was perfectly acceptable for the multi-millionaire head of a multi-billion sport followed by countless young people to pay five women £2,500 to take part in acts of unimaginable sexual depravity.”

And it was Eady again who got a proper wigging from the appeal court after his manifestly biased judgement favouring foul-mouthed newspaper baron Richard Desmond in a libel action against Desmond’s very unauthorised biographer, Tom Bower. In July, the appeal court found that Eady’s decision was “plainly wrong” and risked “a miscarriage of justice”.

All too easily we might believe it was Eady who decided on the utter propriety of gagging newspapers from reporting a parliamentary question about the ne’er-do-well dumping activities of Trafigura off the Ivory Coast – during the so-called super-injunction affair. But I’m told that is not true. Eady did not on this occasion have to be consulted, although I have little doubt where his sympathies would have lain had things got that far. There are plenty of other examples of “Eady’s Law” which help  to confirm my worst suspicions.

Lewd and suggestive?

But here’s the real corker. Eady has now awarded Tiger Woods an injunction which bans anyone from publishing pictures of the golfing legend naked, or with any parts of his body exposed. Theoretically, that would exclude just about every publicity picture ever taken of Woods in his golfing kit; and certainly most of the stuff on his own website; it would exclude those semi-naked and oh-so-lewd shots of Wood shaving himself in the Gillette ads; and all that bare-armed stuff about being a Tiger in the Accenture campaign (not, of course, the reason why these two sponsors are dropping him). Surreally,  a pompous covering note attached to the injunction states: “For the avoidance of doubt this order is not to be taken as an admission that any such photographs do exist, and it is not admitted, any such images may have been fabricated, altered, manipulated and or changed to create the false appearance and impression that they are nude photographs of our client.”

True asinine gibberish. I bet teeth are really chattering at the (extra-jurisdictional) National Enquirer after reading that.

Eady is apparently puzzled and upset at the negative publicity he is receiving, in just the same way that Brian Hutton was puzzled and upset at criticism for the wrong-headed conclusions he drew from his eponymous Inquiry. These people don’t seem to understand that they live within an open society, not above it. O tempora, o mores.


%d bloggers like this: