Advertisements
 

Why sponsors won’t be dribbling away from John Terry. Unless…

January 31, 2010

Among the many footballing clichés pithily describing the dilemma of putative England captain John Terry my favourite is “Own goal”.

Perroncel: Single outing

Terry was poorly advised in applying for an all-gagging superinjunction on the grounds that the revelation of an adulterous affair with lingerie model Vanessa Perroncel might harm his “financial affairs”. It was another example of a bad call by celebs’ favourite law firm Schillings, which has been in the forefront of blunting freedom of expression through the exploitation of privacy laws that operate under Article 8 of the European Convention of human rights. Last December, Mr Justice Eady was widely ridiculed for the absurdity of an injunction which forbad sexual athlete Tiger Wood’s naked anatomy being taken in vain. And Schillings were the people who brought it before him. This time, they were less lucky in the choice of judge presiding over the case. Sir Michael Tugendhat seems, on reflection, to have taken a dim view of an orchestrated cover-up designed to protect the financial interests of an erring footballer.

Anyway, back to Terry. Presumably it was his estimated £4m-a-year sponsorship money he was concerned about rather than the £200,000 a week he earns as Chelsea captain. If so, he had – and I suggest has – little to fear on that account. Samsung, Nationwide, Umbro and Terry are all in this enterprise together.  I have no idea whether it is the stern disciplinarian or the shrewd pragmatist in England manager Fabio Capello that will win out as he reflects on Terry as a fit and proper symbol to lead England. And in the event it doesn’t much matter. Even if Terry is “demoted”, he will still be on the front bench – which is status enough for his sponsors to keep faith.

Ah, but what about the example of Woods, you say? Once it became apparent the golfing legend was guilty as charged of multiple adultery, Accenture and Gillette jumped ship. Even Nike, which continued to back its man, has begun to withdraw support.

The important difference between these two cases is contained in the word ‘multiple’. So far as we know, Terry has only had one extramarital affair. Woods, on the other hand, quickly became overwhelmed with an avalanche of revelations which effectively forced his withdrawal from public life. With no further glory on the links in prospect, sponsors became disillusioned. I doubt they will feel the same about Terry’s singular excursion from the straight and narrow. Unless, of course, there’s something he hasn’t told us yet…

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: