BY MOHAMED DAWOODJI (22nd May 2011)
FREEDOM IS NOT A GIFT. IT IS A RIGHT. NO COURT OF LAW IS ENTITLED TO PREVENT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WHERE THAT PREVENTION SUFFOCATES A LEGITIMATE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST. ANY COURT WHICH HAS SILENCED A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST CANNOT ESCAPE THE SUSPICION THAT IT IS CORRUPT. ANY JUDGE WHO ATTEMPTS TO SILENCE THE BRITISH PEOPLE WILL BE DEALT WITH APPROPRIATELY.
THE BANKER'S TALE
On 4th March 2011 a story appeared in the Daily Mail stating that a “senior executive at a bank bailed out by taxpayers has taken out a gagging order to prevent a newspaper from revealing his affair with a colleague.”
The Mail soon took down the story from its main website, but it remained on its mobile website.
The banker was Fred Goodwin formerly chief of the Royal Bank of Scotland. The gagging order granted by Mr Justice Richard Henriques provided that Fred Goodwin could not even be identified as a banker. The significance of the story is that RBS was brought to state of collapse requiring public funds for a rescue because of gross incompetence. RBS had invested a great deal in US sub-prime mortgages.
An elementary examination of US law on mortgages would have shown that any investment would be at total risk to the bank. Simply put, unlike the UK, in the US a person has no continuing liability for a domestic property mortgage if the borrower defaults and simply walks away from the mortgaged property. This will be of little consequence when property prices are continually rising but if they fall the very great likelihood is that lenders will be left merely with devalued property and without any legal recourse to the borrower. When the US property market declined in at the end of 2007, borrowers simply walked away from their properties. Indeed internet sites such as http://www.youwalkaway.com/ quickly came into being to assist US borrowers in legally avoiding their liabilities and leaving the banks holding over-valued property.
The question therefore arises whether the failings RBS arose as result of defective advice as to US law or whether the advice given was competent but ignored by senior executives at RBS. The FSA, it appears did not know what was going on and appears still not knows its backside from its elbow in identifying the material issues.
What is alleged is the Chief Executive of RBS (Fred Goodwin) had an affair with the head of HR at RBS Susan Bor. Thus there is a very public issue of whether the staff engaged to handle the subprime venture were competent in assessing the deep financial risks with US subprime mortgages or if those engaged were competent in being persuasive to exercise caution. What is known is that Fred Goodwin was responsible for the decisions at RBS and what is being alleged is that Susan Bor who had an affair with Goodwin, eventually became the head of HR at RBS which presumably employed the staff to evaluate the risks with US subprime mortgages.
Given every taxpayer will be paying for years for the US subprime mortgage fiasco at RBS, the public interest in Fred Goodwin's alleged relationship with Ms.Bor was not rocket science and reasoning of Mr Justice Richard Henriques granting the injunction to prevent the public from learning of the affair between Goodiwn and Ms.Bor is not clear. The story finally got within the public consciousness when John Hemmings MP named Fred Goodwin in Parliament on 10th March 2011. Shortly after on 21st April 2011 the Prime Minister expressed his unease at the courts granting super injunctions. Thereafter on 19th May 2011 Lord Stoneham let the cat out of the bag in the Lords about Goodwin's affair and on the same day Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting in London, varied the injunction to allow publication of Goodwin's name, but not details of the alleged relationship and the name of the woman said to be involved. The next day (20th May 2011) the judicial committee examining the granting of super-injunctions published its report and during the press conference one of the judges sought to criticise Parliamentarians for using Parliamentary privilege to avoid the restraint of the injunction.
THE BAD BEHAVIOUR OF THE CELEBRITY FOOTBALLER
On the afternoon of 14th April 2011 Mr. Justice Eady of the High Court in London ordered that Imogen Thomas and News Group Newspapers Limited could not disclose the identity of a celebrity footballer with whom Ms.Thomas had previously had a relationship.
The order not only prevented Ms.Thomas from disclosing the identity of the celebrity footballer but also applied to any other person who knew of the celebrity footballer's identity. This order was an interim order, and a full order was made on 16th May 2011 preventing publication which disclosed the identity of the celebrity footballer.
Mr.Justice Eady stated his reasons for the gagging order in a detailed judgment comprising 38 paragraphs. Even as Mr. Justice Eady was composing his judgment the identity of the celebrity footballer had already been disclosed in rhyming slang to by Louise Bagshawe MP to the live audience of a BBC show on 22nd April 2011, though viewers of the programme were treated to bleep and Ms.Bagshawe's mouth being covered by a black overlay to prevent the deaf community from lip reading what she said. This untidy item of censorship made Ms.Bagshawe look momentarily like a South American kidnap victim. If the celebrity footballer was not sufficiently outed by Ms.Bagshawe’s faux pas then the Twitter sphere was outing the celebrity footballer by the minute and if that was not enough then a Spanish website was openly naming the celebrity footballer on 8th May 2011.
In the light of all this, Mr.Justice Eady’s thirty eight paragraph judgment makes interesting reading.
First MrJustice Eady makes the point that the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 provides for a right to private life not to the celebrity footballer but to his family. It is worth noting that on 10th May 2011, the socialite Jemima Khan had indicated her distress over internet rumours of embarrassing photos of herself and the celebrity TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson. She stated on her Twitter account that she had not obtained a super injunction and of her fears that her children would be bullied as a result of these false rumours. It goes without saying that no one should be bullied in any circumstances and for children to be bullied on the basis falsehoods concerning someone else is especially unjust.
If Mr. Justice Eady was moved by a fear of bullying to the children of the celebrity footballer then he overlooked that good judgment is not borne from the sole considerations of empathy. Judges are paid to look at all the facts and consider all matters even where that may lead a hard decision. In short hard cases make bad law is still relevant. If this were true then the law has reached a position where the fundamental rights of the people are being sacrificed to prevent unlawful behaviour. Prevention of unlawfulness to curtail the freedoms of the law abiding has always been false logic. Such reasoning was more at home in the mouths of the Taliban in Afghanistan who made the burkha compulsory and restricted the movement of women on the grounds that it prevented women being raped. Part of the price of democratic freedoms is that sometimes the innocent will be exposed to the unlawfulness (bullying) of others. This is the rough and tumble of freedom of expression.
The second point made by Mr.Justice Eady was that the celebrity footballer had narrated facts which led Mr. Justice Eady to the preliminary view that Ms.Thomas had tried to blackmail the celebrity footballer though Mr.Justice Eady's judgment notes that the celebrity footballer himself had not directly alleged blackmail. It must be right that genuine victims of blackmail must not be twice victimised by the courts being unable to afford them their anonymity. However it is not readily apparent if this was ever a genuine case of blackmail.
The Theft Act 21(1) makes blackmail a criminal offence and the apparent absence of any police investigation into the matter tells its own story of the credibility of the accusation. One would have thought that Mr.Justice Eady would have enquired of the celebrity footballer expensive lawyers “has your client been advised to report this to the police? And if not why not? After all the law on blackmail is first year law school”. Whether Mr.Justice Eady made these basic enquiries of the celebrity footballer is not known. What is known is that there is no indication of police involvement in the judgment. As a matter of note, on 20th May 2011, Gill Philips (Chief Lawyer to the Guardian and a member of the Judicial committee which consider super injunctions) speaking on the BBC Newsnight programme expressed her scepticism as to the issue of blackmail. She said “If the court is saying this is blackmail then let’s see some criminal prosecutions and let’s put that to the test...” No one should hold their breath for any prosecution of Ms.Thomas because not only does Ms.Thomas deny the making of any demand for money of the celebrity footballer, but also because the police will have in mind the fact that a jury of ordinary people will be most unlikely to entertain such a serious allegation of criminal behaviour on evidence which suggests that even if all of the celebrity footballers account is believed no offence is made out.
At the heart of the blackmail allegation is the assertion by the celebrity footballer that unless he gave Ms.Thomas a sum of money she would sell her story to the newspapers. The offence of blackmail has three elements, (1). the making of a unwarranted demand, (2). with menaces and (3). without reasonable grounds for making the demand and the use of the menaces not being a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
In Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] Lord Atkin said that in cases of blackmail the defendant is not required to justify the threat but the demand for money.
In this particular case, Ms.Thomas, by the evidence of the celebrity footballer himself, had already made arrangements for the sale of her story to the newspapers before she approached the celebrity footballer for money. Ms.Thomas had a choice. Either she sold her story to the newspapers or sold her silence to the celebrity footballer. She put that precise offer to the celebrity footballer. Therefore the demand for money was an offer for payment to keep matters confidential. Not only is this perfectly lawful but it is an everyday occurrence in the very court in which Mr.Justice Eady presides where parties reach settlement and wish the terms of the settlement to be incorporated into a court order. Indeed such orders are endorsed by judges every working day. They are called Tomlin Orders. In one recent case before the High Court in Leeds a Tomlin Order was endorsed to silence “any complaint” of fraud by a firm of solicitors who had obtained public funds through Legal Aid. The question therefore begs itself, if Tomlin orders containing confidentiality clauses are good enough for the courts then how did Mr.Justice Eady reach the conclusion that Ms.Thomas was blackmailing the celebrity footballer.
After concluding there was a preliminary case for blackmail against Ms.Thomas, Mr.Justive Eady proceeded to consider the fact that if the identity of the celebrity footballer was in the public domain then there could be no case for the super injunction. Had Mr.Justice Eady checked on the internet then he may have come across the numerous Twitter entries disclosing the identity of the celebrity footballer. Had Mr.Justice Eady used Google he may also have come across the Spanish site (sport.es) which also identified the celebrity footballer on 8th May 2011. Had Mr.Eady watched a TV or read a newspaper then he may have come across the fact that the name of the celebrity had been alluded by Louise Bagshawe MP to the live audience of a BBC show on 22nd April 2011. Clearly it appears that anyone who wants to know the identity of the celebrity footballer can readily find this out. What all this shows is that the courts have developed a new definition of public domain. The public domain it appears is limited to the media and the press. The common knowledge of the common people gained from their common resources matters not a jot to the judiciary. The revolution that is democratisation of communications commonly called the internet has escaped the judiciary. Someone from the Lord Chancellor's office should go down to Dixons and get the judges some laptops.
Mr. Justice Eady then went to state that there was a balancing exercise between the right to privacy and freedom of expression, and that one right does not automatically take precedence over the other. In undertaking the balancing exercise Mr.Justice Eady concluded that a personal relationships attracted the right to privacy, but that publication which contravened the right to privacy was in the public interest. Mr.Justice Eady believed that revelations about the personal failings of celebrities was not a legitimate matter of public interest. Mr.Justice Eady said `It will rarely be the case that the privacy rights of an individual or of his family will have to yield in priority to another’s right to publish what has been described in the House of Lords [in Jameel v. Wall Street Journal] as “tittle-tattle about the activities of footballer's wives and girlfriends...”. He went to add “It has recently been re-emphasised by the Court in Strasbourg that the reporting of “tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life” does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 [Freedom of Expression] afforded to more serious journalism. In such cases, “freedom of expression requires a more narrow interpretation (see Mosley v UK (App. No. 48009/08), 10 May 2011, at [114])”.
There are two fundamental criticisms of Mr.Justice Eady's approach and that of the Strasbourg court in Mosely v. UK). First, no reasonable person disputes there are legitimate reasons to restrict of the publication of information provided in clear cut circumstances of confidence. However Mr.Justice Eady was not considering a clear cut arrangement for confidentiality.
Trade secrets, medical information, legal privilege are clear-cut cases of protecting confidentiality. Even Mr.Mosely's liaisons are circumstances of confidentiality given that there would have been an obvious implicit condition of confidentiality as a term of the contract between Mr.Mosely and the ladies who attended to him.
An affair by its nature is not something which countenances confidentiality between the individuals involved. At best, it envisages secrecy, which is not the same as confidentiality. If the affair ends in a manner agreeable to both parties then all is well, but if does not then it is only human nature for the party which feels most hurt to talk to someone to exorcise the demons. However by the present reasoning of the law there should be no discussion or disclosure by a party to an affair unless the other party agrees. Not only is this, the law going too far, but it is also downright contrary to human nature. Is the law now going to step into sitting rooms up and down the country to prevent tearful revelations for some solace after a doomed liaison?
What is particularly galling is the fact that all of this has been done in the name of Human Rights by high priced magic circle solicitors who would probably run a mile from an indigent torture victim approaching them for assistance in an asylum application. There is something extremely nauseating about describing the well-heeled seeking to cover up their failings as “human rights”. There was a time when human rights had a sense of seriousness. It has now been reduced to a joke by vacuous celebrities and magic circle law firms who can be best described as social parasites. The understanding of a violation of human rights has been perversely pushed from people being killed, tortured, enslaved and tried in kangaroo courts, to anything which might be bit upsetting and which previously would have been remedied by strong cup of tea.
The recent Parliamentary rejection of granting votes to prisoners is a hopeful step in the right direction. What needs to happen is that the United Kingdom should promptly extract itself from the European Convention on Human Rights and abolish the Human Rights Act. There should then be a simplified renegotiation of the UK’s commitment to human rights upon the basis of what ordinary people understand to be human rights and not the present farrago of laws which by their increasingly perverse consideration of trivial matters mock those who are unjustly killed, tortured, enslaved and subjected to unfair trials.
In 2004, the celebrity model Naomi Campbell was found to have had her human rights violated. This was for merely being photographed outside a drug clinic. The fact that Ms.Campbell was a drug addict, had lied about her drug addiction, and the photograph proved the very point did not deter the House of Lords concluding that Ms.Campbell's human rights had been violated. What is ironic is that this particularly celebrity has been convicted of assault, handled blood diamonds and then was accused of perjury in relation to the handling of the blood diamonds. Anyone who knows anything about the murderous regime of former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor knows what real violations of Human Rights are and what is ultimately the show business, mickey mouse, cock a mamy, pantomime we have had recently had before the courts.
The second fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the law, is that the courts, have through the neglect of Parliamentary scrutiny, been allowed to develop rules which in effect grant to them powers to decide what item of information is suitable for public consumption. This in effect is an affront to freedom, and must be addressed by Parliament quickly before more damage is done to the reputation of the courts. Very helpfully Mr.Justice Eady in his judgement says that as the law stands he is compelled to decide that stories of the failings of celebrities are not fit for public consumption. Indeed it appears that Ms.Thomas's lawyers (perhaps anticipating the court’s attitude) did not even attempt to argue the public interest point.
Chickens always come home to roost and what is and what is not fit for public consumption being decided b unelected judges will eventually end in tears with such absolute power being abused to cover up something more directly and immediately touching upon the public's welfare. Aside from the constitutional dangers inherent in denying the freedom to report on the failings of celebrities there is a very real argument for the proposition that the publication of such failings of celebrities is not “tittle tattle” but properly fit for public consumption and most definitely in the public interest.
CELEBRITY CULTURE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
It is easy to see why the Goodwin case is very obviously in the public interest and not so clear as to why the celebrity footballer's case should also fall into the public interest.
There is a very dangerous disconnect of the courts with reality. The courts presume to know how real society works, and the sources from which some ordinary people derive their morality. The misfortune of our times is that the presumption of the courts is vacant of actuality.
Sport in the real world is more than just a diversion. It is for many ordinary people the most efficient paradigm for how a perfect world should work. Talent is always recognised and justice always swift. In case the courts have been on another planet, we have a celebrity culture. The influence of celebrity culture is pervasive.
A survey for the he Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) in 2008 concluded that “Children's educational aspirations risk being damaged by the cult of celebrity” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7296306.stm). The ATL warned of negative stories about celebrities influenced anti-social behaviour amongst young people. The corollary of this is the tendency of ordinary people to subordinate their powers of enquiry and reason to celebrities.
Celebrity culture is the social process whereby the famous and sometimes even the infamous have an influence on the democratic process either directly by canvassing for their particular cause, or indirectly through their fame distracting the public gaze from the policy process which effects their lives. In both cases celebrity culture is part and parcel of the political arena. In Marxist terms celebrity culture is the new opium of the people. To the impoverished, celebrity culture has the power of providing a vicarious other life of illusion that diverts attention from that which is significant. At its most benign, celebrity culture has the capacity to invoke the suspension of enquiry and reason in the promotion of some cause or issue.
Exposure of the stupidity and failings of any celebrity is therefore for the public good in that such exposure alerts the public to not abdicate their powers of enquiry and reason to celebrities. The embarrassment of celebrities is the most effective weapon in the war to have ordinary people think for themselves, and not be diverted by individuals whose only redeeming quality is that they can entertain, have some sporting prowess and sometimes have no particularly outstanding qualities except for being famous. The embarrassment of celebrities is the war on celebrity culture. Every celebrity is a legitimate target for the exposure of their failings. The public interest is the war on celebrity culture and that necessarily involves limiting the rights of privacy of celebrities to that of preserving their decorum, not to preventing the exposure of their failings. Just as a Muslim or a Jew should avoid a job in a pork pie factory to prevent religious sensibilities being embarrassed, those who wish to keep private their failings should avoid becoming celebrities. People who live glass houses should avoid pulling down their trousers.
The battleground is not the competition between the privacy of celebrities and the notional trump card of freedom of expression reduced to the triviality of exposing some tawdry tittle tattle about the famous. The battleground, in reality is the more profound struggle between forces for democracy and the subversion of democracy through the powers of distraction and interference from an invading celebrity culture.
PRIVACY AND THE FRENCH CONNECTION
In French law, privacy is supreme, and if there is a Francophile element in the British judiciary wishing to develop a law of privacy along the same lines, then events in New York on 15th May 2011 brought about a reality check.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a French politician and President of the IMF. He was also on target of becoming the next President of France. All that maybe in the past because on 15th May 2011, in New York, Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested and later charged for attempted rape of a hotel worker. Very shortly after his arrest journalist and writer Tristane Banon claimed that Dominique Strauss-Kahn had attempted to rape her too some years ago. Then there emerged footage of a French TV programme made in 2007 in which Tristane Banon accused Strauss-Khan of trying to rape her, but Strauss-Khan’s name was beleeped.
Had the previous attempted rape of Tristane Banon not been suppressed then the hotel worker in New York may have been spared her ordeal. The French system of privacy rights protected Strauss-Kahn from exposure. Once judges begin deciding what is “tittle tattle” and what is important they will not stop with just protecting celebrities. Sooner or later the temptation will be always to go further and one day a British Tristane Banon will be silenced with privacy laws.
THE NAGGING QUESTIONS
Given that there does seem to be a genuine public interest in bothe the Goodwin and the celebrity footballer injunctions then the question arises as to why have the judiciary been so ready to grant the recent flurry of super injunctions?
If the revelations of the earlier rape after Strauss-Khan incident was a salutatory reminder of the dangers of an overreaching privacy law then why are the courts still maintaining these super injunctions?
If the Prime Minister had reflected the public discomfort at the super injunctions then why did the judiciary continue to maintain the super injunctions?
If after an elected parliamentarian had been compelled to use Parliamentary privilege to identify Fred Goodwin in contradiction to the super injunction then why did the judicary continue to limit the lifting of the injunction obtained by Goodwin?
What provides the judiciary the confidence that it is above the will of the people exercised by an elected Parliament?
If a cursory enquiry of the internet would have shown that the celebrity footballer had already been identified then then how could this be not information in the public domain?
Whilst any worthy reason for the grant of Goodwin and the celebrity footballer super injunctions seem unclear, what is perfectly clear is that Parliament represents the people and at its worst has had issues over expenses, Judges are on the other hand selected. Judges are not elected and not subject to direct public scrutiny. Judges have no business in determining what can and cannot be said in Parliament. Judges should know their place. When judges forget who they serve they should be the subject of public discussion. Above every judge sitting in every court in the UK are the Norman French words “Dieu et mon droit”. This means by God and my right, what the judges have forgotten is the unwritten subtext “Par Dieu et mon droit mais pas selon la volonté directe des gens et seulement par leur tolérance” which for those not versed in French means “By God and my right but not according to the direct will of people and only by their tolerance”.
A JUDICIARY INHERENTLY FLAWED?
Institutional corruption is the process whereby a body of decision makers are corrupted by the pervasive influence of advocates representing clients whose interests the decision makers favour. The essence of institutional corruption is the inter-changeability of decision makers and advocates and either an immediate or future financial relationship between them.
In a legislative setting institutional corruption can be observed by lobbyists having themselves elected as lawmakers, lawmakers becoming lobbyists when they fail to be elected or retire from active politics.
A near parallel process can be observed in the British judicial system. Magic circle law firms engage senior barristers for well-heeled clients. Enough of these barristers will eventually become judges. Therefore the likelihood of a litigant facing a well-heeled opponent being represented by a magic circle law firm succeeding are minimal regardless of the strength of the case. All the while the whole enterprise is extremely profitable. Consider for a moment the fact that a defamation cases cost one hundred and forty times more in the United Kingdom than in the rest of Europe (Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies - A Comparative Study in Defamation Proceedings Across Europe, Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, December 2008). So who is responsible for determining how much legal costs have to be paid at the end of a case which result in costs being one hundred and forty times the European average? If you guessed “the judges” who were all previously lawyers, then go the top of the class.
Imagine if it was discovered that Minister of State was delivering a public service which cost one hundred and forty times the European average, there would most likely be a resignation. Imagine if a business was selling a product which cost one hundred and forty times the European average, more than likely there would be an accusations of scam. Yet judges are responsible for ordering legal costs in favour of magic law firms one hundred and forty times the European average.
Something is very seriously wrong with the judiciary.
SOMETIMES THE CRACKS BECOME VISIBLE
Just like the plot of a Hollywood caper movie where the villains fall out amongst themselves and it all goes pear-shaped, the story of Mr.Justice Peter Smith tells its own story.
Mr. Justice Peter Smith is a judge of the High Court and has been so since 15th April 2002. Back in 2007, magic circle law firm Addleshaw Booth tried to recruit him as a member of their team. Unfortunately the negotiations went sour between Mr. Justice Peter Smith and Addleshaw Booth over how much Mr. Justice Peter Smith would be paid. Eventually in an email to Addleshaw Booth, Peter Smith complained that Addleshow Booth “wasted his time” and that Addleshaw Booth had “allowed the bean counters to prevail". Then in 2007 Addleshaw Booth had a case come up before Mr.Justice Peter Smith. Obviously Addleshaw Booth did not want their case to be before Mr.Justice Peter Smith given the terms on which the negotiations had broken down, so Addleshaw Booth asked for another judge. Mr.Justice Peter Smith declined to step down eventually the Court of Appeal had to step in to remove Peter Smith from the case.
The Peter Smith case shows exactly what is wrong with the current system of judicial appointment and tenure. The guide to judicial conduct issued by the Judges’ Council indicates that a current or recent business association with a party will usually mean that a judge should not sit on a case. This is simply not good enough to displace the gaining suspicion of institutionalised corruption amongst the judiciary. What is necessary is not merely the absence of a “current or recent business connection”, but the certainty of there being no connection ever whether through business or professional amity. This means that the existing system of selecting judges from the legal profession must come to an end, and a specialist judicial profession created whose members have never had any connection with the legal profession. Thus as matters stand, judges cannot avoid the suspicion of institutionalised corruption. It is matter of some impoverishment to our legal system that the only components in our existing legal system which are beyond the charge of institutional corruption are juries and lay magistrates.
The judiciary has failed miserably. It has shown itself be inept. Although people still have some faith in the prospect of justice, the credibility of the judges is undeniably at its lowest ebb. In short, the judiciary is unfit for purpose. It is the urgent task of Government to reform the judiciary so that it operates with openness. Should the Government side-step this issue then they can be certain of being held accountable for the failings of the judiciary. This will no doubt cause judges to be the subject of politics, however any accountability of the judges to the people is better than no accountability at all.
The next general election may well have Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates facing leaflets and other publications informing the public of questionable judicial decisions, and the Governments failure in addressing an unfit judiciary. Whilst New Labour will no doubt seek to distance themselves from such a debate, it may be a fact of life that the failure to control and reform the judiciary will be politically fatal to a governing party seeking re-election. There is no logical reason for a Government not to be held accountable for unfit judges who do not reflect the public will. Whether this is achieved through clearer legislation or replacing what appears to be a suspicious system of judicial appointment to reflect the will of the people as expressed in the law is something Government needs to urgently consider. What cannot be left unattended is the fact of unelected judges making policy decisions by way of determining what is and what is not a “public interest”.
TWITTER TIME
In an uncertain and ever changing world the hubris of magic circle lawyers is a constant fixture. Thus even though the identity of the celebrity footballer in the Imogen Thomas case is now well displayed on the internet, the Twiterati are nevertheless to be pursued by the celebrity footballer's lawyer Rod Christie-Miller of Schillings solicitors. He confidently proclaimed, that he was going after Twitter itself notwithstanding that Twitter is an American company, and even though some versed in Realpolitik may argue the true nature of the position of Britain and the British judiciary could be likened to Monica and Bill with the US the one wearing the pantaloons (or to be more accurate metaphorically not quite wearing the aforesaid pantaloons).
It may be silly and pointless to go after Twitterers as those on Twitter will just move to a Twitter alternative or even set up their own anonymous networks. Perhaps someone should sit down and explain the futility of silencing the web to the celebrity footballer before he spends more needless funds on expensive lawyers.
The Egyptian Government of Hosni Mubarak found out hard way during the Arab Spring that they could not silence the internet. All they could do was to switch it off for a couple of days. It would be very unwise to switch off the internet in the UK. Raising student fees saw the ferocity of their displeasure. Imagine what the students will do if their Facebook is taken away.
The internet is the noble frontier of freedom. It is a miracle of human ingenuity. It is built on notions of co-operation and sharing. Those who seek to silence it, will inevitably find their efforts wasted, and themselves appear foolish. Those who even hint at silencing something will find the thing they wanted to silence spawn further. Judges would do well to learn quickly that the days their overriding writ are done. When it comes to freedom of expression judges may propose but the web will dispose.
On 14th January 1989 Slaman Rushdie's book the Satanic Verses was burned on the streets of Bradford, West Yorkshire. That was a protest, and Pakistani immigrants did not in the end prevent freedom of expression despite their genuine hurt and outrage in what had been written by Rushdie. What was feared of the Muslims did not happen. Freedom of expression did not perish in 1989, but in 2011 Europe rather than the Muslims caused it severe injury. That Freedom of expression was damaged by notions of Human Rights derived from Europe is the forgetting of history. The European Convention on Human Rights was necessary for a Europe which had had emerged from a war, inheriting a past replete with tyranny and persecutions.
Tony Blair’s vision of welding this artifice of controlling grubby Europeans and their inclinations for despots with British traditions of fairness and justice just goes to show how misbegotten the whole venture was.
Things are in a bad way for our constitutional freedoms, even the Prime Minister is acknowledging this, and if you have survived this far reading the tale of judicial ineptitude here it is. Sport.es on their website stated “You know that in England you bet almost everything and this time they have done on behalf of the player and family man who was unfaithful to his wife Imogen Thomas, the model ex-girlfriend of Defoe. Ryan Giggs, the Welsh end of United, is the winner. And where there's smoke ... “. Needless to say sport.es does not have a history in defending the fundamental freedoms of the British people and someone did raise the point in a comment that “[it was] funny how [sport.es] released this just before the Champions League final...” Sometimes the search for freedom makes for strange bedfellows. If bankers and celebrity footballers are under one blanket let’s not fret about sharing a mattress with the Spaniards. Viva La Espana!
