All Posts Tagged With: "Andrew Marr"

JOURNALISTS USE SUPER-INJUNCTIONS TOO.

October 14th, 2009 • Peter • 2 comments • Related • Filed Under

There are very few of us – individuals and corporate bodies – who want nasty stories about our activities to appear in the papers. And those of us who anticipate such an event and feel we are justified in protecting our privacy have the option to instruct specialist lawyers like Carter Ruck to do what they can in the British courts to bring that about. It is after all the courts, not national newspapers who administer justice in this country.

          In the case of Trafigura, there’s little doubt that they were at fault, and in due course, this would have emerged as a result of Paul Farrelly’s questioning in the House of Commons and the availability of parliamentary records online (aided by Stephen Fry’s relentless twittering). It is irrational to want to shoot Carter Ruck for being Trafigura’s messenger. In law everyone is entitled to defend his/her position.

          And it’s worth remembering that these kinds of super-injunctions aren’t only used by large sinful corporations.

          Sometimes journalists use them too – take the case of Andrew Marr last year [see: http://www.peterburden.net/archives/18], when he sought and was granted an injunction against the reporting of an injunction over a court case involving his private life – a protection of his privacy to which he was perfectly entitled. It’s not important whether or not he employed Carter Ruck (he may have done; I haven’t checked), but it was important that his lawyers could use this legal tool.

          It makes no sense to get excitable and decry a useful aspect of the law while lambasting those who take advantage of that law, on the grounds that sometimes evil-doers take temporary cover under it. And you can’t blame Carter Ruck for trying – especially when, as a result of the provisions of the 1689 English Bill of Rights, they failed.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Ginger versus orange

February 2nd, 2009 • Peter • 0 comments • Related • Filed Under

Last week, at the London College of Communications, Sun editor, Rebekah Wade delivered the annual Hugh Cuddlip lecture to students of journalism.

In the old days, one of the first things they taught young hacks on the Chuffing Sodbury Argus was to make sure they always spelled the punters’ names right. Not, it seems, any more at the London College of Communications, the country’s premier hack school, who announced their up-coming lecturer as “Rebecca” Wade. I wonder if she was cross. You don’t go round spelling your name “Rebekah” unless you really care.

That, however, is not the point. More interesting perhaps are the criteria by which speakers are chosen to deliver this important lecture (past deliverers: Alastair Campbell, Paul Dacre, Andrew Marr and Michael Grade.) What, you might ask, could the editor of one of the most dishonest, self-serving and prurient of British tabloids have to tell any aspiring journalist that might enhance their future career, other than the clear knowledge that, if all else fails, you can always sell your soul?

Popularity: 2% [?]

Marr keeps his private life private

July 3rd, 2008 • Peter • 5 comments • Related • Filed Under

Andrew Marr, we read in Private Eye, was in court earlier this year obtaining an injunction to prevent publication of private information about him. Knowing the tendency of his fellow journos to scent blood at this kind of thing, he also obtained an injunction to prevent any reporting of the fact that he’d been in court at all.

Naturally he’s come in for a bit of scathe from the old cynics at the Eye, who recall his pronouncement 11 years ago on the preferability of Parliament making privacy laws, rather then the Judiciary creating it on the hoof.

Few would disagree, but as Marr had no doubt observed, it’s become increasingly evident that Parliament hasn’t the stomach to tackle privacy intrusion.

Popularity: 5% [?]