Open Writing

What a load of tosh is being talked and written about the recent publicity surrounding injunctions, super injunctions and protection of privacy.

Most of the clamour under the guise of the public’s so-called right to know about the activities of our footballers and celebrities is emanating from our self-righteous media - and not just the tabloids.

I suppose as a former freelance journalist who during his career often exposed the wrong-doings of others, I should be in favour of total transparency in society. But frankly I am sick and tired of the dishonest ramblings of columnists and commentators, furious at being prevented from naming footballers, entertainers and others in the public eye who are accused of acting immorally.

I say “dishonest” because these so-called guardians of our liberty and freedom are only frothing at the mouth because the protection being offered to the rich and famous is preventing them increasing their circulations. They couldn’t really care less whether or not you have a right to know.

Let’s take an imaginery example. A well-known footballer, say married with two children, playing for a Premiership club and earning in excess of £100,000 a week and idolised by the club’s fans because of his fantastic skills. He has been having a secret affair for some time but it then ends and the girl decides to make herself a few thousand pounds by selling the story about the affair.

She goes to Max Clifford who arranges for her sordid tale to be published by a Sunday tabloid. The footballer finds out or is asked to comment and goes to court and wins an injunction to prevent his name being disclosed. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with that?

Naturally we don’t approve of him cheating on his wife but that’s a long way from saying we Joe Public have a right to know that’s exactly what he has been doing. Of course I accept that we would all like to know who he is, to satisfy our curiosity – gives us something to talk about down at our local – but revealing his identity surely is not in the public interest. Will it improve my lot to know who he is? Will it make society a better place to live in?

Does he deserve to have his name plastered over the front pages, the internet and TV? This is not a public court of morals. What good does it do to damage him and his family? And the argument that he got what he deserved because he was a role model and should have known better and let us all down is a load of drivel.

Footballers and other celebrities who deviate from the straight and narrow are no different than the rest of us. They have not set themselves up as role models.They are doing a job, albeit a richly paid one, but that should not influence our attitude towards them, unless they are acting against the public interest by, for example, committing criminal acts.

The same criteria should be applied to others in the public arena such as politicians and bankers who maybe caught with their trousers down. Their extra-marital activities, deplorable though they maybe, should only be open to public scrutiny if it can be proved they are interfering with their duties which we, as tax-payers, are paying them to perform.

Too often the motivation for revealing the private lives of those in the public eye is malice and in many cases jealousy. Many of us were rightly appalled that banker Sir Fred Goodwin, who stands accused of playing a big part in the collapse of RBS, should have walked away with a massive pay-out and pension. But why should he be hung out to dry over his affair with a senior colleague – unless and until it can be proved it had a direct bearing on the collapse of the bank. Then, and only then, would it be in the public interest.

And I must say I am amused by the vast number of people rushing into print or telephoning their local or national radio stations exclaiming indignantly: “It’s not fair. It’s only the rich, famous and powerful who can afford to apply for a High Court injunction.”

Of course it is. They’re the only ones who need it. The media aren’t going to hammer on the door of housewife Annie Smith to ask her why she’s been cheating on her husband by having an affair with her milkman.

What really upsets me about all this nonsense is this insistence, led by an avaricious media, that under the Freedom of Information Act, the Human Rights Act, this, that and the other act, we all have the inalienable right to know everything about everyone else. Crazy as it may seem I can discover what my neighbour paid for his house. Why should I have the right to know that – unless he chooses to tell me?

While many of us might not like the way that vastly overpaid footballer Wayne Rooney conducts himself we don’t have the right to know that he has been with a prostitute. It has nothing to do with me. And it has nothing to do with you.

And while I hold no particular brief for soccer star Ryan Giggs I thought it was disgraceful that an MP used – and abused - Parliamentary privilege to name the player who had sex with a Big Brother contestant, for no other reason, it would appear, than to teach our judges a lesson. A sad day for British justice.