Tuesday, 24 May 2011

BBC Legal

This is the BBC Sports Page's legalled version of the Giggs story: 'Ryan Giggs, identified in Parliament as the married footballer named on Twitter as having an injunction over an alleged affair with a reality TV star'. Funny? I thought it was funny. Not a lot, but a bit.

You'll be interested in what I think about this story. On the one hand I think the superinjunctions are silly and wrong, and while the prurience is nasty, we should be very wary of making laws to deal with it. It is legal to be prurient and, up to a point, nasty. Laws are hard to take back, especially if people can make a quick buck out of them.

But the way it's played out in the last week, the 'everybody knows' defence? Hmm. 'Bottom-up'; 'people power'; and so on. Viva la revolution! But at what point does that argument look the same as 'might is right' or some other kind of mob?

It's more complicated than this, obviously, but I need to go and listen to amazing singers, which is all I do at the moment.* As well as the brilliant Damsel cast, I saw Ian 'The Ostritch' Bostridge last night.

* I have a truly wonderful letter to share with you as soon as I have time to transcribe it...

1 comment:

peteraj said...

The media, particularly the tabloid versions, really care about this (injunction) issue because it affects it negatively and directly. Yet, there is only one journo to my knowledge and one MP - strangely or perhaps not John Hemmings - seeking to lift the veil on the conduct of family court proceedings. An issue which goes to the very core of our values, family and otherwise. As someone who successfully fought the family court system because I was educated, articulate and, above all, determined, I think we have our priorities wrong.