Sex, Lies and Gagging Orders (BBC3)
Just how much should we be entitled to know about the private lives of the famous and how much they have a right to keep hidden?
Sex, Lies and Gagging Orders
(BBC3)
Just how much should we be entitled to know about the private lives of the famous and how much they have a right to keep hidden?
We have had months of headlines dominated by revelations about phone hacking and superinjunctions taken out by celebrities to keep their sordid and squalid affairs out of the limelight.
The same celebrities who are often quick to stoke the flames of press gossip when it comes to fuelling their careers but who will do a sprint to the High Court if their latest dalliance is likely to be made public and their wives or partners discover them to be cheats.
Last night former Heat editor Sam Delaney investigated both issues – or rather he dusted both off and didn't really get to the heart of the matter. It was a case of appearing to be rather concerned but at the end of the day sitting on the fence while considering any future additions to his bank balance.
Let's start with his examination of the celebrity superinjunction and whether just because you've got pots of money you should be able to stop someone from selling their story once they've been dumped by said star.
Personally I'm not all interested in who is doing what to whom in the privacy of their own bedrooms or rented hotel suites.
But women (and for the that case, men) who rush to Max Clifford or the news desk of The Sun to sell their 'betrayal' are prostituting themselves. Yes, I know the old saying of a woman scorned – and look at what Princess Diana did on TV when admitting adultery and exposing her poor sons to ridicule – but surely these people should have some pride in themselves?
Sorry, but in the majority of these kiss-and-tell episodes it is purely a way for the 'lingerie model' or bit part actress to get some major publicity to further their 'careers'.
As for the celebrity – perhaps it would be better for his wife or partner to know the truth about what he's been getting up to when away 'on business.'
Asking the High Court to slap a gagging order on the press is nothing new. Public figures have been doing it for years, but a case involving reality TV star Imogen Thomas opened up the floodgates. Details of her affair with a top Premier League footballer (you know the one) spread like wildfire online, with his name repeated tens of thousands of times on Twitter alone.
Despite the information being widely available, the injunction itself was never lifted. The Sun's lawyers did try but failed. Justice Eady argued the married footballer had a right to privacy and was fully entitled to anonymity.
How ludicrous is that? It is not up to our courts to defend cheats.
The phone hacking scandal is altogether more serious. This is an invasion of privacy in the truest sense of the words. It is not a case of someone willing to spill the beans but underhand and devious journalists (and I use that description lightly) desperate to get the very deepest of the dirt. And it is illegal, no questions about that.
And that applies to hacking anyone's phones. It doesn't matter if they are a celebrity or not.
Hacking the phones of Milly Dowler and her family was digging in the deepest of pits.
The only positive side to the News of the World's actions was to reveal the depth of corruption in the Metropolitan Police Force.
By Sharon Walters
