Skip to main content

Andrew Marr turns from the Dark Side

Hemming welcomes Andrew Marr's turn away from the dark side

John Hemming MP has welcomed Andrew Marr's decision to let his injunction lapse. "Those people who live by the sword", he said
"should be prepared to die by the sword."

"I am pleased that he has shown his commitment to freedom of speech by turning from the dark side of gagging orders."

"I hope that other people who have obtained injunctions will recognise the error of their ways and let the injunctions lapse."

Comments

Jerry said…
BBC presenter Andrew Marr said he had taken out a super-injunction to protect his family's privacy. Skip related content


In an interview with the Daily Mail, Mr Marr said he felt "uneasy" about the High Court injunction, which he won in January 2008 to suppress reports of an extra-marital affair.

He told the newspaper: "I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists. Am I embarrassed by it? Yes. Am I uneasy about it? Yes." But he added: "I also had my own family to think about, and I believed this story was nobody else's business. I still believe there was, under those circumstances, no public interest in it."

But Mr Marr added that the use of injunctions seemed to be "running out of control". He said: "There is a case for privacy in a limited number of difficult situations, but then you have to move on. They shouldn't be forever and a proper sense of proportion is required."

His comments come amid a growing disquiet at the use by celebrities of injunctions and so-called super-injunctions to prevent media reporting of their private lives.

Last week Prime Minister David Cameron sounded a warning about the way judges are creating a new law of privacy "rather than Parliament".

Mr Cameron said: "The judges are creating a sort of privacy law whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening."

Ian Hislop, the editor of Private Eye, said he had challenged the injunction last week. He said: "In a sense he led the pack because he was the most respectable of the people putting super-injunctions in. But the principle remains wrong, which he knows, articulated once and should still believe."

Mr Hislop said he thought the super-injunction had been "a touch hypocritical" because Mr Marr had written an article saying that Parliament - not judges - should determine privacy law.

He added: " As a leading BBC interviewer who is asking politicians about failures in judgment, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies, it was pretty rank of him to have an injunction while working as an active journalist. I think he knows that and I'm very pleased he's come forward and said 'I can no longer do this'."
Lee Firth said…
It makes you wonder how on Earth he could be effective in his job as a reporter when he himself is involved in a conspiracy to hide the truth from other journalists.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…