Skip to main content

The Public Domain, YouGov and Ryan Giggs

YouGov performed a survey of people to find out what proportion knew "the secret" before I mentioned it in the House of Commons.

Of the total sample of 2,442 82% were sure they knew, 14% were sure that they didn't know and 4% didn't know whether they knew or not. Of the 82% 3% got the name wrong, but 79% got the name right.

From the perspective of the "Law of Confidentiality" I would argue, therefore, that the name was already in the public domain.

This really highlights the total absurdity of the situation.

Comments

Andrew said…
The injunction was issued by a judge that clearly cannot interpret the human rights act.

Had The Sun climbed a ladder to film the affair then it would be a very different matter, however in this case it was a 'private matter' one of the parties at least seemed to want to make public.

So I don't think there were grounds to make the injunction in the first instance, any other matters such as blackmail should of been dealt with as a criminal matter.

John Hemming - A true public servant.
tremulous said…
Of course it's absurd. But then it's all absurd, as is the hysterical reaction by the lawyers to your actions. You do have parliamentary privilege, they say, but you certainly mustn't use it, you bad man!

In truth Giggs himself doesn't greatly matter, but the underlying principle is of the greatest importance to all of us, whether we realise it or not.

And your work relating to the all-under-a-blanket secrecy of our family courts is a true public service. I have no personal interest here, but as a law student I came to realise years ago that something really quite sinister was occurring. There would be general outrage if some of the judgments and decisions these courts make could be publicised.

Notwithstanding all the abuse, what you are doing is important to all of us who do actually believe in free speech. Were I able, I'd vote for you! Good luck and best wishes.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…