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

Unknown 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

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.