King of the Twits

The extra-ordinarily famous, philandering footballer who was exposed by disgruntled Tweeters, has now, incredibly sought to bring a case against a journalist who also mentioned his name. It is rather unlikely the hack in question was the first, as thousands of tweets have included the player's name - that medium seems to talk of little else.

These issues are not just gossip; they touch on Parliamentary sovereignty, privacy law, press freedom. But ultimately it is all about money. The footballer is not a callow youth and should know the game is up on protecting his children about his infidelity. His huge weekly wage, spent on grateful lawyers, cannot resolve it. Not even the most gifted silk can promise his client he can actually reverse time or eradicate the new media.

But this striker must have been somewhat encouraged by Lord Igor Judge who gave an extra-ordinarily assessment of injunctions on Friday, exposing his antiquated knowledge of modern communication. "Are you really going to say," inquired Judge Judge, " that someone who has a true claim for protection, perfctly well made, has to be at the mercy of modern technology?"

The answer to his poser appears to be, emphatically YES - partly because the protection this Welsh player insisted on was only possible given his wealth. It was not instilled against outside forces but deemed necessary given his sexual conquests despite being a family man. When the Judge berated websites "peddling lies" the same could be said for the famous left-winger who seeks to perpetuate the myth of his honesty as a husband and father.

The Judge also took a swipe at Parliamentarians who chose to use absolute Parliamentary privilege to expose the most absurd injunctions such Fred Goodwin's (no doubt his media ban was deemed "a claim for protection perfectly well made".) Without their actions which are fully allowable under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, we might not have learned very much about these Kafka-esque machinations in the High Court.

This player from a big club in the north west of England has, very foolishly, instructed lawyers to act against Twitter itself and threaten a prominent BBC journo with jail. Firstly, British law does not apply in San Francisco and Twitter Execs would be well advised to respond with a bemused, declining response. Second, the journo can just wait. By the time any case came to court, the footballer's identity will be even further in the public domain. Any case would have to be tried anonymously which opposes the guiding principle of open justice. In fact any case brought by the footballer would almost certainly mean he would be compelled to identify himself. We are close to the legal madhouse now.

As you may have noticed, throughout this article, I have scattered enough clues to make a 'jigsaw' indentification of the player. But I am not very fearful. The information is small currency now. It's even on Wikipedia and the front of Scotland's Sunday Herald.

In an ideal world, the connection between him and Ms Imogen Thomas (also being sued) would be made very public through crowd chants at Saturday's Champions League final, which is another clue. Perhaps then he would question whether it was practical to sue 35,000 Barcelona fans for revealing the knoweldge which is now already widespread.

* Apparently his name was reverberating around Old Trafford yesterday thanks to thousands of Blackpool fans. Tough gig.

With a Stain on Your Name

The case against former Met Commander Ali Dezaei lacked a certain robustness from the start (See blog entry March 2010 'One Way or Another').

His release from custody this week is not the end of the story. Although the main witness in the trial was found to be thoroughly unreliable (using a false name in court for a start) he still faces a re-trial.

For that reason I am unable to say much more in view of the law on Contempt of Court. But it was astonishing Mrs Devaei was easily able to uncover the witness's deception when the investigating team did not.

Can You Hear Me at the Back?

The British Tea Party still has some way to go. I trundled down through masses of tourists on Saturday morning to witness the rising of the new Right but failed to spot it.

In Old Palace Yard, opposite Parliament, were about 250 Pro-Cut protestors, John Harris in the Guardian described it as, "not so much a crowd, more of a long queue". The sound system was very poor so not a word culd be heard above the buses and taxis. The Counter demo was one crusty and only five coppers stood around looking at their watches.

From small acorns to mighty oaks? No. This is going nowhere if they can't pull in their own supporters. And politically inept - one sign said curiously "Abolish the Bank of England" and another, rather artlessly "Socialism is Rubbish."

I was asked to sign some anti-trade union Early Day Motion (only MPs can do that). When I refused, assertively, the two sweaty guys in bad suits got rather antsy. The crowd were generally like them, all blokes, all white, upper middle class who looked like they had got lost on their way to the Proms.

Fear not, the future does not belong to them.

Back to Basics

I never really rated Alex Salmond as a politician. He always seemed to over or understate every case and make Nationalist politics of any issue whether justified or not. Now by luck and design Salmond has won an overall majority for the SNP in Holyrood.

Whether he is bumptious and arrogant, it matters not, Salmond could teach Nick Clegg a thing or two about politics. On the issue of a referendum, Salmond is aware of the golden rule - only hold won when you know you are going to win.

Clegg's hamfisted handling of the local elections and AV vote expose him as extraordinarily naive. Cameron has shown he is politically smarter on strategy than before but he was fortunate to have a fall guy to push under the train in his place. He made the most of it and showed his "ruthless" skills. Clegg now is trying to re-assert some authority over the NHS reforms, like a jilted wife insisting she is not going to clean her fiance's shoes.

Ed Milliband's gain of 800 council seats was offset by a bit of a disaster at the hands of the SNP. But the regions are not really the business of Labour HQ, the bare fact is Wales had Carwen Jones a leader with great charisma and authority. Scottish Labour had Ian Grey who is so dull he makes John Major look like Jack Kennedy.

Slowly the Tories are gaining strength. If Clegg doesn't realise he is just a conduit to a longer more established Tory Government you would have to wonder what he really knows about politics at all.

Destroying Democracy

It was certainly overstating the point when David Cameron made a last minute plea to the nation that adopting AV would "destroy" Britain's democracy. It is hard from any perspective to see how this minor shuffling of votes would have any significant change on Parliamentary democracy.

But Dave's hysteria looks shallow and puerile when we witness what democracy under a frontal assualt, like in Syria now. The scenes of massacre against unarmed protesters reveals the brutal regime of President Assad and the extraordinary bravery of the people who oppose him.

Today is expected to be the bloodiest once marches start after Friday prayers. Assad would have had an allay in suppressing democracy in Osama Bin Laden. But his killing this week has again changed the prism through which we view Middle East politics. Bin Laden, although an advocate in the annihilation of individual freedoms, would also have denounced Assad for his western dress and the modernisation of Syrian society where girls are permitted some level of education.

It is still fairly astonishing Bin Laden had the following he did when his vision was to regress to a pre-Medieval utopia where the Koran was the start, middle and finish of every day and where women were mere doormats and all Christians, Hindus and Jews were worthless infidels. This religio-fascistic society could hardly be more opposed to democratic freedom.

Democracy is often banal even boring but for the people of Damascus, Misrata and Bahrain, a life and death struggle.

Makes me Gag

It is getting slightly more difficult to trace the identities of various 'celebs' who have won injunctions to prevent news coverage of their adulterous affairs. But it still can be done on the net in matter of seconds.

These stories have been published in the press for longer than I can remember and so long as they are true, it should be just tough luck on the philanderer. His nemesis is his own arrogance not the tabloid press. It is extra-ordinary for a judge to grant a total blanket ban on revealing the identity of the Scottish actor who booked the same escort as Wayne Rooney. Other judges did not accept the defences of Rooney or Terry so why for the actor?

But the issue of injunctions is more serious than a few affairs and children losing all faith in their lovely daddies. The courts' acceptance of the right of privacy over freedom of expression has also included super-injunctions, some obtained by corporations. Here the media are prevented from revealing the existence of the injunction itself let alone the parties involved or any detail of the case. The terms of one hyper-injunction meant the accuser was prevented from even speaking to his MP which is where court rulings can now restrict basic democratic rights.

The slightly eccentric John Hemmings MP has raised the issue in Parliament so has absolute privelege and I have the legal right to report what he said. The case actually goes back five years and revolves around accusations toxic chemicals leaked from paint into ship's water tanks. I have no idea of the validity of the claims but there at least seems to be a fairly strong 'health and safety' public interest here.

I was chatting to a lawyer recently whose firm has sought and been granted injunctions in the past. He said the law was like a pendulum; it was swinging one way at the moment (in favour of privacy) but it was just as likely it would swing back. Let's hope so, I am not often on the same side as the Daily Mail.

The most succinct analysis of the danger of injunctions came from Max Clifford (above) who said," What we've got now is a privacy law that wasn't brought in by Parliament but the judges have decided they want. Sometimes the privacy of the rich and famous - or anyone - does deserve to be protected. But only the rich and famous can afford this, so it is only a law to protect the rich and in a democracy that's not right."

Lessons of on democracy and Government from Mr Clifford should tell us we are certainly in a strange place.

Better it Were Done Quickly

Saturday morning and the international press pack are bored rigid in their Tripoli hotel. They have been promised yet another trip to see examples of Gaddafi's 'utopian' society and the population's unceasing devotion to their leader.

Then into the lobby burst Iman Al-Obeidi (pictured above). She made claims of rape and torture by Libyan militia and denounced the regime for what it was: despotic and despicable. Naturally the press, suddenly awaked, were already be escorted by various Government henchmen. Despite the obvious worsening of the impression it would give, they seized the vulnerable young woman violently. Any member of the media who attempted to help was threatened or assaulted. Sky News had a side arm pointed at them for daring to continue to film.

The Gaddafi thugs then dragged her off into the street; they physically put their hands over her mouth as she exposed the ruling power's vicious lies, rank hypocrisy and murderous intent. She was defamed as drunk, mentally ill, a prostitute. Even if she were any of those it should not alter her human rights. But she was then bundled away into a waiting car and it must be highly doubtful she will be seen by her family again.

For all the plotting over campaign maps and adjustments to the UN backed counter offensive, here is one human example which illuminated the desperate struggle for freedom and free speech which is everyday life in Libya. We do not know what leadership will follow but for now this brutal fear must end.