header-logo header-logo

11 December 2008 / Stephen Loughrey
Issue: 7349 / Categories: Opinion , Media , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Tabloid fury

The press is bound but not gagged, says Stephen Loughrey

In his recent speech to the Society of Editors Conference, Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail editor and Associated Newspapers’ editor-in-chief, launched a stinging attack on what he considers the most dangerous threat to press freedom in many years—the imposition of law protecting an individual’s right to privacy. Mr Dacre, entreated his colleagues to “concentrate…on how inexorably, and insidiously, the British Press is having a privacy law imposed on it” and laid the blame for this perceived aff ront to freedom of expression squarely at the feet of one man, Mr Justice Eady, the senior High Court judge who hears many of the libel and privacy cases in this country.

Protection
It is not yet three years since Lord Justice Sedley commented “that privacy —prominently but not solely private sexual activity, which sells so many newspapers—is something which our law does not yet adequately protect”. On carrying out a review of the tabloids on any given day, one could be forgiven for concluding that little

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll