Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 1, 2009 0:46:57 GMT
One has to wonder why any corporation needs to spend their money protecting the privacy of one of their employees who has been found to falsely accuse their partner of a crime, in this case - rape. But when we are talking about the BBC it is of course a corporation that doesn't spend their money, they spend ours. It's not to protect their employee's reputation, but their own.
I could tell them they are so far tarnished they would be better to spend the money mproving the quality of their programmes.
I could tell them they are so far tarnished they would be better to spend the money mproving the quality of their programmes.
BBC wasted legal fees to protect 'rape' personality
By Antonia Hoyle
The BBC has spent licence-payers’ money in a failed attempt to prevent The Mail on Sunday publishing a story about how one of the Corporation’s personalities had falsely accused her former boyfriend of rape.
Last Sunday we revealed the woman told police she had been assaulted 40 times during their relationship, before withdrawing the allegations.
The officer investigating the case described her claims as ‘inconsistent’ and ‘not credible’.
Yet, because of a legal loophole, the incident remains on the Police National Computer, ruining her former boyfriend’s job prospects and his freedom to travel.
Whereas his life has been wrecked, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 guarantees her anonymity and prevents him suing for damages.
Last Friday, without notifying The Mail on Sunday, which was therefore not represented at the hearing, BBC lawyers took out a court order to insist that their client was entitled to her anonymity – even though this is guaranteed by law and was at no point under threat. So secret was the court order, this newspaper was even banned from mentioning its existence.
It was made by Mr Justice Eady, a controversial High Court judge often described as being at the forefront of moves to create a privacy law protecting public figures.
He ruled that Formula 1 millionaire Max Mosley’s right to privacy extended to his participation in a sado-masochistic orgy.
Now, after complaints from The Mail on Sunday, the order has been amended, allowing us to reveal the lengths to which the BBC will go to protect celebrities, however serious the allegations.
Had the BBC’s lawyers taken the trouble to contact The Mail on Sunday directly, we would have given guarantees of anonymity without any need to spend licence-payers’ money.
As a matter of good journalistic practice, this newspaper had already contacted the BBC personality to hear her side of the story and had informed her that her identity would not – and could not – be revealed.
When asked to comment on the court order, the BBC said:
By Antonia Hoyle
The BBC has spent licence-payers’ money in a failed attempt to prevent The Mail on Sunday publishing a story about how one of the Corporation’s personalities had falsely accused her former boyfriend of rape.
Last Sunday we revealed the woman told police she had been assaulted 40 times during their relationship, before withdrawing the allegations.
The officer investigating the case described her claims as ‘inconsistent’ and ‘not credible’.
Yet, because of a legal loophole, the incident remains on the Police National Computer, ruining her former boyfriend’s job prospects and his freedom to travel.
Whereas his life has been wrecked, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 guarantees her anonymity and prevents him suing for damages.
Last Friday, without notifying The Mail on Sunday, which was therefore not represented at the hearing, BBC lawyers took out a court order to insist that their client was entitled to her anonymity – even though this is guaranteed by law and was at no point under threat. So secret was the court order, this newspaper was even banned from mentioning its existence.
It was made by Mr Justice Eady, a controversial High Court judge often described as being at the forefront of moves to create a privacy law protecting public figures.
He ruled that Formula 1 millionaire Max Mosley’s right to privacy extended to his participation in a sado-masochistic orgy.
Now, after complaints from The Mail on Sunday, the order has been amended, allowing us to reveal the lengths to which the BBC will go to protect celebrities, however serious the allegations.
Had the BBC’s lawyers taken the trouble to contact The Mail on Sunday directly, we would have given guarantees of anonymity without any need to spend licence-payers’ money.
As a matter of good journalistic practice, this newspaper had already contacted the BBC personality to hear her side of the story and had informed her that her identity would not – and could not – be revealed.
When asked to comment on the court order, the BBC said:
‘The individual was the focus of the article as a result of their employment with the BBC and, as the identity of anyone who makes an allegation of rape is protected by law, we sought to ensure that the law was applied as it would be to anyone else.’