AND ANOTHER THING
Squashed strawberry leaves and the coward skulking in No. 10
PAUL JOHNSON
John Major has been complaining that he and his Back to Basics campaign have been made to seem ridiculous by a 'vicious vendetta' waged by the tabloids, which have been 'picking off', one by one, any Tory ministers, PPSs and backbenchers straying from the path of marital fidelity. My first comment is that Major cannot be made ridiculous by the tabloids or anyone else. He is ridiculous already. Anyone who doubts this should try the experiment, if the dinner-table conversation flags, of inter- jecting slowly into the silence the four words: 'Prime—Minister—John—Major'. It is sure to raise a laugh. (I was taught this trick, years ago, by Tom Stoppard, who if he was taking a photo and needed a smile would say, tenderly, the words 'Selwyn— Lloyd'.)
Second, if Major is so indignant, why doesn't he do something about it? The way he whines, these days, to newspaper tycoons, editors and anyone else who will listen, you would not think he was a prime minister with a working majority in the House of Commons, drilled and jankered by some of the most unscrupulous whips in the history of Westminster torture. The truth is that all of Major's errant colleagues who have been garrotted by the media would have been spared the experience (and, more to the point, their wives and families would have been spared the expe- rience) if Major had pushed through a Pri- vacy Law, which he could have done any time, with the greatest of ease, these last two years.
The absence of any legal redress for gross invasions of the privacy of individuals by newspapers motivated solely by com- .mercial considerations is a glaring lacuna in our statutory law. It is also, though this is only a collateral argument for reform, bad for the press. It is professional corruption. Any pretty little House of Commons 'research assistant', looking for notoriety or cash or both, can flash her thighs to a sex- hungry MP, inveigle him into some kind of compromising behaviour, then trot off to a downmarket tabloid. Easy for her and easy for the editor, who then claims an 'exclu- sive'. No conceivable public interest is served — quite the reverse — lives are ruined, and both newspaper and readers are degraded.
Even worse are cases, all too frequent, where tabloids devote large resources, in money and reporters' time, which ought to
be channelled into real news stories, into 'staking out' celebrities in the hope of catching them in flagmnte delicto. There was a case not long ago where a compara- tively minor television star was followed for months by a paper which eventually suc- ceeded in photographing him patronising a brothel. What a contemptible use of the time of reporters who presumably once had ideals, and who might have been engaged in righting an injustice or exposing crime and cruelty, or even saving lives!
People high and low have their privacy trampled on by the jackboots and stiletto heels of the tabloid SS. Humble folk, who may be innocent of any offence, legal or moral, are suddenly dragged in front of the spotlight simply because they happen to be marginally involved in a news story, then are flung aside like rag dolls. And if you are prominent in any way, or simply have a title, you are fair game for the full treat- ment.
Last week the unfortunate Duke of Rich- mond was flayed alive by the Sun. He is my age — we were in the same regiment — and I would describe him as nice, dutiful and harmless. He spends most of his time doing what well-behaved dukes do nowa- days: running his estate in a paternal man- ner, being Lord Lieutenant of his county, chancellor of the local university, and so on: useful, boring, mainly unpaid work. But he contrived to fit in a Croat mistress. Wicked, you will say. But his wife found out and plainly gave him what for, in ways out- raged duchesses well know how, and he ended the idyll, handing the Croat a cheque for £10,000. Not enough, cried she. But instead of pursuing the legal remedies open to her she went off to the Sun. What they paid her we do not know, and how much of her story is true or was made up by the Sun we do not know either, but the result was devastating for the Duke and his family. He was made to seem a monster of lust, deception and ingratitude, and barred from seeking damages for libel because it was true he had slept with the wretched woman.
Nor did his purgatory end there, because the next day other tabloids took up the story. The Daily Mail, now the favourite paper of the upper crust, especially its womenfolk, had two whole pages: 'Amorous Duke and the Jilted Mistress'. Worse still, these days some of the so- called qualities gorge, jackal-like, on the leavings of the tabloid man-eaters. The Daily Telegraph and the Guardian would not touch the story but the Times bloodied its chops with it: 'Duke Apologises to Fami- ly for Affair'. How William Haley would have hung his head in shame — how William Rees-Mogg (still a Times colum- nist) must blush for his old Thunderer!
It often surprises me how rarely editors are thrashed by their outraged victims. I cannot think of anything more likely to chasten the tribe than a good hiding inflict- ed on one of their number, and I doubt if any jury in the country would convict the avenger of assault. But violence should not be necessary. Everyone should have the right to go to court to defend their privacy from unprovoked attack, whether or not the media predator is in league with a Croat mistress or anyone else. So what is John Major waiting for? The Last Chance Saloon has long passed its closing time and the press is still drunk on its power and swigging away. Can it be that Major feels he still has friends in the media — the Guardian, the Independent, the Observer and the poor old Daily Express, whose boss, Lord Stevens, values his invitations to No. 10 — and doesn't want to alienate them? Must we add cowardice to, Major's other faults? If not, let him bring forward his privacy bill pronto.
Previous page
