Superinjunctions - not a question of privacy

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" - it's a common mantra and an argument that's been frequently used in the current debates about superinjunctions, and it sums up my own opinion of the matter pretty well. The case of the footballer, whose name is already widely known and will be on the front page of a Scottish newspaper tomorrow, is a good one to pick on. The footballer, who is married with children, allegedly had an affair with a reality TV contestant, and subsequently took out a superinjunction, barring any mention of the said affair in the press. The affair allegedly lasted for 7 months, and the footballer has allegedly sued his mistress for leaking the story.

That's enough "allegedly"s.

The big debate around superinjunctions is being described as a battle between an individual's right to privacy versus the right to freedom of expression, and the freedom of the press. However in my view these are not opposite ends of the same spectrum that are incompatible with one another. Individual privacy and freedom of expression can coexist hand-in-hand, even in this footballer's situation; the real question is this: who owns the information?

When two people have an affair in private, that is a private act that only the two of them are privy to. Nobody else knows about it. The information that the affair happened is known only to those two individuals. But, more importantly, the information is shared equally between those two individuals. Unless a prenuptial agreement was signed, neither one has more claim to knowing the act happened than the other, and neither one has the right to stop the other from talking about it. Granted, "kiss and tell" is a pretty sloppy way of behaving, but so is cheating on your wife and family. There's no moral high ground to be had there.

Your private life is not exclusively your private life if you share it with someone else. If you have a relationship with someone, that's their private life as well as yours, and they have the right to talk about their own private life - including that relationship with you. That's not to say you should never have any relationship with anyone, but that you ensure you trust the people you share things with, and (unlike Chris Huhne) treat them well enough to not have a reason to betray that trust. The footballer's clumsy attempts to keep the story secret - most of which have only served to draw more publicity to it - simply make no sense. Essentially he is trying to impose a prenuptial agreement that is neither prenuptial nor has the other person's agreement; whatever the law says, that cannot be right.

Something the defenders of superinjunctions draw attention to is the issue of families, especially children: that front page headlines of the footballer's affair would cause undue distress to his family, and his children could get bullied at school because of it. As a father I know the importance of protecting my children, but I'm afraid this argument doesn't wash with me for a number of reasons...

Firstly, superinjunctions are horrendously expensive, they are a plaything of the rich and famous that is unavailable to the rest of us. In any environment there is gossip, and rumours travel fast - whether or not they have any truth in them. Ordinary families who cannot afford superinjunctions have to grin and bear this kind of speculation. Their problems may not be national front page news, but the local gossiping and playground bullying is no different, and neither is the damage it causes. Superinjunctions do nothing to stop that, and even if they did, it is wrong that such a tool should only be available to those who could afford it.

Secondly, it is not the news of an extramarital affair that is damaging to a marriage - it is the extramarital affair itself. The footballer and his wife clearly have a few problems to sort out between them, and really what the rest of the world knows or thinks about them is nowhere near as important as addressing those issues as a couple. Being unfaithful is shameful, but the footballer would get far more respect from the public at large by being honest and accepting a tarnished reputation than by trying in vain to protect the false impression of him that he would prefer us all to have.

A final reason why the use of superinjunctions is just silly relates to a corollary of my main point about the owner of the information, and that's about the control of information. We're all aware of the power of spin, and therefore if you know a story is likely to leak to the press eventually it is far better to release it yourself, using your own words, and telling your side of the story, rather than allow a mass of rumour and speculation to twist it into something horrendous. Getting your own account of the news out quickly  prevents the story from becoming protracted and drawn out in the way that this one has; it also reduces the value of that news to the press, thus diminishing the risk of other people from profiting at your expense by selling their version story.

Given all that, the footballer's superinjunction and subsequent attempts to protect it, when the story is already in the public domain, look very silly indeed. Instead of dousing the flames, his actions are fuelling the fire; it's a good thing he isn't a goalkeeper because he's getting his fingers well and truly burnt.

What a week!

This is going to be a very interesting week, on so many levels. In fact the next three days each have something profound to offer in one way or another.

Tomorrow's probably the least important one in terms of the impact it will have, but in its own way it's a massive event: Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City face one another in the Premier League, in their penultimate game of the season. At present Spurs are one point ahead of City and both teams are fighting it out for the all-important fourth place. For the uninitiated, finishing fourth puts a team in the lucrative Champions' League competition next season; the fifth placed team will still have a place in Europe, but in the less prestigious Europa League.

Tottenham have been hanging on to the fourth spot for most of the season, albeit with Man City having a game in hand for much of that time. If Spurs win tomorrow evening, they will have sealed Fourth spot; any other result and things will go down to the final matches of the season on Sunday, when Spurs visit Burnley and Man City go to West Ham. But tomorrow's match takes place in the City of Manchester Stadium, so it won't be an easy match for Spurs. If things do go down to the final game, then in theory it should be easier for Spurs to beat Burnley than for Man City to beat West Ham - but as the cliché goes, nothing's certain in football.

Uncertainty is rife this week! On Thursday we of course have the general election, and it's probably the closest and most exciting one we've had for many years. I've already voted (I have a postal vote) but as I live in a marginal constituency I'll be keeping a close eye on local developments as well as the national picture.

Then there's Friday. It's not confirmed yet, but that could be the day when I get interviewed for... well, for the job I'm doing now, but potentially on the salary of the job I used to have. Things are far from certain and obviously there's a lot I'm not going to say in a public blog (at least, not yet) - but hopefully over the next few weeks things will become clearer. One thing that is certain is that there's no such thing as a secure job in the 21st century!

League cup glory

Even following the brilliant victory against that South-East London club in the semi final (that's Arsenal, in case you were wondering; Arsenal being from Woolwich, which is in East London and south of the River Thames...) I wasn't expecting Spurs to win the cup. When I saw that they were only one goal down against Chelsea in the final on Sunday, I was actually quite happy - so when Tottenham went on to win I was of course delighted.

I was disappointed to see Martin Jol leave the managerial position at Spurs as he was a decent bloke and had guided the club to European qualification - yet there can be no doubt that replacing him with Juande Ramos was a brilliant move. Ramos is an expert in collecting silverware, and with Spurs more or less out of contention for a place in Europe via the league, this cup win guarantees a place in the UEFA Cup next season - a result that was looking like a distant pipe-dream just a few months ago.

Under Ramos, Spurs are looking leaner and fitter and full of the self-belief that was previously lacking. The talent has always been there, but Ramos seems to have found the key to unlock it, and to beat the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea. One reporter referred to Spurs' victory over Chelsea as a victory of good over evil. Let's hope for more of the same.

Is the BBC going tabloid?

As I write, the lead story on the BBC Sport website is: Rooney and Gray row in restaurant. But reading the story, it seems the Beeb are reporting on a storm in a teacup, if that. You could even argue that the BBC are making up news stories to attract visitors.

What does the actual news story tell us? Wayne Rooney was out for a meal with his fiance and some other friends. Michael Gray was at the same restaurant and approached Rooney's table, uninvited. Rooney asked Gray to leave them alone. Rooney's spokesman said "It was a brief incident" and "As far as Wayne is concerned, he bears no ill-feeling towards Michael." So, presumably, Gray did as he was asked. We're told that "Wayne asked him to go several times" but does that equate to a row?

The headline implies a full-scale bust-up, raised voices, shouting... yet none of that is reported to have taken place. Just what is the BBC's definition of a row? This is the kind of sensationalist journalism that we really don't want to see. It's about as far from public service broadcasting as you can get, because the headline does not match the facts given in the report. That's hardly public service, is it?

In the BBC's defence, other news sources are giving slightly different versions; Sky report "Wayne Rooney is alleged to have punched Blackburn defender Michael Gray in the face". But this still doesn't make the BBC's headline correct - that's a fight, not a row!

There are a couple of other moans to be groaned about this story. Yes there are footballers involved but is it really a football / sport story? It's nothing to do with sport, and it's not a major incident, so why is it the lead story on the country's leading sport website? My final moan is the whole "alleged" thing. I know the journalists don't want to be sued but do we really have to hear and read the word "alleged" in every sentence? If their sources are that unreliable that they have to put such a disclaimer in every statement they make, why bother publishing the story at all?

"Alleged" isn't news, "alleged" is speculation. Will somebody please bring back real journalism?!