This morning the Telegraph reported on its front page that it had been gagged, prevented from revealing the identity of a top businessman facing allegations of sexual harassment.
The guessing game in hack-land began immediately. Who was it?
By about lunchtime most of us knew. By early afternoon a few flaks seemed to as well, making inquiries of us to confirm what they thought they had already found out for themselves.
All of which raises the question, why bother with the injunction in the first place? If it were a super-injunction, we wouldn’t be able to report even the existence of the injunction, but it isn’t.
There’s a decent guide to what injunctions are and how they work here.
I can’t name the person yet, but it’s bound to come out before long, in Private Eye if nowhere else, which leaves the businessman looking even worse. Not only is he accused of harassment, he tried to use his wealth and power to orchestrate a cover up.
Even if those allegations are untrue, it would surely be better to fight them openly. To address them head on.
He might have bought himself a bit of time, but that’s about it, so far as I can see.
