Yesterday’s missive warned of the threat to press freedom if, say, City fund managers are offered the same level of privacy protection as “publicity shy” princesses.
Someone, we said, needs to pick a fight. Come on Someone.
Today the jokes at Harry and Meghan Markle’s expense continued since they are doing a 90-minute TV interview with Oprah Winfrey, redefining privacy by driving a royal coach and horses through their own, as the Mirror’s Kevin Maguire noted.
Celebs wanting media attention when it suits them and not when it doesn’t is hardly new. And since I won’t be watching Oprah, they can invade their own privacy all they want for all I care.
The issue here is lawyers using, abusing, privacy laws to protect wealthy clients, blocking the truth from emerging in what may be important, perhaps esoteric areas.
This interview here is interesting, since at one-point Jenny Afia of Schillings admits that if a story isn’t true they go for defamation, and if it is true they try privacy to get it stopped. (She represented Johnny Depp as well as Harry and Meghan.)
She does not sound embarrassed by this, but I guess she is just using the law.
I think flaks should worry about these developments as much as hacks, if only on a self-interested basis.
If the PR work is going to be done by the lawyers, they don’t need you, do they?
Who benefited from the stamp duty holiday? This from Anthony Codling at twindig argues it merely took from the poor and gave to the rich.
Second home purchases increased. Expensive housing deals bounced back much more quickly than lower priced-ones.
It is based on an analysis of HMRC stamp duty receipts. Very interesting.