Premier League boss caught in a brothel – but tabloids unable to reveal his identity because of creeping privacy laws

A football Premier League manager has been caught virtually with his trousers down in morally questionable circumstances. However, The Sun newspaper (which broke the story) and other tabloids have been frightened to publish the name of the manager. Why? Because of the creeping privacy laws in this country.

After he was severely injured in the great storms of 1987, Gorden Kaye, the ‘Allo ‘Allo actor, was unable to stop the press intruding in his hospital ward and taking photos of his injuries. However, since the introduction of The Human Rights Act 1998, a creeping law of privacy has been developed by the courts. The 1998 Act gives people a right to have protection for their private lives even if they are famous, although this has to be balanced against the press’s right to freedom of expression. Cases have gone each way with some people being protected and others not.

More recently, particularly with the case of Mosley v News Group Newspapers last year – when Max Mosley was able to claim record damages for breach of privacy because of The News of The World’s reports of his German uniform styled orgy session – the courts have been taking a more pro-privacy line. For more on that story, click here: http://www.upload-it.com/editArticle.aspx?ID=2746.

In the current case, The Sun alleges that when he drove up to the brothel the unnamed married boss – dressed in branded football training clothes still – smiled and shamelessly admitted that he knew it was a brothel. That would be no justification to naming him, though. At least, that was The Sun’s concerns based on the current state of the law.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of www.Upload-IT.com, comments: ‘There should clearly be a right for people to be able to go about their everyday lives without being hounded in the way that Princess Diana was, even if they are celebrities. However, it is questionable whether famous married people taking no steps to hide their moral misdemeanours deserve that right. This was not something that went on behind closed doors and if the married manager was really that flippant about his antics, why should his privacy be maintained? There is clearly a distinction between what is in the public interest and what is interesting for the public. In a lot of cases, even celebrities should be entitled to a private life. However, in my opinion the dividing line between freedom of expression and protection of privacy is in the wrong place if someone who has chosen to be in the public eye conducts himself in public in a highly questionable fashion and the press is unable to report on the grounds of respect for his privacy.’

What do you think of this situation?