When it comes to communication the law is still stuck in the 1960s

EVEN the sanctimonious Hacked Off pressure group must see the irony of trying to hound a single man out of his job for the crime of having a relationship with a woman. Or indeed attacking the press for NOT running a story about the girlfriend of future Culture Secretary John Whittingdale turning out to be an escort girl with a sideline as a dominatrix.

Newspaper editors are aware of many things about many prominent people and even before the full Leveson Inquiry fallout the tide had turned against running stories about personal lives where the public interest was marginal.

The usual test is whether the story involves impropriety and in the case of a divorced man who strikes up a relationship with a local girl but dumps her when the truth about her occupation becomes clear, the answer is straightforward.

It was not always so, as the story of editors Andrew Neil and Donald Trelford’s relationship with high class hooker Pamella Bordes showed.

Hacked Off, led by ex-Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris and journalist Brian Cathcart and backed by Gerry McCann and Hugh Grant, seem to want it both ways. They style themselves as the protectors of innocent people, yet now see an opportunity to get rid of someone who has done nothing wrong except always be a supporter of a free press, as they continue their campaign for the full implementation of the Leveson recommendations.

The further irony is that the story was revealed by a blogger, operating in the anarchic world of the internet and social media where the reach of press regulation and indeed the law is rarely felt. Unless you are Natalie McGarry.

This week’s other big press story is, of course, that of the celebrity couple in which one half learnt the other’s sexual romp with two people at the same time was about to be splashed across the front of The Sun. There would barely be enough time to shout “Carter Ruck”, or words to that effect, before calling their lawyer.

In this case the couple present themselves as ordinary, loving modern parents but the lifestyle of one of them is seemingly at odds with their carefully crafted public image and they successfully sought an injunction to

‘‘ Court orders are as much use as chocolate football boots when it comes to protecting identities if the word is out on social media

prevent the full sordid truth becoming public.

But it’s a 19th century tool to tackle 21st century reality and while the Sun and the rest of Fleet Street dutifully follow the order, hundreds of people use social media to flout the ban and poke ribald fun with every bad pun in the book.

As Ryan Giggs could have told them, court orders are as much use as chocolate football boots when it comes to protecting identities if the word is out on social media. Back in 2011, the Sunday Herald, sister paper of The Herald, took the not unreasonable view that as 75,000 Twitter users knew Giggs was the married footballer who had had a fling, and his injunction against newspapers didn’t apply in Scotland, it was safe to identify him.

So, too, last weekend a well-known Scottish paper pictured them on the front page. The terms of the injunction are such that it’s not even safe to name the paper if I want this article to appear on the internet. Bonkers.

The ultra-litigious celebrities might still argue that their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated in the 1998 Scotland Act) has been breached, just as it was feasible for Giggs to have sued the Sunday Herald for breach of privacy.

Giggs obviously decided there was little point, but several other household names were also granted injunctions in London courts to prevent details of their sexual shenanigans becoming public and for them the line has held in Scotland because legal advice at the time was that the information was not in wide enough circulation to nullify their Article 8 rights.

London court action is not futile if the aim is to stymie mainstream English newspapers or to keep the story off the telly, but to maintain absolute privacy? That would require court orders in every jurisdiction in the world, while social media users carried on regardless.

Attitudes have thankfully come a long way since the 1950s when Liberace could win record damages for being described as “a fruit-flavoured, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love” but when it comes to communication the law is still stuck in the 1960s. Even the Hacked Off mob should be able to agree on that.