:00:12. > :00:17.How much of a right do we have to know celebrities' most exciting
:00:17. > :00:19.secrets? And how much should they be able to keep hidden? Revelations
:00:19. > :00:26.about phone hacking and super- injunctions have made privacy big
:00:26. > :00:30.news. So how would you feel if journalists hacked into your phone?
:00:30. > :00:34.I felt scared of the News of the World for a long time actually.
:00:34. > :00:38.felt very bullied by them. Or you had a famous lover who took out a
:00:38. > :00:41.gagging order to keep you quiet? was being told that I was not
:00:41. > :00:45.allowed to mention not just the existence of the injunction but the
:00:45. > :00:49.existence of the relationship. it comes to privacy, do celebs get
:00:49. > :00:53.what they deserve? Being a celebrity is a stupid job. We're
:00:53. > :00:57.there to point that out to them. Or should their sex lives be strictly
:00:57. > :01:01.off limits? Not only was my name all over the tabloids for sleeping
:01:01. > :01:04.with Wayne Rooney but everyone found out what I done for a living.
:01:04. > :01:10.It was awful. We'll met the journalists who'll stop at nothing
:01:10. > :01:14.to get a story. I don't care. never thought phone hacking was a
:01:14. > :01:17.bad thing to do. I reckon 10% of the British population have done it.
:01:17. > :01:20.And the public who can't wait to read them. I love catching up on
:01:20. > :01:30.the gossip. You don't actually read them though. You just look at the
:01:30. > :01:37.
:01:37. > :01:39.pictures. This is how gossip got Every week we Brits spend millions
:01:39. > :01:45.of pounds on newspapers and magazines to find out what
:01:45. > :01:50.scandalous high jinx our favourite celebs have been involved in. We're
:01:50. > :01:54.addicted to gossip and we don't care who knows it. My name is Sam
:01:54. > :01:58.Delaney and I love gossip. In fact, as a former editor of Heat magazine,
:01:58. > :02:01.I used to make a living out of the stuff. I've always thought of
:02:01. > :02:05.gossip as a pretty innocent word. You know, who's dating who, who
:02:05. > :02:09.might be splitting up, who got a daft new haircut. That's the kind
:02:09. > :02:14.of gossip that sells. But recently there have been signs that gossip
:02:14. > :02:17.could be mutating into something darker and a bit more dangerous.
:02:17. > :02:21.It's been a summer of celebrity sleaze as stories of phone hacking
:02:21. > :02:26.and super-injunctions have dominated the headlines. Both those
:02:26. > :02:29.stories had one thing in common - the right to privacy. The hacking
:02:29. > :02:34.scandal was about people whose privacy had been invaded, while the
:02:34. > :02:37.stars taking out injunctions were fighting to get theirs back. There
:02:37. > :02:40.was uproar when journalists went too far to bring us the gossip but
:02:40. > :02:46.equally we weren't happy when the courts banned them from telling us
:02:46. > :02:49.the juicy bits. So how much privacy do the famous really deserve?
:02:49. > :02:52.there is no distinction between mugging someone for a wallet or
:02:52. > :02:56.their watch and selling it on the street, and mugging them for their
:02:56. > :02:59.privacy and selling it in a newspaper. But like any drug, as
:02:59. > :03:06.long as there's people out there willing to pay for gossip, there
:03:06. > :03:11.will be people who find a way to sell it. I read gossip magazines.
:03:11. > :03:15.read gossip websites. You might not do. I don't. But at the end of the
:03:15. > :03:17.day, it's almost like an addiction. I think people think they can be
:03:17. > :03:20.vicious about celebrities because it's not directly affecting them.
:03:20. > :03:23.You would never be that vicious about someone you knew. You don't
:03:23. > :03:28.sit and bitch about how your friends look, do you? He actually
:03:28. > :03:30.does. Now, when I was an editor, I had to ask myself daily questions
:03:30. > :03:35.about which celebrity stories we could justify publishing and which
:03:35. > :03:38.were just too much of an invasion of their privacy. Some people now
:03:38. > :03:45.claim that there's no privacy left and that the gossip business is
:03:45. > :03:49.completely out of control. Digging up scandal has never been easy. You
:03:49. > :03:52.can't just pick up the phone to a celeb and make polite enquiries
:03:52. > :03:55.about their sex life, hoping for full and frank answers. Sneaking
:03:55. > :03:59.about a bit and poking your nose where it's not wanted has always
:03:59. > :04:02.been a legitimate part of a journalist's job. But it's now
:04:02. > :04:07.become clear that some News of the World journalists cut one corner
:04:07. > :04:09.too many, by illegally listening in to other people's voicemails.
:04:09. > :04:15.Celebrities including Hugh Grant, Jude Law, Sienna Miller and Wayne
:04:15. > :04:19.Rooney are all believed to have been targeted. More possible
:04:19. > :04:25.victims are revealed on a regular basis. Among them, original queen
:04:25. > :04:27.of the lads' mags, Abi Titmuss. Abi Titmuss was one of the first of a
:04:27. > :04:31.modern gaggle of celebrities who are famous just for being famous
:04:31. > :04:35.really. She was known more for who she was rather than anything she'd
:04:35. > :04:38.done. There's been plenty more since, but Abi really had to learn
:04:38. > :04:44.on the job and she soon discovered that sacrificing part of her
:04:44. > :04:46.privacy was the price she had to pay for fame. I knew for years that
:04:46. > :04:49.they were hacking my phone, my voicemail, which basically means
:04:49. > :04:55.there were people ringing my voicemail, listening to my messages
:04:55. > :04:59.before I'd listened to them, deleting them sometimes. This went
:04:59. > :05:02.on for a long period of time and I knew it was happening. I'd ring it
:05:02. > :05:04.and it would say, "Your voicemail is currently in use. Sorry, please
:05:04. > :05:08.try again later." Someone was actually listening to it the same
:05:08. > :05:11.time I was ringing it. Did friends think you were being paranoid and
:05:11. > :05:14.that fame was driving you a bit crazy? I remember a story that
:05:14. > :05:17.appeared in the paper that was a direct transcript of a conversation
:05:17. > :05:20.I had with a friend. 'Abi confides in friend' was the headline. My
:05:20. > :05:25.friend called me then and said, "I'm really sorry for doubting they
:05:25. > :05:29.were doing this to you. "She was really upset. She could see it in
:05:29. > :05:31.black and white, this is what they had done. This was no surprise to
:05:32. > :05:35.me at all. Like many other celebrities who claim their phone
:05:35. > :05:38.was hacked, Abi is now suing the publishers of the News of the World.
:05:38. > :05:42.Are you still angry or vengeful? don't feel angry or vengeful...
:05:42. > :05:46.Actually that's not true. I do feel a bit angry. I think I felt scared
:05:46. > :05:50.of News of the World for a long time actually. I felt very bullied
:05:50. > :05:54.by them. At other times I had a great relationship with them and it
:05:54. > :05:57.was trying to keep the enemy onside in a weird way. I never quite knew
:05:58. > :06:01.where I was with them. We both made each other money but then they go,
:06:01. > :06:04."Well, we've done that. We've paid you but we're also going to follow
:06:04. > :06:07.you. We're going to stalk you, we're going to hack your phone,
:06:07. > :06:17.we're going to invade your privacy. We're going to follow your family.
:06:17. > :06:25.
:06:25. > :06:28.There can't be many people who agree that celebrities deserve to
:06:28. > :06:38.have their phones hacked. However I have found one man who does think
:06:38. > :06:38.
:06:38. > :06:42.that. I'm on my way to meet him now. He thinks that phone hacking is
:06:42. > :06:45.brilliant. Are you questioning what you do now more than you did in the
:06:45. > :06:48.past? I've always said that I've tried to write articles in a
:06:48. > :06:58.truthful way. You know, what better source of getting the trith than
:06:58. > :07:00.
:07:00. > :07:03.listening to someone's messages? You're not uncovering corruption.
:07:03. > :07:06.You're just trying to find out who's sleeping with who. Paul
:07:06. > :07:10.McMullen is the former News of the World reporter who made a name for
:07:10. > :07:13.himself this year by being pretty much the only person in the country
:07:13. > :07:16.who was ready to stand up and defend the phone hacking methods
:07:16. > :07:18.used against celebrities. Did you feel in your time as a reporter
:07:18. > :07:28.that there was an ever-increasing pressure to get bigger, more
:07:28. > :07:38.
:07:38. > :07:42.The idea in the News of the World is to set the news agenda. It's the
:07:42. > :07:45.biggest paper in the world apart from one in China and we tried to
:07:45. > :07:48.be the thing everyone was talking about on Sunday and Monday and
:07:48. > :07:52.Tuesday. So if it was the World Cup, we needed to turn over a footballer.
:07:52. > :07:57.If it was the rugby, we needed to get a rugby player. You were paid a
:07:57. > :07:59.lot of money to be the best and to not fail and get a result at all
:07:59. > :08:02.costs. That high-pressure atmosphere is presumably what leads
:08:02. > :08:08.you into doing things like phone tapping etc? Yeah, you could argue
:08:08. > :08:11.that. It seems like a bit of an excuse to me. It's more just I was
:08:11. > :08:13.a professional journalist and I wanted to get the best story I
:08:13. > :08:15.could. My justification is that we caught politicians who were
:08:15. > :08:18.fiddling their expenses, fiddling with their secretaries, saying,
:08:18. > :08:21."Vote for me. I'm a happily married family man." Kylie Minogue, Hugh
:08:21. > :08:24.Grant, Steve Coogan, they are the justifiable victims in having a
:08:24. > :08:26.free press and a decent democracy. Paul's fondness for phone hacking
:08:26. > :08:29.was exposed somewhat randomly by the actor Hugh Grant, who'd
:08:29. > :08:32.secretly recorded a conversation in which Paul brazenly banged on about
:08:32. > :08:35.the way in which celeb voicemails were hacked at the News of the
:08:35. > :08:40.World. He started boasting about how my phone had been hacked and
:08:40. > :08:43.all of the dirtiest tactics of the News of the World. He went and gave
:08:43. > :08:47.that tape of me confessing, really for the first time, to the cops and
:08:47. > :08:50.put it on the internet, wrote about it in a magazine, and all of a
:08:50. > :08:55.sudden Hugh Grant jumped on the phone hacking story and everyone
:08:55. > :08:58.around the world started talking about it. Well, you've got to
:08:58. > :09:03.admire him though. He brought a big story to mass public attention.
:09:03. > :09:05.don't care. I never thought phone hacking was a bad thing to do. I
:09:05. > :09:08.reckon 10% of the British population have done it. You've
:09:08. > :09:11.probably done it to your own girlfriend. Why's she staying out
:09:11. > :09:14.late on a Saturday night? I'll have a quick listen. Or maybe she's done
:09:14. > :09:20.it to you. Allegations of phone hacking first started knocking
:09:20. > :09:22.around in 2005. But while certain papers and media pundits took an
:09:22. > :09:27.interest, the general public didn't seem that bothered about the odd
:09:27. > :09:30.celeb having their phone calls listened to. No one's got any
:09:30. > :09:35.sympathy with them cos they all make so much money anyway and
:09:35. > :09:37.they've all got publicists. It was nonsense. Half the stuff is
:09:38. > :09:41.celebrities just desperate to get in a newspaper that 10 million
:09:41. > :09:44.people read and 10 million people might go and buy Katie Price's new
:09:44. > :09:47.book. But the public's attitude to phone hacking changed in July this
:09:47. > :09:50.year, when it emerged that it wasn't just celebrities being
:09:50. > :09:53.targeted. In 2002, the phone of murdered 13-year-old Milly Dowler
:09:53. > :10:01.had also been hacked by private detectives working for the News of
:10:01. > :10:11.the World. Even for Paul, that was a step too far. This is where the
:10:11. > :10:13.
:10:13. > :10:17.victims are not just Hugh Grant and silly celebrities. This is where it
:10:17. > :10:21.is really hard to defend. The private eye went too far. He hacked
:10:21. > :10:24.into Milly Dowler's own phone. The mail box was full. He deleted a
:10:24. > :10:27.couple of messages to get new ones in and it looked like the phone
:10:27. > :10:31.came back to life for five minutes. The parents are thinking, "Her
:10:31. > :10:34.phone's back on!" I mean, I'm a parent myself. I cant imagine
:10:34. > :10:36.anything worse, can you? Then you find out there is a private eye
:10:36. > :10:39.listening in to your dead daughter's messages. That's what
:10:39. > :10:42.changed everything. That's what closed the News of the World and
:10:42. > :10:45.now we find people have done that same technique to victims of 7/7
:10:45. > :10:50.and possibly even 9/11. You said earlier that you felt you would
:10:50. > :10:56.stop at nothing to bring in a story. What was your attitude to ordinary
:10:56. > :10:59.members of the public'? Well, fundamentally they're not
:10:59. > :11:04.interesting. We don't care about Bob the dustman or Frank the
:11:04. > :11:06.builder. People are more interested in you if you're rich. After the
:11:06. > :11:10.revelations about Milly Dowler, the public's attitude seemed to change
:11:10. > :11:12.immediately. Pressure piled onto the News of the World to such an
:11:12. > :11:18.extent that publishers News International shut the whole
:11:18. > :11:27.newspaper down for good. And all of a sudden, everyone had an opinion
:11:27. > :11:30.on phone hacking. I wouldn't want my answer phone messages to be
:11:30. > :11:33.listened to, but I don't think it's as big a deal as the celebrities
:11:33. > :11:36.are making out. I'd really like to know what they got from their
:11:36. > :11:40.answer phone messages as well, because mine are just like, "Will
:11:40. > :11:44.you call me back please?" Mine are, "Call me." Would you listen to your
:11:44. > :11:49.boyfriend's messages? Let's not answer that one. You have! And so
:11:49. > :11:54.have I. Yeah, I have been caught listening to my partner's messages
:11:54. > :11:57.a couple of times. Many editors would argue that they only carry
:11:58. > :12:00.the stories that the public want to read. Let's be honest, the News of
:12:01. > :12:03.the World was the best-selling paper in the country for many years,
:12:04. > :12:07.not for the quality of its TV listings, but because of the
:12:07. > :12:11.salacious celebrity gossip it carried. So in a sense, aren't any
:12:11. > :12:20.of us who ever picked up a copy to read the latest scandal complicit
:12:20. > :12:24.in this whole problem? One man at the heart of just about every major
:12:24. > :12:27.celebrity story is PR king Max Clifford. When a showbiz scandal
:12:27. > :12:33.breaks in the press, there's a good chance he's involved in it
:12:33. > :12:38.somewhere down the line. Hello. I'm Sam Delaney. I'm here to see Max.
:12:38. > :12:41.OK. Do you think the British public are in any way hypocritical because
:12:41. > :12:44.they lap these gossipy stories up and they don't question how the
:12:44. > :12:47.journalists get these stories until such a time like recently they
:12:47. > :12:57.realised those same tactics can be used on ordinary Joe Public, at
:12:57. > :13:00.
:13:00. > :13:04.which point they're up in arms? Yeah, I think there's a certain
:13:04. > :13:07.amount of double standards, but that's mainly out of ignorance. You
:13:07. > :13:10.know, once they realised what had happened to Milly Dowler, they were
:13:10. > :13:13.generally appalled and upset. I don't think they would have felt
:13:13. > :13:16.the same way if it had been a star. You obviously found out your phone
:13:16. > :13:20.had been hacked and people had listened into your calls. How do
:13:20. > :13:23.you feel towards the News of the World now? It was horrible to find
:13:23. > :13:27.out that had happened. But I suppose you had to look logically
:13:27. > :13:30.and think I'm a prime target. So you know, was I angry? Was I upset?
:13:30. > :13:33.Yes, I was, and I was the only person that took them on legally
:13:33. > :13:38.and pursued them legally until they apologised and admitted what had
:13:38. > :13:41.gone on and we moved on. Max might be pretty rational about his
:13:41. > :13:46.privacy being invaded by the press but it's unlikely that many of his
:13:46. > :13:52.clients would feel the same way. So what do you feel about celebrities
:13:52. > :13:56.who moan about invasion of privacy? I always say the same thing. If you
:13:56. > :13:59.use the media you can't be too upset when they use you. But of
:13:59. > :14:04.course again it depends on the degree. So if you're an actor who
:14:04. > :14:08.claims, "Well, I just act. I'm not out there trying to flog myself in
:14:08. > :14:11.any other capacity. I go and make my films and then I go home and
:14:11. > :14:15.spend time with my family. "Then you would say someone like that is
:14:15. > :14:17.not such fair game. I think he or she deserves far greater protection,
:14:17. > :14:20.understanding, consideration than someone who flaunts, uses the media
:14:20. > :14:30.all the time, that sells themselves and their family all the time to
:14:30. > :14:31.
:14:31. > :14:35.promote them, their career, their So, do some celebrities deserve
:14:35. > :14:39.more privacy than others? And if they do, where do we draw the line?
:14:39. > :14:41.How do we in the press decide which ones are fair game and which ones
:14:41. > :14:44.get left alone? I've always agreed with celebrities when they've said
:14:44. > :14:51.they deserve a certain amount of privacy in their lives. Of course
:14:51. > :15:01.they do. After all, they're just human beings like the rest of us,
:15:01. > :15:03.
:15:03. > :15:09.Abi Titmuss shot to fame after her partner John Lesley was falsely
:15:09. > :15:15.accused of rate. Whilst the trial damaged Lesley's Korea it made her
:15:15. > :15:19.a star overnight. I did a picture for FHM in a bikini for a bit of
:15:19. > :15:23.fun. That whole shoot I did, they rang me and said we are going to
:15:23. > :15:27.put you on the cover and it's going to be 10 pages. I was like what? I
:15:27. > :15:29.thought they were making a horrible mistake. I cried when I first saw
:15:29. > :15:33.the cover. I wasn't joyous. cried because you were embarrassed?
:15:33. > :15:36.It was such a shock to see myself on the cover of this magazine with
:15:36. > :15:39.no clothes on. Abi soon became the highest earning glamour model in
:15:39. > :15:49.the country, reportedly going on to make a million quid for appearing
:15:49. > :15:52.in a shed load of exotic snaps. The price she paid was her privacy. The
:15:52. > :15:55.public wanted to know more about this saucy nurse and the tabloids
:15:55. > :15:57.were going to tell them. They were just on me. There were
:15:57. > :16:00.photographers outside my house every day, they followed me
:16:00. > :16:03.everywhere, they were outside my parents' house. They would get
:16:03. > :16:06.really upset. My mum put a sign on the front door saying please stop
:16:06. > :16:10.ringing the doorbell, we're not going to talk to anybody. My best
:16:10. > :16:13.friend from school sold a story on me, apparently got a new car out of
:16:13. > :16:17.it. It was absolute total rubbish. So the great disparity of the image
:16:17. > :16:21.of me in the paper and the person I was, that became very distressing.
:16:21. > :16:24.At the height of her fame nothing in Abi's private life was sacred.
:16:24. > :16:28.She even suffered the ultimate embarrassment of having a sex tape
:16:29. > :16:31.stolen and leaked on the internet.. There are certain things that have
:16:32. > :16:35.happened to me that were gross invasions of my privacy that I
:16:35. > :16:40.would do anything to get back and to change. But I'm never going to
:16:40. > :16:46.be able to do that. I'm trying very hard now to get my privacy back and
:16:46. > :16:50.just focus on the job I'm doing. course, all celebs choose to be in
:16:50. > :16:55.the public eye and Abi has proved they can also choose to step out of
:16:55. > :16:59.it as well. And so we go for a coffee. Not MacDonalds, Danny's,
:16:59. > :17:03.because that's what he suggests. When she'd have enough of the celeb
:17:03. > :17:06.lifestyle she turned her back on it and retrained as an actress. Now
:17:06. > :17:10.you're more likely to see her on stage than on the front of a
:17:10. > :17:13.tabloid. What about the people who will say you chose to be in the
:17:13. > :17:17.public eye, you made a lot of money out of that, therefore, you have to
:17:17. > :17:19.stomach the intrusions you get from the press? Being in the public eye
:17:19. > :17:21.doesn't necessarily warrant press invasion to the point where they're
:17:21. > :17:26.upsetting your families, printing things about your personal life
:17:27. > :17:29.that may be true, or not. I think there are boundaries. You can
:17:29. > :17:37.expect press intrusion, of course, but there are boundaries where that
:17:37. > :17:42.And these boundaries are stretched further with the ever-increasing
:17:42. > :17:44.dominance of the internet. In recent years a bunch of celebrity
:17:44. > :17:54.gossip websites have appeared, feeding our hunger for the latest
:17:54. > :17:54.
:17:55. > :18:00.showbiz news 24/7. Leading the pack is gossip site Holy Moly. Jamie.
:18:00. > :18:03.Sam, how are you? Good to see you. This is your nerve centre? Welcome
:18:03. > :18:06.to the epicentre of celebrity gossip. Often controversial and
:18:06. > :18:09.unashamedly harsh the Holy Moly writers aren't afraid of giving
:18:09. > :18:13.celebs a good kicking once in a while. When your site started it
:18:13. > :18:16.seemed to push the boundaries more. The byline of Holy Moly is always
:18:16. > :18:20.to remind celebrities that being a celebrity is a stupid job. We are
:18:20. > :18:24.there to point it out to them. We like celebrities but we like the
:18:24. > :18:27.ones that are good at something. So you can have an amazing actor,
:18:27. > :18:33.musician, writer, comedian, they're good celebrities because they are
:18:33. > :18:36.celebrities off the back of having a talent and having worked hard.
:18:36. > :18:43.Then you get raucous vacuums like Kerry Katona, or Katie Price, who
:18:43. > :18:52.just aren't anything apart from a brand. So I like to remind them of
:18:52. > :18:56.that on a daily basis. Jude Law recently came out and said look,
:18:56. > :19:00.I'm just an actor, why do we have to be lumped in as a celebrity? Why
:19:00. > :19:03.has anybody got any interest in my private life? He has been thrust in
:19:03. > :19:06.tabloid hell because of the things he has done, whether it is his
:19:06. > :19:11.child eating a pill on the floor of a kids' party, whether it is
:19:11. > :19:14.sleeping with your nanny, or going out with Sienna Miller.
:19:14. > :19:17.celebrities who go to magazines like your Hellos, or your OK!s
:19:17. > :19:20.those mags who buy out big deals of people's wedding photos and the
:19:20. > :19:23.first pictures of their children, haven't they basically sold their
:19:23. > :19:29.souls? Once you've done something like that it's hard to argue you
:19:29. > :19:32.want to retain privacy. But they offer so much money for these
:19:32. > :19:39.things and there is a fallacy that all celebrities are loaded. The
:19:39. > :19:42.majority of them are skint. You know that as well as I do. When you
:19:42. > :19:46.get sued you never get sued by the the Brad Pitts, the Julia Roberts,
:19:46. > :19:50.the Angelina Jolies. You get sued by the people that need a couple of
:19:50. > :19:54.grand to pay the rent. Well, not always. Man United defender Rio
:19:54. > :19:56.Ferdinand, who is not short of cash, recently sued the Sunday Mirror for
:19:56. > :19:59.running a largely ignored kiss-and- tell story about an alleged on-off
:19:59. > :20:05.affair lasting 13 years. He argued that just because he's a footballer
:20:05. > :20:08.does not mean we have the right to know about his private life. But
:20:08. > :20:11.the newspaper's legal team fought back by reporting the names of nine
:20:11. > :20:15.other women he'd supposedly had relationships with. So what is it
:20:15. > :20:18.with footballers? Footballers are generally as thick as pig shit,
:20:18. > :20:28.they are given more money than the majority of us could ever dream of
:20:28. > :20:31.They are pretty much left to get on with it. It is a recipe for
:20:31. > :20:34.disaster. There are plenty of footballers who want the fame on
:20:34. > :20:37.the pitch, the money, the sponsorship, but they also want to
:20:37. > :20:43.go out four nights a week, shag around, smoke a load of fags and
:20:43. > :20:45.then act incredulous that anyone's interested in that. I would say the
:20:45. > :20:48.footballers even more than regular celebrities have more
:20:48. > :20:51.responsibility not to behave like they do because of the amount of
:20:51. > :21:01.young people that do look up to them. They are supposed be
:21:01. > :21:05.But what about the non-famous people? Or normals, as I call them,
:21:05. > :21:08.who get caught up in these soccer scandals. Did they deserve to have
:21:08. > :21:11.their lives intruded into in such a way? Take former escort girl Helen
:21:11. > :21:17.Wood, when she was exposed for allegedly sleeping with Wayne
:21:17. > :21:21.Rooney, her life was changed forever. I wanted to die when it
:21:21. > :21:27.all came out. It was like literally I wanted the floor to swallow me up.
:21:27. > :21:30.It was horrendous. Not only was my name all over the tabloids for
:21:30. > :21:40.sleeping with Wayne Rooney but naturally the more scary thing for
:21:40. > :21:40.
:21:40. > :21:46.me was everyone found out what I'd done for a living and it was awful.
:21:46. > :21:50.How did you get into being an escort? A few things got out of
:21:50. > :21:53.hand, I started living life beyond my means and I kind of saw it as
:21:53. > :21:57.the answer to all my prayers. I didn't in a million years think
:21:57. > :22:00.that one day I'd have to sit down and explain why I ended up in this
:22:00. > :22:03.predicament because I thought it would always remain quiet.
:22:03. > :22:06.according to Helen a chance meeting with Wayne Rooney in 2009 ended any
:22:06. > :22:11.hope of that. Wayne Rooney got in touch and obviously the threesome
:22:11. > :22:14.took place and then that was it after that. I thought I wouldn't
:22:14. > :22:17.hear anything else about it, we all agreed to keep it quiet and
:22:17. > :22:27.unfortunately the other girl that was involved decided to tell a few
:22:27. > :22:29.
:22:29. > :22:36.people round our area and it just So surely in your business that is
:22:36. > :22:39.the cardinal sin, the one thing you never do? Well, yeah, that's what
:22:39. > :22:42.we agreed. He obviously believed we wouldn't tell anybody as well.
:22:42. > :22:45.a year later amidst all the publicity surrounding the World Cup
:22:45. > :22:49.the other girl sold her story to the press. After being exposed as
:22:49. > :22:52.being a prostitute and with nothing left to lose Helen gave in and sold
:22:52. > :22:58.her version of events. People often look at girls who sell their story,
:22:58. > :23:03.do kiss-and-tells and think they are cashing in. That used to be my
:23:03. > :23:06.opinion. Until last year, if I saw a girl selling a story on a
:23:06. > :23:10.footballer, or actor because she slept with him I would be like,
:23:10. > :23:13."What a gold digger, what a tramp". But then the newspaper don't write
:23:13. > :23:20."we actually followed her around, pushed her into a corner and kind
:23:20. > :23:24.of bullied her into selling her story". That's the truth. The media
:23:24. > :23:28.basically say to you, we know it's you, so we can still print your
:23:28. > :23:31.name. So you either come on board, we pay you, or you deny, deny, deny,
:23:31. > :23:41.even though we have substantial evidence, you are going to say if
:23:41. > :23:41.
:23:41. > :23:45.you can print my name, well, I'll Who the hell wouldn't? I suppose
:23:45. > :23:48.the problem is you will always be labelled as a former prostitute?
:23:48. > :23:52.I'm never going to get away from that. The only thing that affects
:23:52. > :23:55.me is the people I love and that's it. So for someone to call me a
:23:56. > :23:59.prostitute, hooker, a slag, gold- digger, it doesn't bother me. It
:24:00. > :24:08.wasn't me that sold the story in the first place. It also wasn't me
:24:08. > :24:10.Way before phone hacking celebs lived with the press following
:24:10. > :24:13.their every move through more traditional methods including the
:24:13. > :24:18.press photographers, or paparazzi, who grabbed those eternally popular
:24:18. > :24:20.shots of the rich and famous out on the street pretending to be normal.
:24:20. > :24:30.Some celebs tolerate them, many hate them, some secretly love them
:24:30. > :24:35.
:24:35. > :24:38.but they are the lifeblood of many So I might have bought a lot of
:24:38. > :24:40.paparazzi shots before of celebrities stumbling out of bars
:24:40. > :24:49.and restaurants drunk, making fools of themselves but I have never
:24:49. > :24:59.actually been on the front line and seen how the snaps are taken.
:24:59. > :25:02.
:25:02. > :25:05.Tonight is the night I find out. Wayne Buckland is a freelance
:25:05. > :25:08.photographer who has been part of the paparazzi for eight years and
:25:08. > :25:12.tonight he is allowing me to ride shotgun as he tries to get that one
:25:12. > :25:15.killer shot which could pay his rent for a month. Hello. How are
:25:15. > :25:18.you doing? Not bad. Thanks for letting me tag along. Not a problem.
:25:18. > :25:21.It will be fun. What are we going to do now? Find some nightclubs,
:25:21. > :25:24.hopefully see some celebrities. Keeping an eye out for a lovely
:25:24. > :25:27.shiny famous face we saunter the streets of London's West End before
:25:27. > :25:30.heading to Soho, an area rich with the sort of fancy pants members'
:25:30. > :25:36.clubs popular with celebs. There you go, there's Cumberbatch. And
:25:36. > :25:38.he's with Tom Stoppard. That is a great shot. Brilliantly, as soon as
:25:38. > :25:42.we arrive, Sherlock star Benedict Cumberbatch is stood outside one
:25:42. > :25:50.such hot spot in the company of legendary playwright Tom Stoppard.
:25:51. > :25:59.Cheers guys. Everyone loves a bit of Cumberbatch. See, I am a lucky
:25:59. > :26:02.charm. Well spotted. Come out with me more often. Cumberbatch has
:26:02. > :26:05.broad appeal because I know magazines like Heat will like him
:26:05. > :26:08.because all girls have got a weird crush on him. Then you've got
:26:08. > :26:12.Stoppard, very highbrow, you might get that in a broadsheet newspaper
:26:12. > :26:18.and a gossip magazine. It's the shot that's got it all. Fingers
:26:18. > :26:22.crossed. Tell you what, give us 10 per cent! What has been your career
:26:22. > :26:27.best image? What made you the most money? The first picture of Brad
:26:27. > :26:31.Pitt and Angelina holding hands, that was a nice picture. Where was
:26:31. > :26:34.that? Heathrow airport. Brad Pitt gave a wink and smiled, they both
:26:34. > :26:37.looked back slightly, a nice easy picture. Of course, some
:26:37. > :26:40.celebrities don't respond to the paps in such a friendly way but if
:26:40. > :26:48.they don't like the attention couldn't they just go down their
:26:48. > :26:51.local pub and avoid the kind of know they are likely to be snapped?
:26:51. > :26:54.What do you think about privacy? What level of privacy do you think
:26:54. > :26:58.celebrities around and about town deserve? They're on TV, in the
:26:58. > :27:03.limelight, people pay to watch them, people want to see more of them.
:27:03. > :27:07.They can't have it on their terms. But they would argue people want to
:27:07. > :27:11.see us on TV, that's when we make the choice to go into the public
:27:11. > :27:15.eye but if I'm going out for dinner with my mates why should I have a
:27:15. > :27:18.lens stuck in my face when I leave a restaurant? It doesn't work like
:27:18. > :27:22.that, it has never worked like that. Once they're in the public eye the
:27:22. > :27:24.public want to see them when they want to see them, they want to see
:27:24. > :27:30.the nitty gritty, the drunken episodes. They can't pick one
:27:30. > :27:33.without the other. After a couple of hours trawling around Soho
:27:33. > :27:39.looking for celebs I've realised the life of a pap can be pretty
:27:39. > :27:42.frustrating. I've had a lovely night, it's been lovely chatting to
:27:42. > :27:52.you but it's late, I'm cold, I want my dinner. I'm going to leave you
:27:52. > :28:01.
:28:01. > :28:04.to it. Hope it goes well. It's been fun. Good night. See you. You know
:28:04. > :28:07.what, I quite enjoyed my night out as a pap assistant but I suppose
:28:07. > :28:11.normal photographers out on the streets aren't as nice as Wayne, in
:28:11. > :28:21.fact, some people tell me it's like the Wild West out there. I'm off
:28:21. > :28:23.now to meet a guy who will tell me Trevor Adams runs Matrix Pictures,
:28:23. > :28:25.an agency representing photographers such as Wayne, they
:28:25. > :28:35.are responsible for brokering deals with all the tabloids and celebrity
:28:35. > :28:37.
:28:37. > :28:42.Nice to see you. Good to meet you because we have never met face to
:28:42. > :28:45.face. But we have done a lot of business. Some of the biggest
:28:45. > :28:48.selling pictures in recent years have actually been taken by members
:28:48. > :28:52.of the public that happen to be in the right place at the right time
:28:52. > :28:57.with their camera phone. There was a famous picture that made a great
:28:58. > :29:02.magazine cover of Cheryl Cole and Ashley Cole having crisis talks in
:29:02. > :29:07.a pub beer garden over egg and chips. I remember that picture.
:29:07. > :29:10.Somebody looked down on them from the terrace or something. Yes,
:29:10. > :29:15.somebody to base that on his own over a fence and it sold thousands
:29:15. > :29:22.of copies for Heat. If you had that picture today, it would be worth a
:29:22. > :29:27.fortune. Her magazine deal, foreign sales, you could top 100 grand with
:29:27. > :29:36.that picture. With those financial rewards available to photographers,
:29:36. > :29:39.it is easy to see why the industry has become so competitive, leaving
:29:40. > :29:44.an army for photographers. We get pictures of the time that have
:29:44. > :29:49.clearly been unethical. Maybe trespass, through somebody's front
:29:49. > :29:51.window. You cannot risk dealing with those pictures. Have you ever
:29:51. > :29:56.personally come into direct confrontation with celebrities over
:29:56. > :29:59.some of the images that you have got of them and distributed? What
:29:59. > :30:02.happens quite a lot now is that some law firms actually team up
:30:03. > :30:06.with the celebrities and say, "See this picture that was published? We
:30:06. > :30:09.believe that you could bring a case against the person who took that
:30:09. > :30:13.picture, so would you like us to take it up?" More often than not,
:30:13. > :30:16.nothing comes of it but the celebrity ends up with a legal bill.
:30:16. > :30:19.And you do get a lot of expensive- looking letters that often fizzle
:30:19. > :30:22.out into nothing. Cheryl Cole spends a fortune on lawyers just
:30:22. > :30:25.because she doesn't like photographers camped in her road.
:30:25. > :30:29.But quite often when it's happening she'll have her legal team warning
:30:29. > :30:39.them to stay away. Essentially nobody is breaking any law, nobody
:30:39. > :30:40.
:30:40. > :30:43.is doing anything wrong, but her When amateur photographers over-
:30:43. > :30:50.stepped the mark and tried to take pictures on her property, Cheryl
:30:50. > :30:52.took out an injunction to stop them. Lily Allen and the late Amy
:30:52. > :30:57.Winehouse also took similar action when they thought that snappers
:30:57. > :31:05.were getting too close for comfort. So it's not completely lawless out
:31:05. > :31:09.there. The law is there to protect Since the phone hacking allegations,
:31:09. > :31:13.big name stars are queuing up to sue the News of the World, but
:31:13. > :31:19.that's nothing new. Celebrities have been trying to take on the
:31:19. > :31:21.press for years, very often in the High Court here in London. It was
:31:21. > :31:25.only in 1998 when British law incorporated the European Human
:31:25. > :31:30.Rights Act that for the first time we all got specific legal rights to
:31:30. > :31:33.keep our private lives private. That might not affect either you or
:31:33. > :31:36.me on a day-to-day basis, but for celebrities it changed everything,
:31:36. > :31:41.making it much easier for them to take on the media when they feel
:31:42. > :31:44.that their private lives were being intruded upon unfairly. Suing a
:31:44. > :31:47.newspaper after they've already published a story on you is one
:31:47. > :31:51.thing, but ideally, if you are a celebrity with something to hide,
:31:51. > :31:55.what you really want to do is stop that story ever coming out in the
:31:55. > :32:01.first place. Which of course you can attempt to do nowadays with the
:32:01. > :32:03.magic of the super-injunction. A super-injunction refers to a type
:32:03. > :32:09.of gagging order that's so restrictive it can't even be
:32:09. > :32:13.reported that it exists. The first time most of us heard the term was
:32:13. > :32:17.last year when John Terry got one to try and stop a story about an
:32:17. > :32:20.alleged affair. Now, super- injunction is a term that's been
:32:20. > :32:25.bandied about a lot over the past year but in actual fact, there's
:32:25. > :32:31.only been two granted since John Terry's. One of those was for
:32:31. > :32:36.Howard Donald. You know, Howard Donald, out of Take That. Never
:32:36. > :32:39.forget where you're coming from. Howard Donald had an on-off affair
:32:39. > :32:42.with Adakini Ntuli for almost nine years and after a messy split, took
:32:42. > :32:49.out a super-injunction to stop her from selling the details of their
:32:49. > :32:52.relationship to the press. She says she never intended to sell her
:32:52. > :32:57.story, and that the super- injunction left her scared to even
:32:57. > :33:03.discuss the matter, until now. hear the word super-injunction
:33:03. > :33:07.thrown about. You kind of know they exist but you don't know what they
:33:07. > :33:11.are and what they mean, or anything at all. Then all of a sudden you've
:33:11. > :33:14.got this thing being put on you. Mine was very severe in that I was
:33:14. > :33:17.being told that I was not allowed to mention not just the existence
:33:17. > :33:20.of the injunction but the existence of the relationship that I'd been
:33:20. > :33:30.in for a large part of my life, otherwise it was a prisonable
:33:30. > :33:33.
:33:33. > :33:35.offence. So I felt very strongly I had to do something about that.
:33:35. > :33:39.Adakini recruited a lawyer who eventually was able to convince a
:33:39. > :33:41.judge to relax some of the terms of Howard's injunction. This means she
:33:41. > :33:44.can now legally discuss the existence of the relationship,
:33:44. > :33:54.without discussing any of the actual details of her time with
:33:54. > :33:55.
:33:55. > :33:58.Howard. I have no control over how I'm portrayed. I have no voice. I'm
:33:58. > :34:08.not able to explain myself, explain my situation, but on the other hand,
:34:08. > :34:11.
:34:11. > :34:14.he is fully able to have me portrayed however he wants. Surely
:34:14. > :34:19.famous people in certain instances should have the right to protect
:34:19. > :34:22.their privacy and the details of their private life, right? Before
:34:22. > :34:25.any of this happened and you were in your relationship with Howard,
:34:25. > :34:30.you must have seen things a very different way? Everybody has a
:34:30. > :34:33.right to privacy, of course they do. But when a super-injunction is put
:34:33. > :34:43.in place because the person is basically just trying to hide their
:34:43. > :34:50.indiscretions... What it's about for me is that my name has been
:34:50. > :34:53.dragged through the dirt. Ive been wrongly portrayed. I would like to
:34:53. > :34:58.have the freedom of speech to be able, if I wanted to, tell things
:34:58. > :35:02.as they actually were to set the record straight. I'm not in a
:35:02. > :35:05.position where I can do that. As celebrities run round desperately
:35:05. > :35:08.trying to stop the public finding out the often bizarre details of
:35:08. > :35:13.their sex lives, the number of privacy cases going to court has
:35:13. > :35:15.soared. In most cases, the big names aren't actually going for a
:35:15. > :35:18.super-injunction, they're trying for your more bog-standard one,
:35:18. > :35:24.where the press can report there's one in place just not who's taken
:35:24. > :35:27.it out. And a lot of their gagging orders have been successful, which
:35:27. > :35:30.is why I can't tell you for instance the name of the actor
:35:30. > :35:35.who's been bombarding a single mum with sexy text messages, emails and
:35:35. > :35:40.tweets for a year. Or the TV celebrity who's trying to stop his
:35:41. > :35:44.wife from publishing a book about their sex lives. And we can't tell
:35:44. > :35:49.you the name of the married Premier League footballer said to have had
:35:49. > :35:59.an affair with an aspiring lingerie model. But we can tell you hers.
:35:59. > :35:59.
:35:59. > :36:04.It's Kimberley West. Action. Good. Hi, Kimberley. I'm Sam. Hi. Nice to
:36:04. > :36:07.meet you. How are you doing? I'm good, thanks. Good. Kimberley met
:36:07. > :36:12.the footballer in a nightclub and says they had a relationship for
:36:12. > :36:17.the next six months. Wow, was it quite serious what you had with
:36:17. > :36:21.him? We used to go out for meals, used to go and get DVDs and watch
:36:21. > :36:24.them together. It felt like it was leading on to something. He even
:36:24. > :36:29.said, "This could be the start of something cos I really like you,
:36:29. > :36:33.Kim ." I was like, "Oh, my God. He's saying this about me. Wow."
:36:33. > :36:36.Obviously because I'm only 18. What 18 year old wouldn't be flattered?
:36:36. > :36:40.And then you found out he was married? Usually when someone asks
:36:40. > :36:43.you on a date you assume they're single. So he was a guy living a
:36:43. > :36:47.double life really. Basically, yeah. So how did you feel when you found
:36:47. > :36:50.out? I felt really hurt and annoyed and quite angry. Sort of a mix of
:36:50. > :36:57.emotions really. Just the fact that he's taken advantage of me for six
:36:57. > :37:00.Hurt and upset, Kimberley approached The Sun and told them
:37:00. > :37:03.every detail of their alleged affair. So when you went to the
:37:03. > :37:08.papers were you worried about how you might come across in a story
:37:08. > :37:11.like this? I thought I'd be judged. Like, "Who does she think she is?"
:37:11. > :37:14.I knew there would be both positive and negative feedback from it but
:37:14. > :37:18.in the end I just thought I've got nothing to lose because I haven't
:37:18. > :37:21.done anything wrong. And did they offer you money for it. They did,
:37:21. > :37:25.yeah. And was that part of the motivation? They were paying you a
:37:25. > :37:29.decent some of money? That wasn't it at all. The whole point was that
:37:29. > :37:32.I wanted to get him named and shamed for the person he really is.
:37:32. > :37:38.However, as soon the player heard that he was to be identified in The
:37:38. > :37:41.Sun, he called in the lawyers. They won an injunction, stopping the
:37:41. > :37:47.story from being published. I felt really angry, how the fact that
:37:47. > :37:52.he's a famous footballer and he can hide behind his lawyers. All he has
:37:52. > :37:56.to do is cough up money and that's it. You know, no-one needs to know
:37:56. > :37:59.he's been having an affair for six months. It's hard to know who to
:37:59. > :38:03.feel sorry for. Obviously Kimberly feels betrayed but is it fair on
:38:03. > :38:06.the footballer to have all of this messy business aired in public?
:38:06. > :38:11.Kimberley, a lot of people will say that this is something that took
:38:11. > :38:14.place between you and him. Does that mean it should all be dragged
:38:14. > :38:17.through the papers? He didn't have the decency to own up or apologise,
:38:17. > :38:21.you know. He carried on lying throughout. That's why I chose to
:38:21. > :38:25.go down that road. So this is still a secret right now. If you said his
:38:25. > :38:28.name to me right now we'd probably both be in big trouble. Oh, we
:38:28. > :38:31.would, yeah. What would you do now if a footballer, even if he was
:38:32. > :38:35.really really hot, asked you for your number in a nightclub? I'd be
:38:35. > :38:42.like, "Mate, don't even go there." What about if it was David Beckham?
:38:42. > :38:46.Of course, Kimberly isn't the only woman this summer who found herself
:38:46. > :38:50.at the heart of an injunction after an affair with a Premier League
:38:50. > :38:53.footballer. There's one story no- one can have missed. The story is a
:38:53. > :38:56.simple one. Footballer meets reality star, they allegedly have
:38:56. > :38:59.an affair lasting six months, The Sun newspaper find out but the
:38:59. > :39:06.footballer takes out a gagging order which prevents the Sun or
:39:06. > :39:08.anyone else ever discussing any of it. Ever. But due to what can only
:39:08. > :39:12.be described as an unfortunate series of events, it didn't work
:39:12. > :39:17.and soon all of the tawdry details of his love life had spilled out on
:39:17. > :39:21.the internet for all of us to read about. How very disappointing. And
:39:21. > :39:24.not what anyone involved had wanted. As soon as former Big Brother star
:39:24. > :39:26.Imogen Thomas heard that The Sun had discovered details of the
:39:26. > :39:31.affair, she approached the godfather of public relations,
:39:31. > :39:37.asking for advice. Because if there's one man who knows how to
:39:37. > :39:40.bury a story, it's Max Clifford. Imogen Thomas came to see me to
:39:40. > :39:44.tell me about her relationship with a famous footballer. Right, "Do you
:39:44. > :39:47.want to bring out the story?" "No, I don't. I don't want anybody
:39:47. > :39:51.knowing but the Sun newspaper have approached me. They say that they
:39:51. > :39:55.can prove it so I've got to talk to them. Will you look after me?" I
:39:55. > :39:59.contacted the Sun, spoke to the people at the top there. They
:39:59. > :40:05.didn't have enough evidence so it wouldn't come out. I said to Imogen,
:40:05. > :40:09."Say nothing, keep your head down. Anybody calls you, refer them to me.
:40:09. > :40:14.It won't come out. Phone the famous footballer and warn him what's
:40:14. > :40:18.going on and tell him to keep his head down and say nothing. As long
:40:18. > :40:23.as he does that it won't come out." The famous footballer decided not
:40:23. > :40:25.to take that advice. Had he taken that advice, no one would have
:40:25. > :40:35.known about the alleged relationship and a subsequent
:40:35. > :40:36.
:40:36. > :40:40.We all know who this footballer is but we can't say his name out loud
:40:40. > :40:44.because of the injunction, which I find amazing. He's not preventing
:40:44. > :40:47.his identity or his privacy any more. All he's really doing is
:40:47. > :40:50.stopping us from having a nice gossip about it all. What a
:40:50. > :40:55.spoilsport. The story was a tabloid editor's dream, but the
:40:55. > :40:58.restrictions of the injunction put the press in a difficult position.
:40:58. > :41:01.Like many journalists, Elisa Roche, had to navigate her way through a
:41:01. > :41:06.baffling legal minefield in order to work out what could and couldn't
:41:07. > :41:16.be reported. Let's talk about the Imogen Thomas story. We cannot name
:41:17. > :41:17.
:41:17. > :41:22.the footballer involved. I wonder who it was?! I am sure some people
:41:22. > :41:26.have gathered who it was. But the Imogen Thomas story ran and ran,
:41:26. > :41:31.the biggest story of this year. It was perfect, it had all of the
:41:31. > :41:34.elements. Why was it so perfect for journalists? At the time of Fleet
:41:34. > :41:37.Street finding out who this footballer was, we also started to
:41:37. > :41:41.find out about lots of other footballers and people in positions
:41:42. > :41:47.of power and famous people that had also been sleeping around behind
:41:47. > :41:51.partner's backs and with prostitutes and whatever else.
:41:51. > :41:56.There was this raft of injunctions propping up at the same time, which
:41:56. > :41:59.was intriguing but also frustrating. On Fleet Street we knew who they
:41:59. > :42:03.were but we were handcuffed and could not publish it because we
:42:03. > :42:07.could get sued. What made it great was the fact the footballer could
:42:07. > :42:11.not be named. The guessing game gives the story real legs.
:42:11. > :42:15.Absolutely. But that is always to see but there is nothing worse than
:42:15. > :42:21.feeling that you are being kept out of a secret. You start speculating.
:42:21. > :42:24.You wonder who it could be, your mate says it could be so and so. It
:42:24. > :42:27.fuels the fire and everybody wants to know who it is. It is the same
:42:27. > :42:31.for Fleet Street. What seemed particularly strained was that
:42:31. > :42:35.while nobody could then the football in the story, everybody
:42:35. > :42:41.knew who the other half in the affair was. Imogen Thomas was the
:42:41. > :42:47.focus of the attire scandal. What do you think about the way the
:42:47. > :42:52.women in these stories are betrayed by us in the press? The guide moves
:42:52. > :43:00.on. -- the man moved on. Footballers can afford to protect
:43:00. > :43:04.their identity. I think there is an inherent sexism in these cases. The
:43:04. > :43:10.women cannot afford to put his super-injunction on their own name.
:43:10. > :43:13.I felt sorry for Imogen Thomas. She could not protect her name. She was
:43:13. > :43:17.genuinely distressed. People would say that she was milking it but she
:43:17. > :43:26.was. She had paparazzi following her everywhere. At the end of the
:43:26. > :43:31.day she has done well out of it but I felt sorry for her at the time.
:43:31. > :43:36.don't give a toss what the celebrities are doing. I feel sorry
:43:36. > :43:41.for the footballer. She is willing to lie on her back, isn't she?
:43:41. > :43:47.about Beckham. I don't think he did it. If I had slept with that Imogen
:43:47. > :43:57.Thomas, I would have told my mates. And my mother. Your mother! I would
:43:57. > :43:58.
:43:58. > :44:03.not be bothered going to the Legally, the media could only refer
:44:03. > :44:07.to the famous footballer by three randomly chosen letters used to
:44:07. > :44:11.keep his identity secret. But because the pan with public were in
:44:11. > :44:19.luck. Within hours of the injunction being awarded, clues to
:44:19. > :44:22.his identity were posted online. And this man was among the first to
:44:22. > :44:32.put them there. A former press photographer, he now runs a
:44:32. > :44:37.
:44:37. > :44:44.celebrity gossip website. Nice to Once we'd had a phone call telling
:44:44. > :44:47.us who CTB was, I wanted that story on my website. Because you knew the
:44:47. > :44:53.amount of attention it would generate. It was a shocking
:44:53. > :44:56.shocking revelation I was truly shocked I truly was. Knowing he had
:44:56. > :44:59.a huge scoop on his hands, and desperate to publish before anyone
:44:59. > :45:01.else, Mike consulted his lawyers about what he could and more
:45:01. > :45:04.importantly couldn't reveal. Eventually they agreed that he
:45:04. > :45:12.could post clues to the footballer's identity but could not
:45:12. > :45:15.name him. The advice we got wasn't exactly what I wanted to hear but
:45:15. > :45:18.it was that whatever you write it has to pass a reasonable person's
:45:18. > :45:25.test. Can a reasonable person immediately guess from your clues
:45:25. > :45:29.the identity of this person? The answer was no. It was "who shot
:45:29. > :45:34.JR?" in real life "who shagged Imogen Thomas?" You could put it
:45:34. > :45:37.that way yes. Mike took the gamble and posted his story naming CTB's
:45:37. > :45:47.country of birth, and revealing that he plays for a big Premier
:45:47. > :45:50.League club. Once you know the answer to a crossword its very easy
:45:50. > :45:54.to put all the letters into all the boxes its very very simple.# the
:45:54. > :45:57.fact is people didn't know and 99 percent of people got it wrong' 99
:45:57. > :46:01.percent of people got it wrong after you had said who else do you
:46:01. > :46:04.know who is welsh' There was no end of different names you got to
:46:04. > :46:06.remember a lot of people who were making these guesses were female
:46:06. > :46:09.they weren't necessarily people that followed football and that's
:46:09. > :46:12.90 percent of my readers' But that was still enough for people to very
:46:12. > :46:16.quickly deduce what it was right so really you were breaking the
:46:16. > :46:25.injunction' Well that's a very mute point a very grey area our advice
:46:25. > :46:28.was that we weren't. So if anyone comes at you and says what
:46:28. > :46:38.reasonable persons your clues were too explicit then you can say well
:46:38. > :46:49.
:46:49. > :46:53.clearly they weren't cos 99 percent of people got it wrong? Exactly.
:46:53. > :47:02.You must have had moments when you thought I shouldn't have done this
:47:02. > :47:06.I've started something too big here. I don't think I feel quite like
:47:06. > :47:10.that, it was a risk yes and I still if you asked me would I do it again
:47:10. > :47:13.yes I would even knowing what I know now yes I would. Well Mike
:47:13. > :47:16.sums it up really well when someone, anyone, has a nugget of pure solid
:47:16. > :47:20.gold gossip they just can't keep their mouths shut about it,
:47:20. > :47:23.difference is that in the old days with a bit of gossip like that, you
:47:23. > :47:26.might tell a few people down the pub. Now you can spread it to
:47:26. > :47:29.millions across the world in a matter of moments thanks a lot
:47:29. > :47:32.Twitter. The usual rules of privacy don't seem to apply online,
:47:32. > :47:35.especially on Twitter. To find out why I'm off to my first tweet-up.
:47:35. > :47:38.This is basically an excuse for a booze-up, where people who have met
:47:38. > :47:41.each other on the social networking site, actually meet face to face
:47:41. > :47:45.over glasses of alcohol. The biggest moment for Twitter was when
:47:45. > :47:48.everyone wanted to find out who Imogen Thomas had been shagging.
:47:48. > :47:55.Would you say that gossip is the most valuable type of currency on a
:47:55. > :48:01.social network like Twitter? It's probably the biggest one and that's
:48:01. > :48:04.why the biggest people on Twitter are the celebrities. People have
:48:04. > :48:13.realized that it's an amazing platform for hearing all the best
:48:13. > :48:16.gossip. I mean for the first time ever fans have a direct channel to
:48:16. > :48:19.communicate with their heroes and to really get the raw thoughts
:48:19. > :48:22.coming out of their head. So it's a level of access these people have
:48:22. > :48:24.never had before. The name of Imogen's Premier League lover was
:48:24. > :48:27.reposted by thousands of gossip- hungry Twitter users, giving the
:48:27. > :48:29.site what was at the time, its busiest day ever. With little
:48:29. > :48:32.thought about the privacy implications, they also revealed
:48:32. > :48:35.the names of other celebrities who'd taken out injunctions to keep
:48:35. > :48:37.their secrets hidden. Unfortunately, they didn't always get it right.
:48:37. > :48:39.One post inaccurately claimed that Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson had an
:48:39. > :48:42.injunction preventing the publication of intimate photographs
:48:42. > :48:50.of him and journalist Jemima Khan. Unsurprisingly, Khan didn't waste
:48:50. > :48:54.time in taking to Twitter to deny it. Falsehoods and conjecture can
:48:54. > :48:56.very quickly take on the appearance of fact as well can't they and
:48:56. > :49:05.that's the scary thing about twitter. What's said can't be
:49:05. > :49:15.unsaid on Twitter can it? Absolutely, it's the same with
:49:15. > :49:23.
:49:23. > :49:26.anything on the internet. Once it's out there or it's been cached by
:49:26. > :49:29.google, copied by someone else you know, its very hard to take back
:49:29. > :49:32.and Twitter just amplifies that. So once information is out there you
:49:32. > :49:34.really can't hold it back. By now Twitter was on fire. Details of
:49:35. > :49:38.celebrities and their injunctions were being tweeted and retweeted
:49:38. > :49:41.every day some even featuring links to the actual court papers for each
:49:41. > :49:43.case. Again, not all of them were accurate there was one tweet
:49:44. > :49:46.falsely claiming that BBC presenter Gaby Logan had been having an
:49:46. > :49:49.affair with Alan Shearer for instance. However there was name
:49:49. > :49:51.that stood out on the list as vaguely familiar. That of former
:49:52. > :49:53.escort girl Helen Wood. Already notorious after stories about that
:49:54. > :49:56.threesome, Helen found herself publicly identified as having
:49:56. > :49:59.carried out an eye watering sex act on another celebrity client.
:50:00. > :50:06.Needless to say, the actor had taken out an injunction to keep it
:50:06. > :50:10.quiet. Well, it still baffles me why he got one because it wasn't
:50:10. > :50:18.even going to come out in a million years. I wasn't gonna sell a story
:50:18. > :50:21.on him. Did you know who he was even when you saw him? Not straight
:50:21. > :50:25.away I didn't, and even when the Rooney thing came out, it didn't
:50:25. > :50:28.even come into my head that it might come out about him. There was
:50:28. > :50:33.like other footballers and whatever that I thought oh God what if they
:50:33. > :50:37.find out about them? He was like the last person in a million years
:50:37. > :50:40.that I thought the press would have got wind of. When did you hear that
:50:40. > :50:44.he had taken out an injunction? day that the injunction came out I
:50:44. > :50:48.got a phone call off a journalist and I got a phone call off a family
:50:48. > :50:53.member saying are you aware what's all over the internet. As soon as I
:50:53. > :50:56.got wind of that I started having a panic attack, I was really upset.
:50:57. > :51:00.Do you think that by doing that, he made the story worse because as a
:51:00. > :51:02.result of that you ended up selling your story and all of the gory
:51:03. > :51:05.details came out. Well yeah, because he wasted however much
:51:05. > :51:08.money on an injunction and it completely spiraled out of control
:51:09. > :51:12.for him. He's obviously been led to believe that his name could be
:51:12. > :51:15.protected, but I think it's ended up a hell of a lot worse. Did you
:51:16. > :51:19.end up thinking really you have to have money to afford privacy.
:51:19. > :51:24.do, that's a fact, you do need money otherwise why didn't I get an
:51:24. > :51:28.injunction. On two occasions now its not been an option for me
:51:28. > :51:33.because I don't have 50 grand that's why. So called CTB may now
:51:33. > :51:36.wonder if the money he spent on his injunction was worth it. To protect
:51:36. > :51:41.his family, the injunction remains in place, but I'd bet there isn't
:51:41. > :51:43.anyone watching now who doesn't know exactly who he is. Even so,
:51:43. > :51:53.furious about having his identity revealed by thousands of tweeters
:51:53. > :52:01.
:52:01. > :52:02.online, he instructed his lawyers to take another unprecedented step.
:52:02. > :52:05.His representatives contacted Twitter's headquarters in San
:52:05. > :52:15.Francisco requesting they release the details of approximately 75,000
:52:15. > :52:15.
:52:15. > :52:25.users who had named him online in relation to the affair. This left
:52:25. > :52:26.
:52:26. > :52:29.readers worried they could be facing jail. Britain's top lawyer,
:52:29. > :52:33.the Attorney General Dominic Grieve has taken a tough line, amid claims
:52:33. > :52:35.Twitter had made a mockery of the law. Those who take an idea that
:52:35. > :52:39.modern methods of communication mean that they can act with
:52:39. > :52:42.impunity may well find themselves in for a rude shock. Can it really
:52:42. > :52:52.be the case that passing on a bit of gossip could really get you into
:52:52. > :52:57.
:52:57. > :53:00.such serious trouble? Time to call in a lawyer. 75,000 people have
:53:00. > :53:02.named this footballer on Twitter and there are implications now that
:53:03. > :53:06.he's gonna try and take legal action against them all, that's
:53:06. > :53:11.absurd isn't it? Technically if I was to forward the name to someone,
:53:11. > :53:19.that opens me up to different claims. I could be sued for breach
:53:19. > :53:21.of privacy, defamation. If there's an injunction in place stopping me
:53:21. > :53:28.from revealing the name, I'm technically in breach of that
:53:28. > :53:31.injunction. The idea that suddenly all the same laws about defamation
:53:32. > :53:40.and so forth that apply to big time newspapers apply to individuals sat
:53:40. > :53:43.in their bedrooms will be absolutely shocking to most people?
:53:43. > :53:46.I think people have got to learn that Facebook, Twitter, all these
:53:46. > :53:54.social media platforms - you should treat them in the same way as if
:53:54. > :53:57.you're speaking in a public forum. There is no reason why you can't be
:53:57. > :54:00.pulled up for something you've said on social media sites so you've got
:54:00. > :54:03.to be very careful. So it hasn't happened yet but in theory you
:54:03. > :54:07.could get banged up for tweeting. Next time you're a bit drunk and
:54:07. > :54:10.about to press Tweet, ask yourself this - Could you handle a two year
:54:10. > :54:16.stretch in gossip prison? What's the future Niri, gossip is like a
:54:16. > :54:24.virus and it can't be stopped? These laws might make sense morally
:54:24. > :54:28.or ethically but are they enforceable anymore. If you were to
:54:28. > :54:32.ask me when all this blew up with CTB - I would say there was a great
:54:32. > :54:35.momentum to really have a look at the law of privacy look at whether
:54:35. > :54:38.we're balancing the right of privacy and the right of free
:54:38. > :54:41.speech. Look at whether injunctions are right in the day and age of
:54:41. > :54:44.social media but in the light of what's happened recently with the
:54:44. > :54:47.phone hacking scandal. I think the whole climate has changed again -
:54:47. > :54:50.back to where we were before all this developed which was that
:54:50. > :54:52.people should have an area of their private lives that people shouldn't
:54:52. > :54:55.intrude upon. The summer's scandals aren't finished yet. As the
:54:55. > :54:57.enquiries into phone hacking continue, it's likely there'll be
:54:57. > :55:00.more arrests, more newspapers dragged in, and more famous victims
:55:00. > :55:02.revealed. Even footballer Ryan Giggs was hacked, though I cant
:55:02. > :55:05.imagine he'd have any skeletons rattling round in his closet. As
:55:05. > :55:07.for super-injunctions, there are already less celebs going for
:55:07. > :55:10.gagging orders, after seeing how easily their secrets can be
:55:10. > :55:17.revealed. But the boundaries of privacy have been left blurred like
:55:17. > :55:20.How much of your life revolves around gossip? I think it does. If
:55:20. > :55:26.you haven't got gossip, what do you talk about when you go to work
:55:26. > :55:31.every day? If there's no gossip, there's no interest there's nothing
:55:31. > :55:34.to talk about. Personally it wouldn't bother me because I don't
:55:34. > :55:37.necessarily read it, but actually when you think about the
:55:37. > :55:40.conversations that you have in your day to day life its all about
:55:40. > :55:44.gossip. So what you're saying is maybe we make it worse by wanting
:55:44. > :55:52.to read it? Absolutely yeah, because if we didn't buy it, they
:55:52. > :55:54.wouldn't do it. So what have I learnt? Well, in an age of social
:55:54. > :55:57.media, super injunctions, celebrity gossip wherever we look, we seem to
:55:57. > :56:01.be more obsessed with the details of other peoples lives more than
:56:01. > :56:04.ever before. And while we might not agree with the ways in which this
:56:04. > :56:06.gossip is gathered, that doesn't stop us from devouring the stuff.
:56:06. > :56:11.Journalists, celebrities, the public, we're all a bit
:56:11. > :56:15.hypocritical when it comes to this. But I don't think the law needs to
:56:15. > :56:19.be changed to stop us indulging in a bit of idle tittle tattle.
:56:19. > :56:23.Perhaps what we all need to do, is be a bit more responsible about the
:56:23. > :56:25.way in which we gossip - for the sake of ourselves, for others for
:56:25. > :56:28.society, and of course for the celebrities. Let's never forget the