Standard Lies

Frequently the UK Press runs stories these days which demonstrates the false economy of getting rid of sub-editors. Take the amazing piece in today's London Evening Standard headlined:

"Saatchi 'won't sue Nigella' over fallout from restaurant pictures that led to break-up"

The Evening Standard, it is worth mentioning, is owned by a Russian Oligarch, is given away free in London which means nobody else can compete, and is used by the Russians to procure influence. This included hysterically supporting Boris Johnson for Mayor with six page spreads every night for three weeks before the Mayoral election in May 2012 and banners on their website. Strangely the cash value of these Banners and the implication of the Evening Standard largely being distributed in London at Tube Stations in a commercial arrangement with Transport for London (controlled by the same Mayor) did not figure in Boris's Election Returns. In his defence Boris had little to do with his own election as the expensive Australian immigrant Lynton Crosby ran a campaign which bore no relation to what BoJo had done before or has done since. As part of a Local Authority TfL and its employees have a legal duty to remain strictly neutral during an election period. This duty of neutrality in an election for its controlling authority did not stop them distributing pro-Boris electoral material in the "free" Evening Standard and Metro every day at over 300 outlets in London and leaking of an internal TfL memo ostensibly rubbishing Ken Livingston's Fare Freeze as unaffordable. 

Within months of his re-election Boris broke his election promise and imposed another (his fifth) above inflation fare increase for his publicly owned monopoly which ended the year with a £900 million surplus. In America, by contrast, the Lebedev's would not be allowed to own American newspapers and would be obliged to register and file financial returns as "Agents of a Foreign Power." 

This is the type of polling story just before an election which is forbidden by
electoral law in Lynton Crosby's native Australia. In the end Ken
lost by 64,000 votes of the over 2 Million votes cast but this is a
classic spoiling tactic to discourage undecided voters from voting
for Ken Livingstone

My contemporary thoughts on Ken's Campaign are here in The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/02/ken-livingstone-fare-cut-affordable

Now back to the cringe worthy Saatchi story where his "friends" (Charles Saatchi has friends??) say Charles Saatchi has now decided he was not going to sue Nigella for £500k for not defending him!! No, seriously, I quote:

"He had considered going to court for the chance to tell his side of the story behind the photographs and the couple’s subsequent split. However, the friend said today: “He has decided he is happier getting on with his own life and wants to put the past behind him.”"  

I can see why this is posted by the Standard's "Arts" correspondent and not their legal correspondent as this is a story without legs from start to finish. Man assaults (and is pictured doing so) wife in restaurant. Man accepts Police "Caution" which is an admission that the offence happened. Period. 

Charles emphasising a point. The scallops with chorizo are
always excellent at Scott's Restaurant in Mayfair

Wife, who is cut off by man behaves entirely honourably by making ABSOLUTELY no public comment about her private life. Man (who was once an advertising mogul who could even sell an unattractive product like the Tories) shows how much he has lost his touch by issuing utterly cringe worthy statement. Rest of the world looks away in embarrassment. Evening Standard runs absolutely baseless story attributed to PR Man's "friends" - but actually based on letters his lawyers sent to her lawyers according to reports in The Telegraph and Daily Mirror. Suggests PR Man has some grounds for action against abused Wife which don't exist in English Statute or Common Law for not "Defending" Man who has signed a caution admitting assault - "The Wife has a clear duty from Time Immemorial to defend her Master's reputation, M'Lud"? There is also the small, little, technical issue M'Lud that for their "Quickie Divorce" in the High Court both parties had to file affidavits confirming they had no further claims against each other?

Consider the reality. A third party takes and publishes undoctored photos which lead directly to Charles Saatchi admitting an offence of assault and accepting a Police Caution. Charles Saatchi now suggests that the person who was wronged failing to publish a statement that the image was misleading constitutes an actionable Tort? I can only assume his "friends" told him to stop being an even bigger Charlie than he has been. He should be eternally grateful for Nigella's silence.  that the image was misleading does not equal defamation or any other actionable tort.that the image was misleading does not equal defamation or any other actionable tort.that the image was misleading does not equal defamation or any other actionable tort.that the image was misleading does not equal defamation or any other actionable tort.

Do the Police not have enough to do investigating
crimes by the so-called Working Classes?

Two questions remain;

#1 Is PR Man's inflated ego permanently in a place where the sun don't shine?

#2 How many expensive lunches does it take for an "Arts" correspondent to run a story which goes way beyond Lord Northcliffe's definition of "Non-news about non-people."

I'm glad the Evening Standard is now given away free, people wouldn't pay for this fluff?

The article is on this link for those who enjoy the surreal!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/saatchi-wont-sue-nigella-over-fallout-from-restaurant-pictures-that-led-to-breakup-8915281.html