Memo to Mr CTB esq. (Strictly confidential)

Monday, 23rd May 2011

Dear Mr CTB,

We often say that the best advice a solicitor can give a client is to tell them when to back off from a confrontation. The time has come to give it to you. You must know that your cause is hopeless, and our so-called privacy injunction a laughing stock. Your name is all over Twitter, Facebook and the Scottish press. Millions of people, including your team-mates and your wife, know about your affair with Imogen Thomas. Frankly, if we had broadcast your liaison in adverts on national television, we would have made a better job of protecting your secrets.

You think it cannot get any worse. Trust us, it can.

At present, you are merely an object of ridicule. If we go ahead with contempt of court proceedings, you will become a target for loathing. The Net hates censorship, and if you start threatening bloggers and Tweeters you will look like a rich, spoilt bully. There will be demonstrations outside the court, maybe inside too.

We tried to persuade the Attorney General to act instead of us, so we could put some distance between you and the proceedings, but he wasn’t born yesterday. He won’t touch the case, so we must strongly advise you to drop it, and express your sincere regrets to everyone you have offended. Most people still see you as one of the most likeable footballers in Britain. You will be amazed at how quickly the storm passes

Why make life hard for yourself, particularly when you have a big game to prepare for?

Yours sincerely,

Schillings, London WC1B 3HX.

(At least I hope this is what Schillings is telling its client. If it isn’t, the unworthy and obviously ludicrous suspicion will grow that London’s libel lawyers are solely motivated by an overwhelming desire to get their hands on other people’s money.)

Previous Back to Nick Cohen Next

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (8)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

marc antony

May 23rd, 2011 3:21pm Report this comment

Chattering classes go viral - who cares? Write something of meaning and import or don't bother.

bohodotcom

May 23rd, 2011 3:34pm Report this comment

Dear Mr Cohen,
Far be it from me to reject the King's Schilling. (Do I mean King's?)
See you in court
Mr. Schilling

Yam Yam

May 23rd, 2011 3:49pm Report this comment

Lawyers? Motivated by money?

Surely not.

commentator

May 23rd, 2011 6:14pm Report this comment

Super injunctions to concela the midemeanours of the rich and famous: a lawyers' racket based on judicial legislation. Its illegitimate twin is that other lawyers' racket based on creative judicial interpretation: big money divorces.

wrinkled weasel

May 25th, 2011 10:19am Report this comment

I don't know if this still happens but years ago, shifty types sold fake perfume from suitcases, in Oxford Street. I think they come under the generic term of "Barrow Boys". Scratch beneath the stripy suit and the nice address and I think you will find that Mr Schilling hails from a similar background. Says it all, really.

He is not alone of course. The big, big, industry is not celebs, it is personal injury claims. They don't care about the spirit of the law either.

Herbert Thornton

May 26th, 2011 6:33pm Report this comment

This is a discussion that certainly needs to be kept alive because it raises several serious issues. They include -

1. Whether Judges - or anyone else - ought to have any power to limit in any way what Members of Parliament are entitled to say in the House of Commons.

2. Whether injunctions issued by Judges ought to apply outside England and Wales.

3. Whether Judges should be required to specifically name every individual to whom they intend an injunction to apply.

My own opinion is that the answers to issues 1 and 2 ought to be "NO" and that the answer to issue 3 ought to be "YES".

I raise these questions partly because I believe that it was Speaker Bercow's duty to have upheld John Hemming rather than attempt to silence him, and partly because of this report in the Daily Mail that indicates that four people are in danger of being made scapegoats - which, to my mind would be blatant discrimination and a gross breach of the principle that the law should treat all people equally -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390470/Ryan-Giggs-affair-Piers-Morgan-Dom-Joly-face-huge-legal-bills-breaking-injunction.html