David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

Paul McMullan and the denial of privacy

Why privacy is not just for "paedos".

By David Allen Green Published 30 November 2011 17:36

The evidence of former News of the World journalist Paul McMullan to the Leveson inquiry was extraordinary and attention-grabbing. One almost wanted, following Blade Runner, for the barrister to ask McMullan what he would do if he saw a tortoise upside down in the sun. In the words of Graham Linehan on Twitter, it was as if McMullan was of another species.

What caused this response to his appearance and his evidence? It was perhaps the casual inhumanity and lack of any ethical concern. The only moment when McMullan showed any genuine disdain was when he dismissed his former editors as "scum" for what they did against him personally. But other than this flicker of defiance, his evidence was dark, depressing, and disconcerting.

And it was revealing. It gave the impression of a tabloid journalist simply thinking aloud, without any of the usual excuses, evasions, and euphemisms. The evidence was simply raw. It may well be that some of the evidence is unreliable, and it could also be that McMullan is not representative of tabloid journalism, but anyone who saw his stumbling and wince-inducing performance will probably never forget it.

At one point McMullan flatly rejected the general right of "privacy". It was a space, he contended, only for bad people to do bad things. Privacy, he assured the inquiry, was just for "paedos". Indeed, privacy was "evil".

Of course, McMullan cannot really believe this. Presumably the "toilet suite" he mentioned he wants for his Dover pub will come with cubicles fitted with doors and locks. One would hope he would not be a pub landlord who insists that all his customers defecate in an open room, at the risk of being denounced to the other customers as a child abuser.

In fact, everyone needs a private space to do certain things, even McMullan. Privacy is not an evil; it instead provides the sense of autonomy and dignity which is essential for any human being in a civilized society. There are questions as to how this basic human need for privacy is translated into effective legal remedies and how it is accorded respect by the tabloid media. There is also the difficult issue as to how privacy is balanced with publication of information in the public interest. But this does not mean that a person should not have a private space at all.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

Tags: Phone hacking scandal News of the World privacy

More from David Allen Green

15 comments

Wed, 2011-11-30 18:04 — Martin (not verified)

"In 21 years of invading people's privacy, I've never actually come across anyone who's been doing any good."

Well, maybe- but then wouldn't he be targeting those people who he suspected of not "doing good"? Sounds a bit like a policeman saying "Everyone is a criminal"- no, it just seems that way since you set out to deal mostly with criminals.

Wed, 2011-11-30 18:07 — Jason Stone (not verified)

Though it's understandably difficult to acknowledge that we owe McMullan gratitude for his candour, I can't help feeling that he's come closer to exposing the line of reasoning that enables our tabloid media to behave the way it does than any of its detractors have managed.

Wed, 2011-11-30 18:26 — James (not verified)

I agree: McMullan blew the whistle on those in charge who've used the oldest trick in the book, i.e. deny, deny, deny and pray that no one has the ball's to expose their lies and that no concrete evidence every comes to light.

If more people spoke out, there'd be a lot less corruption in this country because those in power would be a damn sight more wary that their illegal actions would be exposed.

Wed, 2011-11-30 18:40 — Louise (not verified)

The comic thing of course is the lengths the papers went to in order to cover up what they did, bribing police etc. It seems privacy for THEM is fine.

But it's not surprising that living in such a world leads you to conclude that there's no goodness, and human nature is so bad that privacy is always used for evil purposes.

Wed, 2011-11-30 18:41 — Louise (not verified)

Martin - well I think in their case they hacked people they thought would sell papers, victims of murders for instance. I am not sure they were fussed about uncovering corruption or whether good or bad was being done although they love to pretend that this is the case.

Wed, 2011-11-30 18:47 — Burch (not verified)

Oh I'm glad he exists to expose the real heart of the tabloids. But he's still a moral vacuum who will find out what a lack of privacy means in a cell if there's any justice.

Wed, 2011-11-30 18:50 — Stephen (not verified)

I saw him interviewed a few months ago on Newsnight. He came across as rather a sad man with a very distorted set of values. Anyone having an affair, it seemed to him, had lost the right to privacy and were deeply immoral. I wonder from where he got such values.

I think sympathy is the most apt response to him since he seems to be detached from normal human society. I hope he does not get punished. If he is, I think this will be a consequence of the warped set of values he holds, not because of some intrinsic evil in the man.

Wed, 2011-11-30 19:03 — Burch (not verified)

If being "detached from normal human society" was a reason not to be punished then we'd have no need for prisons.

Wed, 2011-11-30 20:22 — Christine Burns (not verified)

so·ci·o·path

noun

A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Sat, 2011-12-03 13:05 — Shahid Khan (not verified)

Of course the really alarming fact in all this is Paul McMullan's justification: If the public keeps buying the newspaper then it's all right. A great section of the British public share Paul's amorality. After it was revealed that NOW hacked Milly Dowler's phone, the newspaper sold a record number of copies.

Sat, 2011-12-03 14:15 — demonax3

The Tabloids exist because of a fusion of proprietors and readers. The former do all they can to continue, and profit from, a mind-set derived from a perverted puritanism about sex plus a vengeance cult , the latter wallow in what they have been thrown , seeing themselves through a misted glass.

Mon, 2011-12-05 07:19 — big boys' rules (not verified)

he said he was proud of getting a kid's doctor beaten up, and then went on to describe exploiting denholm elliott's daughter for 50 quid

how this gives him the moral jurisdiction to pervade peoples privacy at will, i do not understand

very compelling viewing though... a tv drama follow up would be nice (step forward bleasdale).

Thu, 2011-12-01 01:26 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Yes it's obvious quite a lot of people have this weird idea that privacy is for perverts. I think this may have a lot to do with a rather gung ho attitude about public declarations and confessions in general - there is a well intended push for transparency and openness (considered very healthy in some quarters) which in my view is effectively leading to a new kind of trend both at home and abroad; ie where vested interests are telling us that since our personal and private affairs as individuals are so interesting to the public, they must be disclosed or else be classed as toxic/perverse or whatever other risk category is being erroneously invented.

Perhaps this guy thinks he's just doing his job..on the other hand he may be so stupid as to be merely firing somebody else's bullets, unawares.

Other thoughts include the old adage about washing one's dirty linen in public..how does this translate in modern parlance.

Sun, 2012-03-25 08:57 — RemingtonSherman

I think this may have a lot to do with a rather gung ho attitude about public declarations and confessions in general - there is a well intended push for transparency and openness (considered very healthy in some quarters) which in my view is effectively leading to a new kind of trend both at home and abroad; ie where vested interests are telling us that since our personal and private affairs as individuals are so interesting to the public, they must be disclosed or else be classed as toxic/perverse or whatever other risk category is being erroneously invented. http://www.windows101.org/