 |
28th
April 2005, The Scotsman
I WAS glad to hear that David and Victoria Beckham have decided
to take legal action against their former nanny, Abbie Gibson,
who sold her story to the News of the World last week. I actually
think that they should go further than that. They should hound
Miss Gibson to the ends of the earth. They should make her account
to them for every penny that she has made from the story and
more. They should bankrupt her and have a trustee in bankruptcy
recover every penny she makes over the next three years and
pay it back to them. That should probably make her life a misery.
It would probably also make her unemployable, but then again
she may have done that herself.
Harsh words and drastic action. Well let’s examine her
crime. The News of the World will have us believe that she exposed
the hypocrisy of "Brand Beckham". All is not well
in the house of the golden couple. Constant fighting and allegations
of matrimonial infidelity. The public have a right to know the
truth about Britain’s most written-about family. She was
a whistleblower exposing the truth.
|
|
Except
when Miss Gibson started working for the Beckhams she signed,
as part of her employment contract, a confidentiality agreement.
In short, she was not allowed to talk about her employment with
the Beckhams. And if her story is to be believed then there
was good reason for such a clause to be incorporated in the
employment contract. It is not as if confidentiality clauses
are a new invention. They are standard within the nanny profession.
She breached that clause for financial gain. She was lured by
the smell of a reputed £300,000. Quite a few pieces of
silver. She knew what she was signing and she should live with
the consequences.
Many would think it better for the Beckhams to vent their anger
on the News of the World. Well they have already failed in their
bid to stop them publishing. This was because, while the nanny
might have broken her contract, the newspaper was in a different
position. It was simply the messenger. Although it must have
been aware that it was intending to publish information which
had confidence attaching to it, the key issue for the court,
when seeking to restrain publication, was freedom of expressiont |
|
Consequently,
when the paper was in a position to argue that the story carried
a public interest element, namely that the Beckhams had been
duping them and that Brand Beckham was a sham, it was difficult
for the courts not to refuse the injunction. Now that the story
has been published the remedy would lie through the libel courts.
The Beckhams need to send out a warning shot. If you can’t
shoot the messenger then make it very unappealing to those who
choose to breach their confidences. Bankruptcy and three years
of misery might just be enough to make them think twice.
|
|
