|
McKennitt
v. Ash archive: |
Gunnar Pettersson on "McKennitt v. Ash" On these pages you will find all my Pressylta postings
on McKennitt v. Ash from August 2005 onward, to be added to as we go
along. I have not (yet) translated the early postings from Swedish
into English, but I know Quinlan Road has, so you could always ask them for a
copy... The postings are, as always, in reverse order. [This page is an English language adjunct to my Swedish
language blog --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday 17 October 2007 - : - Final words? Barring unforeseen incidents, I hope this will be the
last word on McKennitt v Ash for quite some time, at least on my part. I may well
return to the subject in the future, in more comprehensive form, but for now I feel
it's time to move on. A few points, then, about Loreena's last posting on the
Greenslade blog. If you haven't read it, I recommend that you do so: click here and then scroll down to the near-end, Comment no. 734398. I'll try and be as
brief as possible. But I'm afraid I might fail. Apologies. My first point is this. Throughout the posting, Loreena
makes much of Niema's alleged breach of the confidentiality agreement
(henceforth "CA" for short) she had signed. However, as I mentioned in one of my
Greenslade postings, the CA never became much of an issue in the various hearings in
this case, and I said I was slightly mystified by that. In fact, it's not mystifying
at all. Going back to my own, original postings (I know: doh....) from
August 2005 (the first ones in Swedish), the reasons emerge very clearly there. The CA
simply wasn't valid, basically on two grounds: (1) Niema signed it fully six months
after she had left Loreena's employ, and signing anything like a CA
retroactively of course goes against one of the central principles of the law of
contracts; and (2) the CA was drawn up according to the laws of Ontario, which made it
inapplicable in a UK legal setting. Now, the fact that Niema took out insurance to cover
herself against legal action is, first of all, a wholly normal and routine thing for
a freelance, self-publishing writer to do in cases like this (obvious, when you think
about it). In fact, I think print-on-demand companies require it of their authors.
It is decidedly not, as Loreena seems to suggest, some sort of prior admission
of guilt. It simply couldn't be an "admission of
guilt", for a reason which is actually an inherent contradiction that Loreena doesn't seem to have spotted
in her own argument, namely that if Niema really had breached the CA
in any way - and the insurance company of course had a very good look at the document -
then Niema would never have been given cover in the first place! Again,
obvious, when you think about it. So the issue of the CA is in fact an irrelevance in this
case. Loreena may wish it wasn't, but that's beside the point. The fact
remains: there was no valid CA for Niema to be in breach of. End of story. Second point. Loreena says something about "most of
[Niema's] friends" having "fallen away" from her, because of the way
they were depicted in an earlier book of hers. This is depressing to read, not just because
it's wrong, but because it's so pointlessly wrong, a piece of low-rent non-gossip,
which is a level of argument I think we would do well to try and rise above, quite
frankly. However, when it comes to the fact that I myself have not appeared in any
of Niema's books, this has of course always been a big disappointment for me.
But it has such a simple explanation that it rather strengthens my suspicion that
Loreena hasn't actually read any of the books in question. The explanation is that I wasn't there. I wasn't there
when Niema made the epic journey into Tibet, which became "Touching
Tibet". I wasn't there when a whole load of our group of friends, spearheaded by Niema, went
on the equally epic holiday to Morocco, which formed the basis for
"Travels with my Daughter". The only book I do appear in, if only fleetingly, is,
ironically enough, "Travels with Loreena McKennitt"...! (That Loreena failed to
notice this is more than forgivable, believe me...). But if you think it's suspicious that I
don't appear elsewhere in Niema's writings, you might as well think it's
suspicious that Karl Marx doesn't appear in "Mary Poppins". Finally, Loreena brings up the excellent question of why
she simply didn't ignore Niema's book - and then fails to answer it in a
satisfactory way, at least in my view. Her answer seems to consist of two parts. One is to do
with the CA, and the point of principle that a-contract-is-a-contract, and any
breach of a contract has to be pursued, otherwise the floodgates will open. This is
fair enough. But Niema's CA, as we have seen, wasn't valid in the UK, as any lawyer
worth his salt should have spotted. So we're back where we started: the CA was
always an irrelevance here. The second part of the answer has to do with Loreena's
fear that Niema's book would, as it were, ride piggy-back on the release of
Loreena's next record, i.e. what eventually became "An Ancient Muse".
Quinlan Road estimated, Loreena writes, that Niema's book could sell "thousands of
copies if not ten's of thousands, coasting on the marketing and promotional efforts and
expenses we would be incurring for the recording." In my view, this was just about possible, but never
particularly probable. Not least because, presumably, most of those tens of
thousands of readers would have been fans of Loreena. And, believe you me, if a
quick, strong, dignified, once-and-for-all denunciation of the book had been the
only response from Quinlan Road, the vast majority those fans would have
obeyed immediately, and put their PayPal money back in their pockets prontissimo.
At least if "Old- Ways" - a chat room for fans of Loreena, a steaming
cauldron of intensely requited love and militant humourlessness - is anything
to go by. More importantly, perhaps, if huge sales had been part
of Niema's plans for the book, she would of course not have published it in the
UK, but in Canada or the US, where the potential for piggy-backing on Loreena's
new record would have been far, far greater (and, incidentally, where she
would have stood a much better chance of avoiding legal action!). Let's get real here:
a self-published book in the UK about a semi-famous (let's face it, guys) Canadian
folk singer is definitely not the way to go about creating a bestseller. You may think
what you like about Niema, but she ain't stoopid. For what it's worth, I believe Loreena's choice of not
ignoring the book and going to the law, had to do with power, in particular
narrative power: who tells, and therefore owns, Loreena's story? But that's a question
for another day. Meanwhile, Niema has been silenced for good, and has to
pay a hefty sum of money for the privilege. Whatever the rights and wrongs,
that's not what I would call a "victory" on Loreena's part. It's bad
money. It's bad karma. Saturday 13 October 2007 - : - On-and-ongoing
business... I thought/hoped we'd seen an end to the, erm, discussion
on Greenslades's blog (link in yesterday's posting) but Loreena insists we go
yet another nine miles... (And remember, in among all this, she's actually
touring...!) Anyways, in her latest contribution she answers some questions that people have
apparently asked her, and it makes for interesting reading, in particular her
version of the history - and pre-history - of this case. She even mentions little me.
Now, rest assured I will return to this particular posting of Loreena's - but
here, rather than Greenslade's blog - with my whole box of analytical tools sharpened
to within an inch of their lives. But - and this is a Big But for me - I'm off
tomorrow on a few days of extremely - nay, intensely! - well-deserved break, so why don't
you talk amongst yourselves until next week, when will I return more bronzed, more
muscular, more lithe, and more handsome than ever. And that's the point, my
friends, when we'll get to grips with this particular wagon-load of heifer dust. Friday 12 October 2007 - : - Ongoing business... If you haven't already,
you should glance through the comments following Roy Greenslade's short
piece, which I already referred to in Tuesday's posting. There are by now several
very long comments from Loreena. And they are a sight to behold. Verbally
incontinent, resentful, truculent and arrogant by turns, the figure that emerges
from these postings is an unholy combination of Joan of Arc and Mrs Malaprop. She
has apparently remembered every single newspaper article written about the
case, especially the ones that did not wholeheartedly agree with her: she has
noted every perceived slight, every attempt to see Niema's side of the
dispute - and she wants them nailed! Especially poor Mr Greenslade, who Loreena
basically seems to want to haul up before Mr Justice Eady and submit to the
most rigorous of cross-examinations. Reading all this, I keep having to remind
myself that it was Niema who "lost" the case....! I am not one to psychologise, but
I will anyway, because in my eyes Loreena does not seem overly happy
here, in the immediate aftermath of her, well, triumph, I guess you'd call it. Tuesday 9 October 2007 - : - Wow... I assume you have all read what's been written about the
settlement so far... There are a few things at Quinlan Road, of course, including a
press release. More interestingly, perhaps, The Guardian's Roy
Greenslade posted his views on the outcome on his blog, which Loreena then commented
on, twice, and at some considerable length... And I have to say, although
I speak as a layman here, some of what Loreena says in her comments there
seem to me highly libellous. This is Loreena at full-steam-ahead, and for
those of you who have never met her, it certainly gives you some idea of what
it's like to be on the wrong side of her... Crikey... Meanwhile, I'm plugging away at my own final comments,
which are turning out to be quite lengthy, too, but slightly more coherent
than Ms McKennitt's, I hope. I'll post them when things have calmed down a bit.
Sunday 7 October 2007 - : - It ain't over till the thin
lady sings... Sorry about the end to Thursday's posting, I was just a
bit depressed about it all. Of course I'll return to the subject, it deserves
nothing less. I'm going to get my toolbox out and start carving a longer piece, a sort of
"In conclusion", which will appear here some time next week. Bear with me. Thursday 4 October 2007 - : - The end. The case of McKennitt v. Ash has been settled, fully and
finally, nigh on two years after it began. This afternoon, following lengthy
negotiations in the Law Courts, an agreement was reached in which - according to the
statement finally read out in open court in front of Mr Justice Eady - Niema Ash undertakes not to "publish 'Travels with Loreena McKennitt' any further, nor
publish or disclose any other information about the Claimants [i.e. Loreena or her
companies] or her dealings with them." Niema will also make a
"substantial contribution in payment of the costs." This means that Niema is basically not allowed to say
anything in public about her past dealings with Loreena, not even about the past
two years' litigation. The statement ends with the following sentence (the English
is atrocious, but you have to blame Loreena's solicitors at Carter-Ruck for
that...): "Loreena McKennitt feels she has achieved her objective in protecting the human
right she shares with others to a private life, and welcomes the settlement
which has been achieved". I'm sure this is what Loreena feels. You and I might
conceivably feel that this settlement has nothing whatever to do with privacy, but
everything to do with the first principle of the law: might is right. But
then, what else is new? I don't know if I'm going to comment on this case any
further. Why? Because I'm rather looking forward to the rest of my life, in which
I propose to spend not a single thought on Canadian folk singer Loreena... erm,
you know, Whatsaname. Sunday 30 September 2007 - : - Updates First off, I'm glad to report that the abusive phone
calls to Niema have stopped. I don't know if my previous posting had anything to do
with it - a bit spooky if it did, right...? - or if the tortured soul behind them
found something else to obsess on. Whatever the case, ever onwards and upwards, eh,
chaps? As you will know, we are fast approaching next week's court dates:
Thursday 4th and Friday 5th will be devoted to the matter of the amended edition of
the book, which Niema tried to publish in April. This hearing will be held in
front of Mr Justice Eady again, with Niema this time (thankfully...) represented by a
barrister, Jonathan Crystal (see my posting on 27 June below). The hearing into the
matter of Niema's so- called "beneficial interest" in her husband's
property will be held at a later date, as I understand it. I will of course attend both days
next week, and hope to be able to post a brief report at the end of each day, with
a longer summary shortly thereafter. If anything else crops up in the meantime,
you'll be the first to know. Monday 10 September 2007 - : - Sad to report... ...that not only does Niema, as we approach the 4
October court date, have to bear the ever-harder legal onslaught from Loreena's
representatives, but she has now also become the vicitim of vicious personal - and,
of course, anonymous - attacks. Niema has received a series of very unpleasant
phone calls recently, all of them with a one-word message, pertaining to canine
gender issues. A number of email messages have carried similar, anonymous
thoughts, as have some web postings, such as the mendacious and semi-literate comment (scroll down) by a certain "werdna nosgib", relating to a piece
on the McKennitt v Ash case, originally from Digg.com. (And, no, it isn't from someone called
"Andrew Gibson"...) I really, really hope that the people behind
these attacks are not fans of Loreena McKennitt, because it would reflect so badly on Loreena
herself. But, hand on heart, I fear my hopes on that score are rather forlorn. Why?
Because, as we know, "Fandom" is an absolutist monarchy run by the
sexually repressed, and when sexual repression is challenged - and from that
particular angle, Niema's book could of course be construed as a challenge - then
repression often turns to verbal, sometimes physical, aggression in this way. It's not
just unpleasant, it degrades us all that some people allow themselves to act like this.
It needs to stop, forthwith. Monday 27 August 2007 - :
- A quick one... Media commentator Stephen
Glover has a brief comment
in the Independent today on a recent case
involving the auhtor JK Rowling, which has great relevance to McKennitt v. Ash
(scroll down to 'JK Rowling and others attempt to magic up a privacy law'). Thursday 23 August 2007 - : - Yes, I'm still here... It's been a while, simply
(as before) because there hasn't been much of a reportable nature to report, by
which I mean that Loreena's side are as relentless as ever in their delaying tactics,
and in their attempts to impose ever more severe sanctions on Niema (and on Tim, who
is now - and, more importantly, whose business is now - very much involved in
the case). The pressure that Carter-Ruck is applying on the two of them is
unbearable at times, and the frustrating thing for their friends is that there isn't much one
can offer at the moment, other than tea and sympathy. The main arguments are
ostensibly to do with Loreena trying to recoup her costs in this long and ever more
drawn-out case. But, in my eyes, it's gone far beyond that. If I were of a more melodramatic
bent, I would have said that Loreena is simply out to destroy them now,
financially and psychologically, and at some especially dark moments it seems as
though she is half-way to succeeding in that. And it's this, in turn, which makes me curious
about her strategic thinking, i.e. what's going to happen to Loreena's image when
this case is finally resolved and the full story of her conduct throughout it can be
told, as it inevitably will, whether here or elsewhere. Because not even the most purblind
fan will find a story here that can be easily embellished into a tale of the simple
daughter of the Winnipeg soil staunchly mounting the barricades of personal privacy and
winning against all the odds. Very, very far from it. Meanwhile, it will
hearten you to learn that Niema's plans to take the case to the European Court of Human
Rights are continuing apace. And she's got great people to advise her on that
score, too. More to follow. Thursday 2 August 2007 - : - Dates for your diary The fog has begun to lift as regards future hearings in
the case. There will be two of them. The first hearing is to determine what, if
anything, Niema's "beneficial interest" is in the house she shares with her
husband; that decision will form the basis for the sum of money Niema owes to Loreena in
costs. Now, there is some dispute between the two sides at the moment, regarding
when and in front of whom this hearing should be held. Loreena's side insist
it should be heard by Mr Justice Eady, simply because he is familiar with the
case. The problem is that Eady may not be available for quite some time. Niema's side
of course want this and any other business cleared up as soon as possible, because
of the continuing and ever- worsening personal and financial strain on her and Tim
as the case drags on and on and on. As soon as I know of a resolution to all this I
will of course report. The second hearing we do have a date for: 4 October
2007. This will certainly be heard before Mr Justice Eady, and will deal with the
revised edition of the book itself, which Niema published in April of this year. Now, in
this instance, Loreena's side is demanding nothing less than a "summary
judgement" on the book. In other words, if I've understood this aright, they argue that Niema
has no case to make whatsoever, and therefore she need not even be heard in court. On
the contrary, they seem to be saying, Loreena's case is so overwhelmingly clear-cut
that Eady might as well just decide on the appropriate sanction against Niema
straight off. This is what might be called the Brutalist Approach to the McKennitt v. Ash
case, the string-her-up-and- let's-all-go-home solution. Not pretty but, hey, it's
not a bloody poetry reading we're in for, is it? However, for those of us with an interest
in justice and reason and freedom of expression, let's hope they're whistling in the wind
on that one. Sunday 29 July 2007 - : - A brief note I haven't
posted anything for a while, for the simple reason that there hasn't been much of substance to report. The pressure is still on
Niema, with constant demands that she pay Loreena's costs, et cetera. At some point
in the near future (let's hope) the court has to decide what, if any, "beneficial
interest" Niema has in the house she shares with her husband, Tim, and from that decision any
possible payments will be determined. There is still very much a chance that Niema
will be declared bankrupt, and even be sent to prison. I will of course report any
new developments. Meanwhile, why not cast your eye over a comment last week by the ex-editor of Private Eye, Richard Ingrams, to do with Mr Justice Eady's latest
decision about we are allowed and not allowed to see, or read, or learn. Wednesday 11 July 2007 - : - It goes on, and on, and
on... Loreena has now registered a County Court Judgement against Niema and her publishing company Purple Inc Press. It's a process that
may, again, end up with the bailiffs knocking on Niema's door. And it's come
completely out of the blue, giving Niema no chance of responding, or even having it
clarified how this severe measure fits in with the fact that it's not yet been
established if she has any assets in the first place... At least as far as I understand
it. This must be what Loreena means by "reclaiming
noble values" in her fabled Compass Points, eh...? Sheeesh... Tuesday 3 July 2007 - : - Report from a parallel
universe Well, I accompanied Niema to today's hearing in the Law
Courts: we figured two sets of ears would be better than one. It didn't really
help. We came out almost as confused as we had gone in. The bare bones are that this
was essentially about Loreena's bid to retrieve some, if not all, of her
costs. And it seems ("seems", note) that she will eventually succeed in this. How? Search
me. I'll report in more detail when the fog has lifted. Meanwhile, there is apparently a distinct possibility
that the hearing into the amended edition of the book itself, to be heard before Mr
Justice Eady, may not take place until October. -"But that's miles away!" I hear you
exclaim. Indeed it is, and it is to be sincerely hoped that this whole business can be settled
long before that, so that we can all get on with what was supposed to be our lives.
Wouldn't you agree? Monday 2 July 2007 - : - Further reading... In today's Media Guardian, lawyer Ashley Hurst writes about privacy
issues to do with Facebook
and, in doing so, mentions McKennitt v. Ash (you have to register to read: scroll down to "Is the writing on the wall
for Facebook?") There is a hearing scheduled for tomorrow in the Law Courts.
It concerns the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, Niema has a
"beneficial interest" in the property where she lives with her partner, Tim - and which is in
fact wholly owned by Tim. As you will gather, this is part of Loreena's attempts
to retrieve some of the costs incurred in the case. I will report further. Wednesday 27 June 2007 - : - Some good news... After much toing and
froing, much this and that and the other, I'm happy to tell you that Niema has finally
got some legal representation. Helping her out will be solicitors Hextalls and as her
counsel, barrister Jonathan Crystal. This, you will agree, is prime- cut, organically grown
and tastiest of tasty Good News. Now, the final outcome of this whole business is of
course as difficult to predict as ever. And, thanks to Loreena, both Niema and Tim are still
very much up Manure River. But at least now they have a paddle. As I understand it, there
are various dates being talked of for the upcoming hearings, and as soon as I know
more I will of course post. Thursday 21 June 2007 - : - Further report, sort of It's hugely frustrating that, for formal legal reasons,
which I hope to be able to go into at a later date, I can't for the moment report much
on recent developments, or at least not in any great detail. Suffice it to say that
things are still looking decidedly down for Niema: it's as hellish as before, with new
shocks practically every day. From another angle, though, things are looking a bit more up.
So it's hope and despair circling each other at the moment. I've said it before: there is definitely a book - "Another
book, oi vey...!" - in this sorry tale. Much of it will have to be written by Charles
Dickens, of course, and some of it by Jonathan Swift, and some by whoever wrote the
"Twilight Zone". But it basically needs a writer with a keen ear for the absurd and a
sharp eye for sharp practices. Suggestions on a postcard, please. Wednesday 20 June 2007 - : - Slight re-organisation To make this page
slightly less unwieldy, in terms of size, I've separated out postings in yearly archives: see
left. Let's just hope there won't be a need for a 2008 archive... Tuesday 19 June 2007 - : - Due to circumstances beyond my control, etc... I was going to post this
on Friday, but my service provider was switching FTP platforms that day, when, all of a
sudden, they discovered they'd brought the wrong screwdriver, and so, what with Ron
away at his sister's wedding, they had to ring Dave the Tech, but Dave was sick, so it
wasn't until today the whole shebang was up and running again. Except they can't get
Duluth on the radio anymore. And my service provider
is called Demon Internet... It's about as demonic as a pint of milk left out
overnight, in the rain, in Nether Wallop, on a Thursday, in October. Anyway, the link takes
you to a piece by Roy Greenslade, the Guardian's esteemed media commentator, from
last Thursday. He writes on privacy, the House of Lords and the McKennitt v. Ash
case. More soon. I hope. Thursday 14 June 2007 - : - Bear with me... ...there will be
further postings on McKennitt v. Ash in the near future, I promise. Meanwhile, veteran
readers of this blog will recall my outrage at Lord Justice Richards being accused of exposing
his genitalia to a woman on a crowded commuter train: see my posting
"Newsflash" on 22 January 2007 below. You'll remember that Richards it was who played the
main part in allowing Niema to take Eady's ruling to appeal. Well, I am happy - nay,
delirious! - to report (a) that the good judge has been found not guilty, and that (b)
what clinched the case was a pair of black Calvin Klein briefs exhibited in court
(without anyone inside them, I hasten to add). At last, some good karma
in this sorry business... Monday 11 June 2007 - : - A
what-if scenario Or "20/20
hindsight", call it what you will. Had it been my job to advise Loreena about these things in the
summer of 2005 - and I've had stranger jobs than that, believe me - and she
wanted to know what to do about Niema's book, I would have replied:
-"Nothing. Nada. Zilch." Why? Because consumer society has after all produced some iron
laws, and one of them is: "Ignore it and it will go away". If everyone ignores the
Betamax format for video in favour of VHS (which, on purely technical grounds,
we probably should not have done) then Betamax will go away, as it did. If everyone
and his grandmother ignores my brilliant new love story, set in the
Bolivian copper mines and featuring live girl-on-girl action, then it will go away,
only to be found in a sadly unthumbed copy in a library of record. You get my drift. "But what if my
fans...," Loreena would have said, "What if my fans read the book and start thinking I'm an
unbearable control freak who treats her old friends and employees so abominably
badly, simply because they dared gainsay one of my orders...??!!" -
"Don't worry," I would have responded, lifting a frothy capuccino to my lips, "because
all you have to say in response are two things. First, what Niema writes is not true.
Second, even if it were true, which it isn't, well I'm sorry but I'm a very complicated
person. Creative people often are, so what? Eat it and smile, pal..." And so, by September of
that year, the whole thing would have been forgotten. Loreena would have gone
on writing and performing her music, safe in the knowledge that her fans didn't
believe a word of a book few of them had bothered to read in the first place. Niema
would have sold, say, a thousand copies max, happy with the fact that she had had
her say, and then gone on to other projects. And everyone would have been richer
and happier, and certainly in possession of better karma. Instead, who's much
happier and richer (and not in possession of karma, full stop)? The lawyers. Friday 8 June 2007 - : - Oi... The carter-rucking of Niema (and Tim) continues, if anything
with even greater ferocity. It probably wouldn't be wise for me to go into
details at this stage, but if the full story of this is ever made public - and I
don't see why it shouldn't be, at some stage - I think even the most hardcore loyalists
among Loreena's fans would be absolutely shocked. It's a total nightmare. And
don't think for a moment that Loreena is somehow blissfully unaware of what's
happening, because all lawyers act "under instruction" from their
clients, and Carter-Ruck is no exception. Oi... On a slightly more cheerful note. Last night I went to
the launch of Donald Spoto's new biography of Alan Bates, the actor. (Niema figures in the
book, as it happens; she was a close friend of Bates' late wife Victoria).
Anyway, it's extraodrinary to read Spoto on Bates' love affairs, especially,
affairs with both men and women, and what Spoto (and Random House...) gets away with, as
far as detail is concerned. Compare this to what Niema (and Purple Inc Press...)
most emphatically did not get away with. Oi... (to coin a phrase). Wednesday 6 June 2007 - : - A few questions answered... The journalist Morley Walker of the Winnipeg Free Press
has mailed me a few questions about myself and about this blog. It struck me
that, since my early "explanatory" postings are in Swedish, it
might be useful for other readers if I answered some of his questions here, and Morley has
kindly agreed. Here goes. Q: I've perused your blog. Very amusing. I take from it that you
side with Niema Ash. Is that
accurate? A: Yes. I had my misgivings
when I heard she was writing it, but having read it I understood
straight away why she had to write and publish it. I think anyone who reads it (if
we ever get a chance again...) with at least one eye open, would understand that
too. Q: I'm curious
about what got you interested in this story. Were you a fan of McKennitt's
before Ash wrote her book? A: Hand on heart,
I couldn't really call myself a fan of Loreena's music, either before or after
Niema wrote the book. Further, see below. Q: Have you met
Ash? A: I've known
Niema for thirty-six years, and count her as one of my closest friends. Q: Have you read
her book? A: Of course. Q: What got your
started blogging on this subject? A: I started by
writing two long-ish postings (in Swedish) about it in August 2005, for two reasons,
mainly. One was that I knew the protagonists very well: as Niema describes in her
book, Loreena very quickly became part of our circle of friends here in London in the
1980s. The other reason was that, knowing Loreena, I rather feared things would
develop out of the book's publication, perhaps even in a legal direction (little did I
know... ). So the fact that the whole matter involved some fascinating issues around the
mechanics of friendship and fame, around privacy and freedom of expression, as
well as memory and writing-the-past - all that, together with the fact that I had
been a witness to the whole story, made it an obvious subject to write about. [Maybe there will
be some more Q-and-A's in the future, who knows. But this at least lays out the
ground plan] Tuesday 5 June 2007 - : - Update Sorry about not producing "plenty more
postings" since Saturday, things have been a bit hectic in my own life, never mind Niema's.
However, I can report that the bailiffs never turned up yesterday, probably
because, as was pointed out to them, Niema doesn't even part-own the house, and then
they can't enter. I think this was just another attempt to create hassles for
Niema. It seems to me that Loreena's side has decided to pour seven storms of legal
shitrain on Niema and Tim, just to make them feel awful. I can't think why
else all this is happening. As you know, there will be another hearing about
injuncting the new version of the book at the end of June, so why does Loreena go out
of her way to make life hell for Niema in the meantime? You tell me. Saturday 2 June 2007 - : - Welcome, new friends! I see that I have quite a number of visitors now from
the Loreena McKennitt "chat room" OldWays.
Someone must have linked to me from there. I wouldn't know, because I've never been. I'm probably not spiritual
enough. However, this is of course excellent news, and you are all most welcome.
There's plenty of seats at the back, and there will be light refreshments
afterwards. With things moving at a fast and - dare I say it -
furious pace, there will be plenty more postings here in the next few days. I can't say too
much at the moment, but make sure you come back soon. And bring a friend. Torsdag 31 maj 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash - "Vengeance is mine" Loreena has now ordered in the bailiffs to seize
"goods and chattels" from Niema's home, to make up for some of her - i.e. Loreena's -
costs incurred in the case Loreena herself brought, and won. The bailiffs will arrive at
Niema's house on Monday June 4 with an order from the High Court. If no one is present,
apparently they have the right to break in and take whatever valuables they find. If
they don't find enough goods and chattels to make up the Ŗ74,000+ sought, Loreena will
then - as far as I understand it - start bankruptcy proceedings against Niema. I believe this is what our American friends call
"playing hardball". Wow. What charmers these folk singers can be, eh...? I know the Quinlan Road PR
department is reading this. All I can say is: I feel your pain. Running PR for
Loreena McKennitt at the moment must be a bit like running an outreach program for the
Wehrmacht. Oi. Måndag 28 maj 2007 - : -
Måndagsrapport McKennitt v. Ash: Nikki Tait had a short
piece about the hearing in Saturday's FT. Also, Matthew Norman, in today's media section of the
Independent, has a moot point
(scroll down to para beginning "I was delighted...") about Steven
Glover's fears re Mr Justice Eady, which I linked to last Monday. Lördag 26 maj 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash - a short report Just quickly, I'm in a bit of a rush: the hearing has
been adjourned for 28 days. And it will be a hearing, not a trial. Whatever the
difference is, we are still in the process of finding out: like can witnesses be called,
etc? However, a full two+ hours were taken up in court yesterday, with witness
statements from both sides - and Niema doing very well, at least according to Benji the
Binman (I couldn't attend myself). Loreena was there, too, with the full
entourage. Niema, again, was on her own, except Maggie was there to support her.
Bless you, Mags. Now, because the hearing was held in open court, I should be
able to post more of the meaty bits in the days ahead, and I will, if I can, and
if I can, I surely will. And guess who was, and will be, presiding over the hearing?
Mr Justice Eady, again. Like, hello...? And, oh yes, Eady agreed with
Carter-Ruck that the book should stay de facto injuncted until the next hearing. But
that's pretty much what Niema was expecting anyway. Fredag 25 maj 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash - back in court... I'm writing this early morning GMT, so I don't have a
lot of details as yet, but there is a High Court hearing taking place today, in which I understand
Loreena, through her representatives Carter-Ruck, will seek an interim
injunction on the new edition of Niema's book. Which is what happened last time too,
in autumn 2005. And which seems to mean that there will be yet another - full -
trial at a later date. But it's all a bit confused at the moment. As soon as I know more
I'll post. Onsdag 23 maj 2007 - : -
[Rubrik här] McKennitt v. Ash: Robert Verkaik, the
Independent's legal correspondent, has his weekly "opinion" in today's paper, in which he seems to say
that it would be preferable if judges made privacy law - ā la Mr Justice
Eady - rather than Parliament. Who I always thought we elected precisely for that
purpose, lawmaking. Anyway, I've mailed Robert V. in the hope he might want to
elaborate. Måndag 21 maj 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash, etc There was a long and comprehensive and rather splendido piece by Niema herself in the Mail yesterday. Hair-raising stuff, some of it, I
think you'll agree. Read and ponder. And while we're on the subject (are we ever off
it?!): Stephen Glover, the Independent's media commentator, today expresses his misgivings
about Mr Justice Eady, not least because of his ruling in the McKennitt
case. Torsdag 17 maj 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash smoulders on... Still no word from Lightning Source as to why - and on
whose authority - they are no longer printing Niema's book, or why it's unavailable
on Amazon, as we reported yesterday. Hang on, though... You don't think... - But
no, it couldn't be... It couldn't... It couldn't be that they have received some sort of
threat of legal action - before any injunction has even been applied for in a court of law,
never mind granted...?! Surely not. Such abject surrender would be unthinkable from any
vertebrate creature. And don't come telling me that it has happened before, because that has nothing to do with it. At all. So let's dismiss that thought. For now. Onsdag 16 maj 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash (+ Ducka, grabbar) Readers wanting to purchase the amended edition of
Niema's book from Amazon are now finding that it's unavailable from that source.
I'm still waiting to hear from Lightning Source, the print-on-demand distributors, who
may be able to tell me what - and where - the problem is. As soon as I know more,
I'll post. Later: I had some interesting phone
calls with Lightning Source's UK office this p.m. The first thing they told me was that they had withdrawn
the book "on Niema Ash's instructions"! This is of course nonsense, and
vehemently denied by Niema. All very mysterious, you'll agree. However, when confronted with
Niema's denial, the Lightning Source spokesman started stonewalling and I got nothing
more substantial out of him, other than an email address to their legal brains
in the US "to whom all enquiries should be directed from now on". When - or perhaps
if - I receive a response from this person, I will of course post. PS: The book can still be purchased from Niema's web site, though.
That is, until she runs out of copies... Måndag 14 maj 2007 - : -
Måndags-Posten McKennitt v. Ash: As I understand it, things
are coming to a head with regard to the publication of the amended edition of Niema's
book. The rumble of heavy artillery can be heard down the avenues: it seems legal
proceedings, of one kind or another, are inevitable, and quite soon. But
Niema is of course not without her supporters, and they are growing more numerous as we
speak. Media outlets and legal experts are offering their help. Not least
significant, perhaps, are the many emails and messages from disillusioned ex-fans of
Loreena. As usual, I'll post any new developments a.s.a.p. Fredag 11 maj 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash Just a brief note. I completely missed this article
in last week's Mail on Sunday, re the Lord Browne of BP affair, and how Browne, in his
attempts to stop the story being published, had used the McKennitt v. Ash
ruling, unsuccessfully as it turned out, but nonetheless rather, erm,
eyebrowraisingly, wouldn't you say...? I would. Måndag 7 maj 2007 - : - Hej
och välkomna till måndag förmiddag McKennitt v. Ash: Two media lawyers, Hugh
Tomlinson and Dan Tench, set out a very useful checklist describing the emerging UK law on privacy in
today's Guardian, including the consequences of the McKennitt case. Tisdag 24 april 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash While Loreena is touring the States and Canada (read the
New York Times review here; what does a "fascinatingly docile
audience" mean, by the way?), the publication of the amended edition of Niema's book has not been met
with untrammelled joy in certain quarters. As I understand it, Loreena's
representatives at Carter-Ruck
are taking the dimmest of views. The upshot of it all can't
really be predicted at this stage, though. Will Loreena take to the courts again, to try
and stop the new book too? Will Niema be found in contempt of court, and face the very
real risk of a jail sentence? The only thing we know for certain is that the saga
looks set to continue. Fredag 13 april 2007 - : -
Ash v. McKennitt The CBC
is preparing a programme about the case, and Niema is being interviewed today. But they'll talk to Loreena, too, of course.
Hmmm, interesting, to put it mildly. And with that brief announcement, I retire for the day. Måndag 9 april 2007 - : -
Ash v. McKennitt Roy Greenslade's article, based on his interview with Niema last
Wednesday, is in today's MediaGuardian. And an excellent piece it is,
too, as one would expect: fair and balanced, while not being afraid to display a basic
sympathy for Niema's case. Worth noting in the piece is that fact that Loreena has
previously managed to stop the publication of another book about her; that Judy
Stoffman of the Toronto Star has published - with impunity - some of the injuncted
sections of the book; and that the piece ends - and is headlined - with Niema's
fundamental argument: "It's my story, and I should be allowed to tell it." Söndag 8 april 2007 - : - Burn Niema's book! Apparently, one of the denizens of the Loreena chatroom Old-Ways
bought Niema's book - only to burn it on a friend's bonfire! I think
she's hit on an excellent idea, and I would encourage everyone to purchase a copy
immediately (matches not included) from Niema's
website. I mean. Seriously. Lördag 7 april 2007 - : - McK v A re-revisited Wow... I hadn't seen this before, but... Whoa... For
background, go to this section of the Quinlan Road site, containing Loreena's letters
to the press, and click on the one called 'Who Watches The Watchdog'. This is a letter
Loreena wrote in response to Doug Sanders' piece in The Toronto Globe & Mail
called 'Privacy isn't a right. It's an indulgence', which I once recommended you read.
Loreena's response is a long letter. A lo-o-o-o-ng letter. A very, very l-o-o-o-o-ng
letter, the details of which are as self-serving as they are fatuous, but - wow - whoa -
this much is clear, at least to me: has she lost the Canadian press, or
what...!? My Canadian readers - and you know who you are - may be able to tell me different, but
this looks desperate, this has the distinct whiff of Lost Cause, this is a diagonal
pass across the defensive zone, if I ever saw one. Sheeesh... Fredag 6 april - : - McKennitt v. Ash revisited Loreena's concert at the Barbican on Tuesday night was a
sell-out success, by all accounts, but I haven't seen a single review in Her
Majesty's Press (Macy Gray, performing at Koko on the same night, seems to have
bagged most of the pop review space). However, it turns out that Loreena's
programme notes contained a section about Niema's book and the court case, headed
'A Word of Caution'... First off, if I had been as determined to protect my
privacy as Loreena is supposed to be, I would certainly not have given Niema's book any
more oxygen on the PR front. Second, the section also contains this: "The
courts determined that the book [...] is inaccurate and false in many respects."
Rack my brains as I have, flipped through Eady's judgement as I have, I cannot for the
life of me see that the courts determined any such thing. Inaccuracy and falsehoods on
Niema's part would have given rise to a libel case against her, not a privacy
case, where the courts determine something quite different, i.e. whether the information
published is in breach of existing privacy legislation, or existing case law. In
fact, at least as far as my untrained legal eye can see, Loreena's statement seems
to be itself inaccurate and false. And that, by the way, is what we
post-modernists call "ironic".... Onsdag 4 april 2007 - : - Is there a God? No. But there is Roy Greenslade,
ex-editor of the Daily Mirror and prominent media commentator, who is doing the first in-depth interview
with Niema practically as we speak, for an article to appear in the Guardian in
the next few days. It has been a feature of this case that, while Loreena's voice
has frequently been heard commenting on the case, through the Quinlan Road media
operation, Niema's has been something of a sotto voce throughout. And it's
high time she's heard. Tisdag 3 april 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash again And so, with all the sweet irony of post-modern life, we
welcome Canadian folk singer Loreena McKennitt on to the London stage for
tonight's performance at the Barbican, featuring an unplugged, New Age rendition of
Queen's 'We Are The Champions'. Or maybe not. Or maybe Bob Dylan's
'Positively 4th Street': "You've got a lot of nerve / to call yourself my
friend...". Or maybe not. I jest. One of the features of Friday's House of Lords decision,
as many have pointed out, is the other-worldliness of it. It resembles the law
grappling with copyright and file sharing issues: mystification and incompetence
rule. From Judge Eady onwards, the law simply did not grasp a basic feature of the
celebrity universe, namely that when the fame-sodden (as I like to think of them)
protest about invasion of their privacy, what they're actually after, more often
than not, is the protection of their image. The two, as you and I know, are very
different things. One is to do with your inalienable right to pick your nose in your
own home without having to see it plastered across the tabloid press; the other is
to do with the more or less rickety scaffolding structure you and your entourage
have constructed to encourage the record-buying hordes to buy your records. One is to
do with who you basically are; the other is to do with what you became
a little while back. And what you became perhaps didn't turn out to be a particularly
pretty person, but it's too late to do anything about that now, unfortunately. Such is
post-modern life. Tomorrow we answer the question: is there a God? Måndag 2 april 2007 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash Disaster. On Friday, the House of Lords turned down
David Price's petition for permission to appeal the case, on the grounds that it
does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to
be considered by the House at this time. Yes, I know. Read that again:
"...does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance...". I
have to say, the further we've travelled in this case, the more bizarre, the more
Alice-in-Wonderland it has turned out. A seismic shift in the balance between
Article 8 issues of privacy and Article 10 issues of freedom of expression, and the
controversial introduction of a de facto privacy law into English law, is deemed
not of sufficient "general public importance". Go figure. There are lots of articles in the press about the
decision, but I'll only link Mark Sweeney's piece in the Guardian today. So, this is basically the end of the road as far as the
domestic justice system is concerned. Niema's intention is now to take the case to
the European Court of Human Rights, to fight on for her right to tell her
story, but it's a process that will of course take time. In the meantime, a revised
version of her book, with lots of added material about the case itself, will be
published in the next few days: read more about it on Niema's web site. I'll post more comments in the next few days. It seems
there's a temporrary break in the temporary break I was intending to take... Måndag 12 mars 2007 -
: - The Times It Is A-Changing McKennitt v. Ash: The case was mentioned in a Sunday Times
piece yesterday on Madonna's nanny
trying to flog her memoirs. Ho hum. Måndag 5 februari 2007 - : - Tidskriftsflora då och nu (+) McKennitt v. Ash: There was a piece by Philip Stone the other day on followthemedia, including an email
interview with Niema. Måndag 22 januari 2007 - : - Newsflash! McKennitt v. Ash: You may remember, from May last year, a
certain Lord Justice Richards, one of the
two Court of Appeal judges who, having heard David Price's "skilful
advocacy", allowed Niema's appeal to go ahead. In a rather bizarre
twist, it seems the same
Lord Justice Richards now stands accused of exposing himself to a female passenger
on a train...! Eh? I simply refuse to believe it. Don't you? Such a fine,
upstanding member of the judiciary. (If that's what I mean...) In the Saturday edition of
the same paper, Janice Turner writes about privacy, and mentions, inter alia, McKennitt v. Ash. Onsdag 10 januari 2007 - : - Rubriker rubriker rubriker McKennitt v. Ash: Deborah Orr has a rather point-missing
(it seems to me) comment piece in the Independent
about creeping privacy legislation. Oooh behave! sort of... And the BBC has their
usual sixth-form introduction to the issues - ā propos the Kate Middleton/papararazzi
business - but it doesn't mention McK v. A.
Måndag 8 januari 2007 - : - In media res McKennitt v. Ash: Media commentator Stephen Glover devotes
the main part of his Monday column
in the Independent to the case, headlined 'The folk singer calling the tune to restrict
Press freedoms', and it's accompanied by a nice picture (not online) of Loreena-at-harp.
In essence, Glover is saying that the gap in English law where a privacy law would
have sat, is now being filled in by "the likes of Mr Justice Eady" producing an
"embryonic privacy law" via Article 8 of the ECHR. However, Glover is perhaps
unnecessarily snooty about the extent of Loreena's fame. He's never heard of her, apparently.
Ah well, at least he has one journey of discovery still to undertake, eh...?
"Cultural learnings for benefit of," and all that... |
|