Mail Human Rights Hypocrisy

Few subjects have been more misunderstood, more misrepresented, and been the basis of more misinformation than Human Rights. For our free and fearless press, this concept has formed the basis of a rolling campaign of faux outrage ever since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. For the Mail titles, Human Rights has scored sales and clicks in significant numbers.

Thanks to @DocRussJackson

Whether it is the sneering and jeering of talentless and unfunny churnalist Richard Littlejohn, with his “Yuman Rights”, or the titles’ supposedly more serious pundits bemoaning the inability of their paper to get people it does not like deported to any place the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker choose, Mail readers can be in no doubt: Human Rights are A Bad Thing.

To underscore this, the Tweeter known as Doc Russ Jackson has presented a montage of Mail anti-Human Rights headline rants, which includes “HUMAN RIGHTS FARCE”, “HUMAN RIGHTS MADNESS”, and the bringing to the table of another Mail hate target with “HUMAN RIGHTS LUVVIES”.

But the Mail titles would not have got where they are today without a little flexibility of principle, a dab of double standards, a soupçon of rank hypocrisy. And so it came to pass that Associated Newspapers, owners of those Mail titles, arrived at the High Court yesterday to find themselves facing the naming of 73 of its journalists and executives, as part of the action brought by, among others, the Duke of Sussex, Elton John, and Doreen Lawrence.

As Guardian media editor Jim Waterson observed, “Prince Harry and a group of other prominent individuals are bringing cases alleging widespread illegal behaviour by reporters at Associated Newspapers. In their claims they name 73 journalists and editorial executives who have worked at the Daily Mail and its sister titles over several decades”. What was the Mail to do?

Waterson continued “Lawyers working for the Daily Mail said publishing the names would breach the journalists’ right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act. This is despite the Mail long using its editorial pages to campaign against the European-derived legislation … David Sherborne, representing Harry and other claimants … noted it was surprising to see a newspaper that has campaigned for press freedom object to the publication of the names”.

That’s putting it mildly, 007. Sherborne mused “They say different rules apply to their journalists suspected of wrongdoing, as opposed to others suspected of wrongdoing”. But the Mail’s KC “successfully argued there was no justification for publication of the journalists’ names at this stage”.

Why? You’ll love this one. “She told the court that publication of the names could cause ‘immense reputational damage’ to the 73 individuals who worked for the Mail and invade their privacy”. Being revealed to be a Mail hack or executive could cause damage to your reputation! Who knew? But we were, at least, given two of those 73 names. And we may get the rest later.

“The company did confirm that the former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and former … Mail on Sunday editor Peter Wright are named in the allegations”. Also, “Mr Justice Nicklin … temporarily blocked identification of the Mail journalists pending his interim judgment, partly because the individuals have not had the opportunity to offer up a defence”. However.

“He told the court: ‘Although I do recognise I am preventing the reporting of the journalists’ names at this stage, this is in the interests of fairness and the administration of justice’”. To which the Byline Investigates report noted “For publishers of the Mail to be seeking to prevent the further airing of the document at trial, and for it to have obtained an order preventing the naming of its own journalists, must accentuate its embarrassment”. Why so?

“The paper has long associated itself with resistance to judicial secrecy, often asserting that the public’s right to know is paramount”. Ah, so another soupçon of rank hypocrisy. The report goes on “In a libel case it is currently fighting, brought by Prince Harry, Associated is defending an article headlined: ‘Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret…’”. Do go on.

“The article went on to accuse the prince of ‘seeking far-reaching confidentiality’ and of ‘trying to keep details of his legal battle about police protection private’”. Next time Dicky Windbag bangs on about Yuman Rights, remember that well. One rule for the Dacre doggies, another for Forrins.

“The Daily Mail is deeply embarrassed by - and clearly furious about - these proceedings” tells the Byline Investigates report. Well, Boo Sodding Hoo.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton