Ellee Seymour

I asked barrister and parliamentary hopeful James Tumbridge to give me his professional insights on the latest Lord Levy revelations in today’s Guardian. It’s really dramatic, eye-popping stuff.

He wonders if these awesome revelations could backfire in a legal quagmire and prevent justice running its normal course, exactly what Labour wants. This is what he said:

“Injunctions to prevent the broadcasting of material are not uncommon in the UK but they are not always, as in the case of the alleged ‘cash for honours’ scandal, at issue in order to preserve a potential prosecution case. One of the more famous injunctions was obtained to prevent the screening of a program which used sections of the film a Clockwork Orange, at a time when its owner still wished it to be kept off British screens. Such injunctions are not remotely worrying, in the sense that they are granted at the last minute. They can seldom be otherwise because journalists do not tend to give months of notice that they are about to present a story.

“What is alarming is the number of stories suggesting the Attorney General acted inappropriately. This is, in fact, an occasion where he was clearly acting independently of the interests of the PMO who may want the case weakened by a disclosure. Where in fact the injunction was in the interests of the public and police.

“Given the decision by the High Court not to injunct The Guardian, perhaps the need of secrecy is not as clear cut as we might like. Whatever the outcome, it is certainly in the best interests of the public that a prosecution case, which is bound to be hard to prove, is not in any way risked in order that a journalist can get a scoop. It is an example of how our justice system can protect us and shows the role of the Attorney General is still working as it should.”

At the end of the day, if charges are made, a jury will have to  be sworn in which has not be influenced by media reports. I share James’ concerns too, but can also see how irresistible this story is for the media, shaming and dishonouring an unpopular government.  The police can contain this only by pressing charges. If they decide not to, Lord Levy will have to pursue his own legal actions against the press to clear his name. Injunctions have not worked.

I’m not an expert on this subject, but I’m fascinated to watch how Second Life is developing and making a niche in politics. This is an internet-based virtual world where “residents” can interact with each other and buy virtual property and services from each other.

It is something that Sweden has joined, as well as French presidential candidates, and could be joined by the European Union too.

With the social media savvy Swedish EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom writing an excellent blog, I can see why she is keen that her department explores this option.

However, there is a chance that it can badly backfire, it can be sabotaged by political vandals, as John Edwards recently discovered. This is what happened according to Edwards’ supporters:

“A group of republican Second Life users, some sporting “Bush ‘08″ tags, vandalized the John Edwards Second Life HQ.  They plastered the area with Marxist/Lenninist posters and slogans, a feces spewing obsenity, and a photoshopped picture of John in blackface, all the while harrassing visitors with right-wing nonsense and obsenity-laden abuse of Democrats in general and John in particular.”

But who knows for sure?

So what do you know about Second Life, is it good for politics? What are its advantages and disadvantages? Should the Conservative Party sign up to it? Or would this just invite trouble?