In the course of current debate about the future of press regulation, there is a risk that any form of regulation will become a byword for draconian state interference – employed by none so oft as our parliamentarians and those close to them.

Enter, stage left, a ‘privacy claim’ filed by the current Mistress of none other than Chris Huhne, right on cue.

Ms Carina Trimingham, a person employed by Chris Huhne MP and Grand High Panjandrum of State as an experienced communications consultant in the specific area of assisting politicians in presenting their message and image to the public (?!!!) would tell you that her privacy has been invaded in a manner unacceptable.

Ms Trimingham, you see, is one of those persons who had taken advantage of the change in the law which allowed persons of the same sex to publicly proclaim their love, affection and support for A. N. Other before witnesses. In Public. Before Witnesses. In a manner remarkably similar to a wedding ceremony, the means by which the rest of us proclaim who it is we wish to enjoy sexual relations with, amongst other things, for the rest of our lives. We generally mark this occasion by inviting everyone we know to a lavish ceremony and reception to ensure that the message is received far and wide across the land. ‘This is the person I share a bed with; you may think they should have a paper bag over their head, but I am proud to proclaim them as my lover’.

Fast forward to the last general election and Carina Trimingham was usefully employed presenting Chris Huhne to the electorate as an honest and truthful family man.

Yesterday, Anthony White, acting for Associated Newspapers told the High Court:

“Two people knew the truth about that blatant piece of political hypocrisy and those two people, Mr Huhne himself and the claimant, his press adviser Ms Trimingham. Both knew that the message presented to the electorate was a false one. In fact, Chris Huhne was not committed to his own family – he was in a relationship which was leading to him leaving his wife – or committed to family values generally. He was engaged in a secret doubly adulterous relationship with the claimant.”

Can there be any doubt that knowing whether our potential MPs are telling us the truth or not is an important matter of public interest?

We shall shortly find out, for Ms Trimingham is now complaining that her privacy was invaded as a result of the Daily Mail publishing a series of articles which described her as ‘bisexual’, and then referred to the ‘life and very different loves of the PR girl in Doc Martens’.

It might be construed from this action that whilst Ms Trimingham was happy to publicly to proclaim her love for another woman when it suited her, now that she is happily engaged in a relationship with a male parliamentarian, she believes that the press is guilty of ‘cataclysmic interference’ in her private life. Ms Trimingham has since put it on record that she has never worn Doc Martens in her life.

Ms Trimingham was previously Brian Paddick’s communication chief when he stood for Mayor, and had many enthusiastic supporters, amongst them, Chris Huhne. However, having his previous communication chief now acting as communication chief for Mr Huhne doesn’t seem to have brought forward any further support for Mr Paddick, despite Mr Paddick and his civil partner a Mr Petter Belsvik providing a bolt hole for Ms Trimingham to escape to when press interest was at its height.

Could it be that Ms Trimingham and Mr Huhne wish to disassociate themselves from public support for the ‘gay and proud of it’? Could it be seen as unhelpful when you are seeking the protection of the law from press intrusion into that past area of your life?

She is apparently particularly upset that ‘someone’, we know not who, provided the press with ‘an inherently private’ photograph of the incontrovertibly public ceremony by which she plight her troth to a Ms Julie Bennett. Nay, nay, not a photograph of the consummation of that ceremony, that would be step too far,  but a standard, ‘stick it on the sideboard, look back on it as the years go by, this was the day we promised to love honour and obey for ever’, photograph.

It is not the most flattering photograph I have ever seen of Ms Trimingham, and Richard Littlejohn describing her as a ‘comedy lesbian from central casting’ was perhaps a tad unkind, but given her occupation and her role in presenting Mr Huhne as an honest and truthful person to the electorate, it remains to be seen whether she is entitled to employ the law to force the media to draw a polite veil over her past life.

The case continues before Mr Justice Tugendhat in the High Court. Ms Trimingham has applied to include a claim of harassment to her original claim and now has a further 28 days to provide evidence of this.

Ms Trimingham remains employed ensuring that Mr Huhne’s activities are reported in a favourable light. Mr Huhne speeds towards public relations Armageddon.

To risk the ire of my readers, I can only parody Richard Littlejohn’s description of her as a ‘comedy public relations expert from central casting’.

UPDATE: May 24, 2012 – Carina Trimingham lost her privacy case.

JuliaM October 7,
2011 at 06:53

“It might be construed from this action that whilst Ms Trimingham was
happy to publicly to proclaim her love for another woman when it suited her,
now that she is happily engaged in a relationship with a male parliamentarian,
she believes that the press is guilty of ‘cataclysmic interference’ in her
private life. “

It does rather sound as though Huhne has found his ideal match in life,
doesn’t it?

Joe Public October 6, 2011 at 20:15

The attraction for Speedster-Huhne?

Man Widdicombe recently published a Posting: – “According to Hoops’ theory
on women, the larger the gap between the front teeth the dirtier the woman is
in bed.”

http://manwiddicombe.blogspot.com/2011/10/theory.html

I understand Vicky has a good set of choppers.

Know-it-all
October 7, 2011 at 18:14

That idea goes all the way back to Chaucer (The Wife of Bath,
IIRC)

gladiolys October 6, 2011 at 17:41

“having had years of radical gay pleading that they must be allowed to have
a formal relationship recognized in law and reflecting their sincerity and
committment, there was additional public interest when Carina Trimingham
availed herself of one and then promptly continued to shag anything with a
pulse”

So this woman appears to be a hypocrite, but that no more invalidates or
devalues “gay pleading that they must be allowed to have a formal relationship
recognized in law and reflecting their sincerity and committment” than does
any heterosexual turning their back on the marriage commitments. No need for
the sly dig at all gay people on the basis of one woman, who does not, I
believe, claim to represent the gay community.

Lady J October 6, 2011 at 16:12

Hmm. There’s a substantive difference between being proudly out as a
lesbian and being mocked through the press with snide lesbian stereotypes,
which is I gather the part which Ms. T. finds offensive. As I understand it,
her case isn’t that the press had no interest in the affair, but that the
playground taunts over her bisexuality were an invasion of privacy.

Woman on a Raft
October 6, 2011 at 17:16

JMW is handling the case. See page 2 of their newsletter:
http://www.jmw.co.uk/files/4512/8956/0276/Commercial_Services_Newsletter_Summer_Final.pdf

Tabloid newspapers published intrusive articles and pictures
concerning our client, Miss Carina Trimingham, and her alleged relationship
with the MP and Energy Minister, Mr Chris Huhne. Mr Huhne is married.

Miss Trimingham was understandably very upset by the content
of the
articles and, in particular, disclosure of personal and
private details
about her. In terms of privacy law, the articles contained information in
relation to which Miss Trimingham had a reasonable expectation of
privacy.

The articles revealed Miss Trimingham’s alleged intimate relationship
with Mr Huhne, as well as details concerning her previous relationships, her
sexual orientation, and also intrusive pictures.

Ms Trimingham was in a civil partnership which is a matter of public
record. She signalled her sexuality in to the public domain – as do all
heterosexuals who get married. However, had she been heterosexual, it would
have made only a slight difference to the tone of the story. She would still
have been cheating on a formal declaration of committment.

The photo is not being pursued on the basis that copyright has been
infringed (as far as I can tell) so it isn’t intrusive – it’s just that
somebody sold a happy snap, as they are entitled to do and Carina doesn’t
like it.

The only difference – and it isn’t a substantive one – is that having had
years of radical gay pleading that they must be allowed to have a formal
relationship recognized in law and reflecting their sincerity and
committment, there was additional public interest when Carina Trimingham
availed herself of one and then promptly continued to shag anything with a
pulse, whilst selling the scoundrel to the public on the basis of him being
a family man.

Political folk song:-
Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, cheat,
adulterer, liar, slag.

Anna
Raccoon October 6, 2011 at
17:53

Thank-you Mrs Raft,
I note with interest :
People caught up
in stories involving celebrities have just as much right to protection of
their privacy as the “target” of the story.
Wot! Even when they
have been utterly instrumental in covering up the antics of the ‘target’ –
hardly an innocent bystander is she?

Plantman October 6, 2011 at 16:00

Hang on! Hang on! There’s a lot of conclusions being jumped to here. How do
we know that Ms (should that be Ms. as in Mr. or Mrs. – I am never sure) T has
renounced her publicly declared preference and orientation as I believe it’s
called.

How do we know that the new love of her life isn’t CHRISTINE Huhne – after
all the person known as C Huhne seems to have a record of covering up
information.

Just wondering.

Elena ‘andcart
October 6, 2011 at 14:24

Make that two paper bags.

Ed P October 6, 2011 at 13:54

Two out of every three hoons prefer Huhne…

Phil
Taylor October 6, 2011 at 13:45

Anna,

At registry offices and licensed wedding venues the law requires you to
leave the door open so that the public can witness the ceremony if they wish.
The law makes the ceremony public. The photo is not private.

backwoodsman
October 6, 2011 at 15:30

erm, I think you’ll find its one taken at the local bowls club.
To be
fair, the love of a good man has clearly worked wonders for Ms Trimingham,
she looks positively svelte these days , compared to this photo.

Woman on a Raft
October 6, 2011 at 15:46

The photo was not necessarily taken at the registration. It may have been
taken afterwards, and in a place to which the public do not necessarily have
automatic right of entry.

The issue is whether the HRA’s creation of the concept of privacy can be
used to hush-up the misdeeds even when information is already in the public
domain.

D. A. S. Boot
October 6, 2011 at 13:28

Call me shallow, but the thing which fascinates in the photograph are the
hairdos, if they can be thus described.

They look like a pair of matching bog-brushes in suitably sanitary-coloured
containers.

Ms. Trimingham and friend should really try harder to make the best of
their looks, and should obtain advice from Mr. Gok Wan as soon as
possible.

hmmmm October 7, 2011 at 01:12

I think A Paper Bag or three would be more useful than Gok Wan.
Looks
like two women who were on fire and put out with a spade.

Spiral Architect
October 6, 2011 at 12:45

Top work Anna.

One of your best – and there have been a few.

I wish Chris Huhne every misfortune that can possibly befall him. Without
doubt he personifies everything that is wrong in British politics…..if not the
human race.

Paul October 6, 2011 at 12:07

One imagines both will be out of a job soon enough.

Still, Ms Trimingham has options… A career as a nightclub doorman for
example…

philip walling
October 6, 2011 at 11:55

And of course Huhne, what kind of comic figure from central casting is he?

Richard Littlejohn’s comment is the best reason why the press should never
be regulated.
Regulated by whom? It would be just the Ms Trimingham kind of
people who would be employed to do it, they’d love that kind of thing.

philip walling
October 6, 2011 at 11:50

Great stuff!
Silly persons deserve what they get from the press. If they
don’t want press intrusion they shouldn’t make themselves interesting to the
press – and of course the people.

Engineer October 6, 2011 at 11:22

Maybe I’m just being a bit thick here, but I can’t really see what warrants
a court case. Two people plight their troth, then one of them ups sticks and
runs off with the boss. Not very edifying, but hardly unusual, and all a
matter of public record, surely?

So where are the juicy bits, apparently the sole business of Ms Bennett and
then Mr Huhne, that have caused so much embarrassment by their exposure by the
press, and warranted the involvement of m’learned friends?

pagar October 6, 2011 at 10:48

not a photograph of the consummation of that ceremony, that would be
step too far

They certainly don’t look anything like any of the other lesbians I’ve seen
on the internet……..

Major Bonkers
October 6, 2011 at 21:26

I’m afraid, Pagar, that the lovely, smooth, oiled and beardless lesbians
that one comes across (by accident, when googling http://www.freeones.com/)
are, alas, nothing like the ones that one comes across in real life. Whilst
the Mrs Trimmington and Bennett were undoubtedly very much in love at the
time of their nuptuals, the commercial value of the consummation photographs
would clearly be negligable as compared to the more conventional wedding
photographs of them with their clothes on.

Woman on a Raft
October 6, 2011 at 09:52

Some of my sympathy is reserved for the poor Ms Bennet, the lady Ms
Trimmingham gulled in the first place. That looks like an older woman who
might have been very supportive on the mistaken belief that Carla loved her
and was loyal to her. She just happens to be gay; Trimmingham would be facing
a police investigation if adultery if it was still a crime. In some instances
deliberate preying on the affections of others for personal gain can be a
criminal matter.

The reality is that Carla will play any card which suits her career, from
engaging Paddick’s sympathy to destroying her client, Chris Huhne (who is
stupid enough to let her do it, meaning he can’t be a credible or responsible
figure in any public capacity). Although why she thinks this is a clever move
is beyond me.

I wouldn’t use Trimingham as a PR in any way whatsoever as she is no more
use than a psychologist who abuses trust and has sex with the client she is
supposed to be counselling. She’s NBG at the job. If PR were a profession she
would be barred for misconduct. However, PR is related to magic and there are
seriously crap wizards about. I promise you that magic misused always extracts
its own penalty, given time.

Look, see, it is already turning her in to a donkey.

Anna
Raccoon October 6, 2011 at 09:54

To say nothing of the benighted Mrs Huhne……poor woman, her coffee
mornings must be a wonder for the local flies on the wall……

Anna
Raccoon October 6, 2011 at 12:41

Let me know when our favourite spin-meister does turn into a donkey – we
can play ‘pin the tale on the donkey’ , my all time
favourite game….

To say nothing of the benighted Mrs Huhne……poor woman, her coffee
mornings must be a wonder for the local flies on the wall……

David
Duff October 6, 2011 at 09:48

I will not have a word said against the man I always refer to over at ‘my
place’ as ‘the Lesbian-straightener’. My God, what a man! With but the, er,
laying on of hands’ she was set free from her previous inclinations. The
‘Lesbian-straightener’ might not be long for the world of politics – the next
election, is my guess – but I understand a vacancy is likely to occur at
Canterbury very soon and what better man to take up the leadership of the
Anglican Church?

Aetius October 6, 2011 at 11:31

As Huhne is also a looney with no grasp of economic reality, he is amply
well qualified for that post.

rugmuncher
October 6, 2011 at 12:22

Maybe she still swings both ways so the Huhne would only be a lesbian
slightly straightener.

gladiolys October 6, 2011 at 08:46

Some people just don’t seem too fussed about the sex of their partners.

Or their looks.

Or their reliability.

Or the value of their own commitments.

C’est la vie. It’s a funny old world, and a bit messy too.

Talwin October 6, 2011 at 08:36

“Mr Huhne speeds towards public relations Armageddon”? I doubt it, Anna,
he’ll probably get someone else to do that for him.

Anna
Raccoon October 6, 2011 at 08:52

Too true, Talwin, too true!