John Terry

On the 30th January 2010 many UK newspapers reported a legal landmark in the case of the English football team captain John Terry. Terry was due to lead his country to the World Cup Finals in South Africa later this year when details of his philandering were reported publicly disgracing him for cheating with a team mate’s estranged girlfriend. However, the most significant part of these revelations was the behind the scene efforts made by the £170.000 a week footballer, to try and keep the details secret. However Terry’s attempt to use privacy laws to stifle the freedom of the press to report his cheating behaviour was dismissed after a court battle.

Although Terry had desperately tried to keep the public in the dark over his infidelity and had initially been successful in managing to use human rights law to obtain a gagging order, this was eventually overturned in the High Court. Ironically as Terry had systematically and shamefully cheated on his wife and young children he tried to argue that he was entitled to a “private and family life” no doubt trying to build upon the successful action brought by Max Mosely.

The Daily Mail reported a series of alleged incidents calling Terry a seedy serial brawler, drinker and womaniser and questioning how he could be retained as a leader of his National side.(1) This view was also shared by others as the internet was soon alive with calls demanding that Terry should be stripped of his captaincy. Even fellow England stars, not always known for their family values, had reportedly privately condemned Terry for “crossing the line” and becoming involved with a team mate’s partner and mother of his child. By his own treachery and betrayal many believed Terry had forfeited the right to any respect or loyalty two qualities essential in any captain.

His agents had promoted John Terry as the perfect ambassador to “create effective brand awareness” and endorse products and services globally, relentlessly trading on his wholesome image. This marketing strategy paid off and Terry obtained several lucrative sponsorship deals representing a number of well known brands and he pocketed a small fortune in return. An e mail uncovered by the press reminded potential clients of what they would get for their money,

“John Terry is a British sporting hero. England’s football captain, Word Cup 2018 ambassador, Football icon, Dad of the year 2008 and voted as one of the World’s most influential people” (2)

With so much at stake it is hardly surprising that Terry’s highly paid lawyers fought so hard to keep his true character hidden in the shadows. So although Terry was a married man with two young children, and “dad of the year” he impregnated and then secured the abortion for the estranged girlfriend of an international team mate. In the best traditions of hypocrisy Terry then tried to use his extreme wealth to hush up his infidelities by going to court to protect a series of multi million pound sponsorship deals threatened by the emerging scandal.

For many the John Terry ruling struck a powerful blow against the increasing use of privacy laws used by the rich and the powerful to silence their critics and keep their bad behaviour secret. For the first time in a decade a senior judge rejected secrecy in favour of freedom of speech and the right of ordinary people to criticise the rich and famous. The privacy laws which were built up by judges and based upon the Human Rights Act, without endorsement from Parliament, made it risky to tell the truth about the wealthy and the powerful. Perversely many of the individuals who have rushed to the Courts to demand their guaranteed rights to preserve their “private and family life” have been destroying the same families they claim they wish to protect.

However in his landmark ruling Mr Justice Tugendhat effectively declared that the rich and the powerful should not be able to stifle the press from reporting their activities even if they were embarrassing. He said,

“There is no suggestion that the conduct in question (Terry’s affair) ought to be unlawful, but there will be some who suggest that it ought to be discouraged. That’s why sponsors may be sensitive to the public image of sportspersons whom they pay to promote their products. Freedom to live as one chooses is one of the most valuable freedoms. But so is the freedom to criticise the conduct of others as being socially harmful, or wrong. The modern concept of public opinion emerged with the production of newspapers in the 17th century. Before that there was no medium through which public debate could be conducted. It is as a result of public discussion and debate that public opinions develop.” (3)

In an editorial entitled “A great day for freedom the Daily Mail reported,

“The ruling that England captain John Terry can be named and shamed over his squalid love life strikes a hugely welcome blow against EU inspired privacy laws that protect the rich and famous from the consequences of their wrong doings. As Justice Tungendhat said when he lifted his temporary gagging order “Freedom to live as one chooses is one of the most valuable freedoms. But so is the freedom to criticise the conduct of others as being socially harmful, or wrong. In these times when society and the family are paying a terrible price for the breakdown of traditional values, other judges must take these wise words to heart”. (4)

The England, Fabio Capello, manager recognised that Terry’s behaviour exposed a flawed character that undermined the qualities that are necessary in a leader to command loyalty and respect. Capello stripped John Terry of the captaincy to preserve the unity of the team forged during the qualification for the World Cup Finals. In a meeting that lasted no longer than half an hour Terry was not offered the opportunity to resign or to argue for his retention as captain. Instead Capello told him that his position was untenable and that he was removing the captain’s armband. Capello is understood to have reached the view that the betrayal of trust demonstrated by Terry’s affair and the distracting publicity it had generated risked destabilising his team.

In a carefully worded statement Capello said,

“After much thought I have made the decision that that it will be best for me to take the captaincy away from John Terry. I have to take into account other considerations and what is best for all of the England squad. What is best for all of the England squad has inspired my choice.” (5)

Telegraph columnist Henry Winter said,

Fortunately Capello has taken a stand against declining standards. England’s World Cup chances have been improved by the welcome show of authority by the coach who believes that discipline matters off the pitch as well as on it. It has taken an Italian to remind to us that standards count.

Verdict: I concur with the views of Justice Tugendhat. Sure people have got the right to live the way they choose and as long as it is lawful nobody should interfere with that right. But, similarly, people should have the right to comment if the private behaviour displayed stinks of hypocrisy and is in stark contrast to the public image they are happy to cultivate for personal or professional reasonsoften translated into financial gain.
References

(1)“Legal Land Mark means John Terry can’t keep adultery secret” The Daily Mail (UK) Saturday 30th January, 2010
(2) “Dad of the Year’s squalid secrets” The Daily Mail (UK) Saturday 30th January, 2010.
(3)“John Terry gagging order lifted by the High Court” BBC News web page dated 30th January, 2010.
(4)“A Great Day for Freedom” The Daily Mail Saturday, 30th January, 2010.
(5)“Capello sacked his captain for betraying team unity” The Daily Telegraph, dated Saturday, February 6th 2010.
(6) Winter: Henry “Terry had to go after sullying such a great sporting honour” The Daily Telegraph dated Saturday, February 6th, 2010.

Max Mosely

Not being a motor sports fan I had not heard of Max Mosley prior to allegations about his sex life being reported in the British tabloid newspaper, the News of the World. Mosley was the President of the FIA that represents Formula One Constructors and in essence he operated in a small community. However during the media reporting, together with the rest of the world, I also learned that Mosely was the son of Oswald Mosely the leader of the British Fascists in the 1930’s and 1940’s and I had heard of him.

I also learned that in March 2008 the newspaper, released video footage of Mosley engaged in sado-masochistic sexual acts with five sex workers in a scenario that the newspaper alleged involved Nazi role-playing. Mosley admitted that it was, indeed, him depicted in the released footage but he strenously denied that the activities involved a Nazi type theme. Whatever your views on this matter, one thing is crystal clear. Despite the fact that Mosely must have been a man of some intelligence, he apparently didn’t have the foresight to either realise that he was being filmed or was bright enough to take an interest in the distribution of the video that had been made. Or, like most men in senior positions, he may just have been arrogant enough to believe that he was “fire proof” and could simply please himself without having to face the consequences.However, outraged that the News of the World publicly released the video, Mosely resorted to the High Court in an attempt to prove that there had been an infringement to his rights of privacey. In July of the same year Mosley won the High Court Case when the presiding judge, Mr Justice Eady, found in his favour and said, “ I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust."

Inexplicably, Mr Justice Eady suggested that if Max Mosely had been involved in a Nazi orgy he would most probably have found in the newspaper's favour on the basis that Mr Mosley is a public figure, and that “people of all races and religions' with whom he has to deal with in his job, might have been shocked. However, despite the uniforms, use of the German language and other suggestive props, Justice Eady did not believe that the orgy was based on a Nazi, death camp.Therefore the judge found in Mr Mosley's favour.

However after he was vindicated by Justice Eady, Mosely became the self appointed champion of privacy laws and he even went on to address a Parliamentary Select Comitte looking at this matter. Mosely claimed that he had been permanently robbed of his dignity and the whole affair had caused great distress to his wife and children. Quite clearly shame is an entirely foreign concept to him and he seemed to conviently forget that, when all is said done, he played more than a significant role in his own downfall. In short like many other public figures before him, he got caught up in a web of deceeipt of their own making.Max Mosely saw himself as a victim and was allowed to take the moral high ground, blaming the press for exposing his depravity

Mosely is not a figure of great importance and despite his position in motor racing, he was not well known outside of the sport. He did not have a public platform to address the public on conduct and behaviour and presumably he did not expect his staff to comply with any code of conduct relating to standards. Speaking personally, I would rather not have read about Max Mosely and by any standards the Formula One boss was guilty of depraved behaviour. He used his wealth to degrade five women and he betrayed his wife and his family and undermined his position as a representative of well known global brand. So despite the outcome of the case we are still entitled to continue view Max Mosley as morally reprehensible.

But, having said that, I don’t believe the newspapers had the right to expose Mosely because his behaviour was not contrary to any public image he was trying to portray and therefore he could not be accused of being hypocrypt. Max Mosely likes to be whipped by hookers and although this may seem alien to some he has never gone on record condemning such behaviour. Therefore his behaviour does not impact upon the social landscape as he does not represent any instituion or organisation trying to shape the way we live our lives.

To date not too many strong public-interest cases have come under scrutiny as many of the privacey cases that have ended up in Court thus far have tended to to be rather trivia .For example it may include the publication of wedding photographs (no doubt already sold off to a magazine in an exclusive deal) or photographs of children or private holidays on a beach.However where it becomes more difficult, and where we must take a stand, is in relation to a public figures who puts forward a view which is relevant to his public persona but completely inconsistent with his private life. This is the crux of the matter.

In a nutshell how are voters expected to trust their leaders to act honourably and honestly in their public duties if they are not doing so in the most important aspects of their private life? What price local democracy if the misdoings of our politicians or police are disregarded and the incompetence or corruption of our council officials are swept under the carpet Max Mosley wants rich and influential men to be able to control the way in which their lives are reported, so that they appear to us not as they really are, but as they want us to imagine them to be.

Seemingly old fashion and timeless virtues such as honest, integrity, virtue, loyalty and resoponsibility are simply dismissed as unimportant. Yet despite the political elite trying to excuse the behavior of the great and the good it is my opinion that it is your character and your values that build trust. Ironically those who were quick to defend Mosely are slow to champion the rights of the prostitutes who were traded as pawns for his own personal gratification. Article Eight of the Human Rights Act guarantees every citizen the right to respect for their family and private life.However if people who publicly champion decent standards and community values but act contrary to these values in his/her personal life then shouldn’t we have the right to know?

Verdict: Max Mosely was a high profile representative of a multi million pound private sector organisation. He has never come to the fore championing standards or promoting social responsibility. On his own admision he had been visiting prostitutes for many years, betraying his wife and family in the process,but that should be a matter for them. If Formula One are happy to have Mr. Mosely representing their global brand then so be it.
Stop Press : See the case of John Terry

Introduction

“To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man” (Hamlet. Act 1. Scene 3 78-82)

This blogg looks at the thorny question of standards in public office. Whether those who choose to put themselves forward as leaders in the public domain, whether elected or otherwise, have a greater responsibility to act both in their professional and personal lives with the very highest degree of integrity. There is no doubt that those who rise to great office have substantial perks both financially and otherwise and generally, in the past, this has always been accompanied by an unwavering sense of duty and an acute sense of awareness with regards to their roles and responsibilities.

Yet there is now growing evidence of people entering the higher echelons of public office who clearly lack both integrity and moral and ethical principles. There is also a growing view that their dishonourable behaviour is starting to undermine the trust and confidence in many of the key institutions they represent. Now from the outset let’s make it clear and recognise that we are all human and that we are all entitled to make mistakes. That goes without saying and “let him with no sin cast the first stone” but in many of the reported instance we see evidence of persons in position of power acting in their own self interest driven by selfishness and personal gain. By putting themselves first, not only do they bring shame upon themselves but, quite often, they also undermine the dignity of their high office.

And despite the often heard whine of people “being entitled to a private life” if the behaviour in question cuts across their public office and is totally at odds with the comments and opinions they broadcast then this hypocrisy should be exposed. For this is the very hear of the issue. By choosing to live one way but presenting themselves to the public in another, they pretend to have virtues that they do not hold. If the individual in question demonstrates that he dishonest and cannot be trusted in his private life then this should be taken into consideration when weighing up his sincerity when he makes promises publicly.

Scandals involving politicians and other senior public servants make the headlines because journalists vigorously assert their duty to ferret out anything that bears on the character of such individuals. And the principle reason for caring about the moral conduct of public figures is that their behaviour sets the tone for the rest of society. If they misbehave and get away with it, then every else will feel that they, too, can simply please themselves. Yet in some, quite sadly, personal integrity is a disappearing virtue and personal standards are tumbling in a society willing to sacrifice it all on the altar of self-indulgence.
However let us not fool ourselves into thinking that people fall victim to social circumstances that it is outside of their control. It is not our times or society that is to blame for a lack of personal restraint nor can the often-heard whine, "but everyone's doing it”, justify such behaviour.

If the truth were known it comes down to a lack of character, that combination of moral qualities that demonstrate honour and virtue and make us the person we really are. Quite simply it is often the difference between what “we want to do” and “what we ought to do”.

Is it therefore unrealistic to expect that those who aspire towards the highest public offices in the land act both ethically and with the greatest degree of integrity in all parts of their lives? For those that seek the most powerful positions in society and those who can influence change in the lives of others through public service, must realise that there is a moral threshold, which, if crossed, will inextricably damage their credibility as a leader

Yet, even in this deeply non-judgmental age it seems we are plummeting to new depths and we are seemingly prepared to tolerate discreditable conduct from individuals who bring their organisations into disrepute. However a growing number now believe that those who seek the rewards of high office, yet fail to understand the boundaries of such office, help to undermine confidence in our institutions by corroding both the values and standards that are essential in a civilised society.

Consequently leaders should never deem anything to their advantage that causes them to lose their reputation or respect for when they do so they also diminish the reputation and respect of the organisation they represent. Hawkins, for one, laments the loss of honour and institutional accountability and claims, “it is both tragic and destructive when leaders hold on to a position or to personal gain at the expense of their integrity (1)

For undoubtedly the ultimate test of ethics is whether we are willing to stand firm when it is not in our self-interest to do so. Lorenz reminds us “Integrity means being the same person inside and out, all the time, whether in pubic or private. It means keeping our commitments accepting our responsibilities and being fair with everyone (2) This desire for sameness and consistency of character strikes a chord with Kettle who reflects on the way some people try to draw a distinction between their public face and their private lives, he says, “The awkward truth is that the way people live their private lives does tell us things that can help us make judgements about them as public people (3)

Many parts of the United Kingdom are in the midst of an epidemic of social disorder and many now believe that part of this national scandal lays the failure of our leaders to have the moral courage to demonstrate civic responsibility by setting honourable and decent standards of conduct. Indeed ironically, McIIroy, for example, reminds us that the social elements of shame and disgrace are the driving forces behind New Labours Anti Social Behaviour Orders. However, he also points out that “such orders presuppose the existence of a moral community.” (4)

This social malaise is further evidenced by a damming report from a United Nations study, “Child poverty in Perspective” that placed British children at the very foot of an international table of well being after a comprehensive assessment of the lives of children in the wealthiest nations. (5) This scathing report produced by an organisation with no political bias, caused considerable embarrassment for the British Government and was another clear indicator of a failing society. Commenting upon the report the children’s commissioner, Sir Alan Ansley Green said, “We are turning out a generation of young people who are unhappy, unhealthy, engaging in risky behaviour, who have poor relationships with their family and their peers, who have low expectations and don’t feel safe” (6) The case for the much maligned “role model” appears to be overwhelming.

Therefore is it hypocritical for the British establishment to lament over anti social behaviour, poor parenting, teenage pregnancies, drug abuse, binge drinking and the breakdown of communities into crime-infested neighbourhoods? When, on one hand, extolling the virtues of personal responsibility and on the other hand remaining totally indifferent to excesses of immaturity, lust and selfishness that are starting to unravel the refinements and achievements of civilisation.
Yet it would seem that we no longer care and the consequences of this "moral anarchy", already evident all around us, will no doubt further corrode the trust that remains essential to the democratic process. Trust, honesty and loyalty are precious commodities and the greatest fallout from a lack of integrity in the “me” generation is the wholesale loss of trust.

So set against this background, we shall consider what level of accountability should be expected of senior people in public life who are charged with improving the quality of life in contemporary Britain. Whether those who enjoy the benefits of high office and exercise great power on behalf of the state should display exemplary and unshakeable standards of integrity. Or whether we have gone beyond caring, blighted by a political correctness that forbids us from passing judgement on the conduct of others or whether the time is fast approaching to stop institutionalising shamelessness


References


1. Hawkins, J. 'What exactly does ethical leadership mean these days?' Ph.VII, No 3, Issue 12, Summer 2000.

2. Lorenz A “The Essence of Integrity” from Ethics Today (Ca). 2004

3. Kettle. M “Private Lives Really Matter” The Guardian, 30th November 2004.

4. McIIroy, D. Honour and Shame (Cambridge Papers), Volume 14, No.2 dated June 2005.

5. Child poverty in Perspective: an Overview of Child Wellbeing in Rich Countries. Unicef Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, United Nations Children Fund, 2007.

6. Ansley Green, Alan (Sir). UK is accused of failing Children. BBC News (UK Edition) Online 14 February 2007.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm

DISLAIMER

Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.” John Wooden


The views contained in this blogg are influenced by a series of news reports and academic literature that is openly available for public scrutiny. Great steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of this information and in many cases there are links to other sources that have already been published in relation to the topic or subject under discussion. The references at the conclusion of most subject heading points to the origin of such documents where any interested reader can test the accuracy of these sources or conduct further related reading. This blogg has been published in the interest of debate and opinion and as a response to the “politically correct” who forbid anyone to make judgement and who sneer at duty, honour and responsibility as unworthy virtues.

For what is becoming more apparent is that by tolerating misconduct in any institution or organisation then discreditable behaviour becomes the accepted “norm” and standards begin to fall. The knock on effect of misconduct in public office leads to the public losing trust and confidence in that institution and this has the potential to undermine our democratic process. We need look not further than the Westminster expenses scandal to see clear evidence of this.

Everyone has the right to choose they way they wish to live but if the lifestyle they choose is contrary to their carefully crafted public image then, surely, others should also have the right to comment upon their conduct. So, undoubtedly, in this fast changing world, it is both right and proper from time to time, if only by way of a health check, to examine by whom and in what manner power is wielded on our behalf.
Again everything published in this blogg is already “out there” but in some cases different reports have been merged into one summary to provide a complete overview. However any inaccuracies should be reported to the editor who will gladly address the matter if it proves to be correct.