It's not often I find myself expressing solidarity with pampered WAGS. But compare the judicious approach to stories about Steven Purcell with the coverage of another Glasgow celebrity having a hard time last week. Leah Shevlin, the girlfriend of Rangers goalkeeper Allan McGregor, was charged with wasting police time after reporting that her fiancé was beaten up by thugs. This incident could also be described as “a mystery” and Shevlin is innocent until proven guilty. But that didn’t stop tabloids publishing pictures of the statuesque blonde alongside the words “Liar Leah!”
One could argue this was contempt of court, but it takes a lot to intimidate the doughty Scottish press corps. Two people who do seem to get hardened hacks all a-tremble are Purcell’s newly appointed PR man, the former tabloid publisher and editor Jack Irvine, and Peter Watson, the formidable solicitor advocate who is senior partner with Levy & McRae, Purcell’s lawyers. Last week they said speculation about Purcell’s health was an invasion of privacy which breached the European Human Rights Act as well as the Press Complaints Commission’s code for the industry. Levy & McRae also complained that council officials had broken data protection laws by “leaking” the stories about the troubled ex-councillor. They claimed last week that Purcell is a sick man harassed by the press. But by today, Sunday, it had emerged that not only had Purcell used cocaine, he had been warned by police. Not arrested mind, just a friendly chat.
To suggest that there is no legitimate public interest in the ex-Labour council leader's situation is disingenuous and dangerous. Steven Purcell made decisions that affect the lives of the 600,000 people who depend on Glasgow City Council services. He also spent their council tax. He was responsible for a budget of £2.3 billion and the employment of 40,000 people. He had ambitions to even greater power and was tipped by his supporters as a future first minister.
A politician in a position of power who abused illegal drugs would have broken the law. Voters have a right to know that. Possession of cocaine, for example, carries a maximum eight-year prison sentence. An elected member dependent on illegal drugs could also be compromised and the more power and influence he has, the more open he is to blackmail and bribery. He may come into contact with criminal elements to obtain the drug. If his habit is severe, how does he fund it? A politician with a coke habit is a greater liability than a pop star with a coke habit. Amy Winehouse is pilloried for her behaviour, but her addiction really only harms herself and her family.
It is surely note-worthy that the stories broken last week about Purcell's drug problems were found in an Edinburgh paper - The Scotsman. The coverage in a number of Glasgow based newspapers seemed to take Purcell's exhaustion claims at face value and played down the story. More on this is carried in my Sunday times column here.
Purcell's resignation as a councillor appeared on page 7 of The Herald on Saturday, even though it had emerged by then that drug squad officers had spoken to the council leader a year before. Sone of the profiles penned about Purcell last week were the most hagiographic on any Scottish politician since Donald Dewar died.
The affair spotlights an establishment that sometimes seems too cliquish for comfort and beams Scotland straight to the centre of the debate about developments in privacy law that are a serious threat to the freedoms we ought to be able to take for granted in a democracy. Kate Middleton, the girlfriend of Prince William, recently won a breach of privacy case against a photographer who snapped her playing tennis on holiday. Middleton remains a private individual and nobody wishes to see her tormented in the same way as William’s late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.
But the principle on which Middleton won her action could be extended further to prevent investigative journalism into matters of public interest. This has already happened in the case of Max Mosley, the Formula One boss who won a privacy action against a newspaper which revealed he had enjoyed orgies with prostitutes. The “immorality” of the act was not enough to justify the intrusion. Now Mosley has gone to Europe to get the UK privacy laws made even more draconian. If he is successful, media outlets intending to publish stories which could violate an individual’s privacy must warn them in advance. This will allow the rich to take out interdicts to quash stories that embarrass them Levy & McRae appeared to be arguing that Purcell’s private life falls into the same category as that of Middleton and Mosely. But the European Human Rights Act also contains a clause protecting freedom of expression. The Press Complaints Commission code allows journalists to compromise privacy orders to expose wrong-doing or hypocrisy. The case of Steven Purcell is most certainly a personal tragedy. But, sad as it might be for the promising politician, it is a tragedy worthy of public scrutiny.
The above is a version of my Sunday Times column today. The Sunday Times focus on the story can be read here. The Sunday Herald has performed considerably better than its daily sister paper and its feature can be read here. The Scotland on Sunday story on gangster links is here The News of the World and The Sunday Mail also have good accounts.
Comments