Thanks @CraftyGin
Rough summary below for those who don't want to watch the video. I will say it's a good video and he makes some pertinent points.
Recollections may vary
Always been suspicious of this court case - sees it as an attack broadly on freedom of speech
Doesn't like how we have judge-made privacy laws that parliament would never pass; not that parliament objects to them having come about but parliament would never have passed them directly because they would have benefited MPs & peers, and people would have seen through that and been hostile to them.
Thought the political cost of reining in the press was one that politicians would never be able to pay
David Mellor's 'last chance saloon' was empty threat - were never going to legislate for the benefit of politicians
But did it by the back door
Human Rights Act brings in ECHR - right to private life
'Right to private life' used by rich, famous and powerful to stop unpleasant stories being printed about them or to get damages if they are; most famous case Max Mosley.
Thinks if papers get information and it is true, should be able to publish
With Duke of Wellington: Publish and be damned
There are libel laws if untrue
Celebrities say that it will affect their children: they ought to have thought about that before they misbehaved
Media and celebrities have a symbiotic relationship: celebrities have publicists who feed stories to the media when it's helpful for celebrities but they don't like it when it's not controlled by them
Doesn't think that's a fair deal - if you 'sup with the devil' you should accept what comes
Has always got on OK with journalists - father was one - accepts that they need to get stories; recognised that politicians and journalists need things from each other
Fair equilibrium until you got privacy laws interfering, which meant that celebrities and politicians could use the media but the media couldn't print the truth about them
Thinks that is what this case is about
Also surprised at apparent naiveté of some of the celebrities who seem to think that their friends don't leak; nobody could be in politics for a week without realising that everybody leaks
if you're in that circle where journalists, celebrities and politicians meet, stories get about; sometimes people are paid, sometimes gossip, sometimes 'sources close to' is person himself
All legitimate for newspapers to print and totally different to hacking etc which is covered by other laws apart from privacy laws
Not worried about laws banning hacking/illegal surveillance - quite proper, but using privacy as the offence and trying to stop things being published because of that is fundamentally hostile to freedom of speech
Recollections may vary (again) - some comments re PH/CG
'Movie snuggles' whatever movie snuggles are
Thinks he may not be lying but have forgotten after 15 yrs what he's talked to her about
People give away information about themselves, not necessarily deliberately, may be accidentally, and forget they've ever done it
Information often comes from the principals themselves, and it must be reasonable to print what has been said directly to journalists even if not intended
Earnest hope that this case does not succeed; does not want to see further constraints on freedom of the press; wants freedom of the press upheld; the cost of that is that people in the public eye, including himself, will have unpleasant or embarrassing stories written about them
Price worth paying for free press; privacy laws are dangerous