Saturday, 9 May 2009

Why journalists go to pubs....

Journalists are synonymous with public houses. Historically they provided a place to confer with fellow scribes on what was called "a pack job", where quotes could be compared and facts checked. Crucially, of course, they offered sanctuary from inclement weather. The pub, however, is also a crucible of knowledge and information. In vino veritas, goes the phrase and when drink is taken good stories often circulate. It was in a pub that I stumbled on the story of one Paul Cunningham (pictured) , who is something of an employment law expert regularly appearing at industrial tribunals (although you must call them employment tribunals nowadays). You will have to buy a copy of May's North West Business Insider to read the piece in full but his career has included many episodes illustrating how the apparently driest and dullest institutions can be full of quirky humour. For example he once asked a proudly lesbian claimant the pivotal question. “Were you or were you not wearing a strap-on?” The object at the centre of the case, was not a sex aid but a medical one, a finger bandage. It would have cost his client around £20,000 in legal costs just to fight the case for two weekly hearings, if the client had not engaged Paul’s company MHL Support Ltd. However, when her new manager at a famous hair dressing salon unwittingly used the double entendre the gay 40-something crimper sued...for discrimination, victimisation and harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. The feelings of the assistant manager, it seemed, hurt far more than the digit she had caught with the scissors. The terminology was crucial and Paul persisted even when the judge inquired: “Mr Cunningham, must you really pursue this line of questioning?” Then, over lunch, came a discovery reminiscent of the sausage-eating video that sank the bid by actress Gillian Taylforth to sue The Sun for defamation. Paul recollected: “I strolled to Boots the chemist, bought a similar dressing and when the hearing resumed I asked the claimant what the labelling said.” It read “strap on”. Case dismissed.

No comments: