She’s a Diamond

diamond in the rough

Image by Justin Bugsy Sailor (flickr)

I’m dumbfounded by the blithe obliviousness of Naomi Campbell, opining at how inconvenient it is to her to have to give evidence to a tedious war crimes tribunal, as if it is something of no significance. Inconvenient, Naomi? Echoes of Tony Hayward wanting his life back anyone? It’s quite shocking to hear someone express herself in quite this way where she plainly has relevant evidence to give, which could assist the tribunal in deciding charges of rape, murder, enslavement and child soldiering. Almost as astonishing is the apparent ease with which Naomi says she discarded or disposed of a gift of several diamonds, without much question or concern (diamonds that until today she is reported as having denied receiving). Although perhaps knowledge of the latter makes the former somewhat less astonishing.


But is there another viewpoint? Naomi says she was a reluctant witness due to fears for her safety and that of her family. What if she is genuinely fearful? It would explain much about her reaction to the situation thus far, and indeed even the tone of her testimony today. In Naomi Campbell’s solipsistic world, it may just be a genuinely held fear that Charles Taylor’s cronies will come and duff her up or seek retribution against her family: genuinely held even if not genuinely likely. Although it must be said that it’s not a fear that Mia Farrow or anyone else has let stand in the way of obvious public duty. And no doubt the high security apparently rustled up for her today will have done nothing to dampen Ms Campbell’s sense of her own centrality.


Then again, perhaps its just egocentric whining and publicity seeking? Siobhan Butterworth comments here, and I’m inclined to agree with the thrust of her piece, noting as she does that of course we have not heard all the legal arguments for privacy but that it is strange to be granted requests for privacy entering and leaving the court whilst her testimony is streamed live to the world.

Social Media As Evidence

Most often experienced in family law in all its excruciating banality in the form of facebook mudslinging between exes, this post from Justin McShane reminds us that what we post online can be incriminating in oh so many ways. Be careful what you post. It may just come back to haunt you…Being tagged by a friend in a compromising photo could lead to you being tagged in an altogether more physical sense…

Gingerbread Contact Survey…and a little philosophy

Gingerbread’s website was down today when I went to find this report, so I’m linking to the post on Divorce Survivor which attaches the report itself and summarises some of the stats (its 140+ pages long).

I got distracted by something half way through reading this, but what struck me was the discrepant reporting as between resident and non-resident parents. To me this is symptomatic of the fundamentally different perspectives that separated couples come from. Different experiences of the same reality. Clients often find it hard to understand that there are multiple truths, or at least different versions of events which do not involve a simple binary: truth or lie. Clients often want to know why a disbelieved opposing party isn’t prosecuted for perjury. Because whilst some disputes of fact have at root a lie, most have at root a profound misunderstanding – of the other person involved, and of how my behaviour affects you. If only it were as simple as truth and lie, right and wrong, winner and loser…