He lost the case after the court ruled that that the agency had not copied any frames from his film but had provided

He lost the case after the court ruled that that the agency had not copied any frames from his film but had provided its own interpretation.”The law of copyright offers very limited protection,” says Philip Circus, an advertising law consultant to the Newspaper Society “There are very few original ideas Plagiarism is the name of the game in advertising It’s about recycling ideas in a useful way. There isn’t an agency around that hasn’t sung the same song as this woman.”While some industry onlookers will admire Jones’s tenacity, others will have her card marked as a troublemaker. “Tell me her name again,” says one managing director, “because I want to make sure she never comes close to getting a job at my agency.” Such threats are not likely to deter Jones, however, and she claims to have an interview already lined up with one of London’s top creative agencies.. A Gurkha commander turned professional mountaineer who led expeditions to Everest won substantial libel damages yesterday for being labelled a “wild, unkempt and slovenly drunk”. A Gurkha commander turned professional mountaineer who led expeditions to Everest won substantial libel damages yesterday for being labelled a “wild, unkempt and slovenly drunk”.
The claims were in a book on Everest adventures about Michael Trueman, 47, who saved a fellow climber on the world’s highest peak in 1996.The High Court was told Mr Trueman, who served with the Gurkha Rifles in Nepal and commanded the Army Mountain Training Centre, had his reputation as a responsible leader seriously tarnished in Ultimate High, published by Cassell last November.The allegations focused on Mr Trueman’s role in the 1996 Everest expedition led by Mal Duff, one of the Britain’s most experienced mountaineers, the court was told.Solicitor Victoria Dare, for Mr Trueman, said the book alleged her client “was a wild, unkempt and slovenly drunkard who had failed to conduct himself responsibly and professionally when a member of Mal Duff’s Everest expedition”.She added: “The defendant cast grave doubt upon the claimant’s ability to conduct himself responsibly, safely and in the manner required of a professional mountaineer and expedition leader.”Mr Trueman, who lives in Cambridge, had been stranded on the lower slopes of Everest in April 1996 after leaving the main expedition with a fellow climber who had suffered a heart attack. He called his wife in Hong Kong by satellite phone and asked her to direct helicopter rescuers.Mr Trueman, who runs a mountain trekking and climbing company, had taken over the leadership of subsequent expeditions and made an ascent of Everest last year, the court was told.Lawyers for Cassell, which published the book by Goran Kropp and David Lagercrantz,withdrew the allegations “absolutely” they said.

Roy Furness added: “The defendant acknowledges the allegations were included in error and wholly unfounded. They are deeply regretted.”Through me, the defendant offers the claimant its sincere and unreserved apologies for those allegations and for the damage and undoubted distress and embarrassment caused to him by its actions.”Mr Trueman was helping to lead a Team Ascent Everest expedition organised by Mr Duff in April 1996 when he was forced to halt the ascent of the party at 5,000ft.With temperatures of minus 15C, Mr Trueman could not contact local emergency services and was forced to call his wife. She phoned his old regiment who liaised with the Nepalese Army to arrange the airlift.After the death of Mr Duff in another Everest expedition a year later, Mr Trueman led an expedition for Team Ascent Everest, then started his own company to organise and provision expeditions.Ultimate High tells how Goran Kropp cycled from his home in Sweden to Everest, climbed it solo without extra oxygen and cycled home again.. Elizabeth Wagstaff, a former presenter of the BBC television series Changing Rooms, was jailed for a year yesterday for conning friends and colleagues out of money by the “revolting and insulting” claim that she was dying of cancer. Elizabeth Wagstaff, a former presenter of the BBC television series Changing Rooms, was jailed for a year yesterday for conning friends and colleagues out of money by the “revolting and insulting” claim that she was dying of cancer.
Wagstaff made £55,000 through her false tale that she desperately needed medical treatment in America, spending it instead on designer clothes and lavish restaurant meals to impress her boyfriend.Inner London Crown Court was told that for more than a year Wagstaff tearfully lied her way into the hearts and bank balances of those who wished to save her from a lingering death. She promised every penny would be repaid when a trust fund matured.When the cash failed to materialise she told further lies about her allegedly failing health.

But by the time the truth emerged, most of her victims were thousands of pounds out of pocket.Her boyfriend, Mark Thurgood, gave her £12,000, believing he was helping to fund vital treatment for the one he loved.Judge Quentin Campbell told her: “The nature of your deceptions were particularly cruel and unpleasant … The victims were personal friends and acquaintances and you took advantage of that trust and that friendship.”Wagstaff, 38, of Stevenage, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty to 14 counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception and four of obtaining property by deception.. Taped, in a rather low-tech way, to the top of my computer screen is a favourite newspaper headline, from The Independent in 1997: “BBC election coverage attacked as too fair”. Taped, in a rather low-tech way, to the top of my computer screen is a favourite newspaper headline, from The Independent in 1997: “BBC election coverage attacked as too fair”.
BBC-baiting is such an enjoyable sport – it’s easy, rewarding, and anyone can have a go. What value for money old Auntie provides, sitting there waiting to be picked off: a scandal of bureaucracy here, a royal snub there; always a squandered licence fee and – from my own patch – an outrage of political bias never far away.We in the Westminster outpost of the Corporation are back with our tin helmets on, because a change in political editor is a always golden opportunity to dust down the old favourites.. too pink, too establishment, too liberal – you name it. The accusations come from those experts in impartiality, a scattering of backbench MPs and their friends in various quarters of the print media.Most of the time, many of them confuse impartiality with balance.

There are times – during election campaigns – when the latter comes into play But balance is science, whereas impartiality is art. And on this, I’m far from impartial: the fundamental, instinctive, obsessively important, binding culture of the BBC’s political staff really is impartiality. It’s genuinely difficult to see from the outside how integral it is to the way that every journalist approaches every story. But those who come into the Corporation- sometimes, perhaps, abandoning party colours – are struck by it and absorbed in it.Impartiality doesn’t mean “on the one hand this, on the other hand that”. That can be straight reporting, but it doesn’t necessarily help the audience. In politics, where news is often made not by pure facts or actual events, but by opinion, nuance, personality and timing, the vital ingredient in the journalism is sound judgement. It’s vital that viewers and listeners know that when the journalist is delivering a judgement on a political issue, however harsh or favourable, it is clean.

Over time, this leads to a relationship of trust through “believability”.The BBC does not, of course, have a monopoly in this area. But – as we’ve seen – the level of scrutiny that comes with the territory of being the largest, of being publicly funded and of being – in aspiration at least – the best, means that our threshold must always be higher.Which brings me to the change in political editor. I’ve worked for eight years – as correspondent, and then as editor – with Robin Oakley. He has exuded these qualities, these ingredients of true impartiality – solid judgement, rock-like integrity, downright believable decency – which establish the crucial relationship of trust with the viewer.Others – whose judgements are allowed a lower threshold with fewer potential brickbats – can afford to pay more regard to the inevitable showbiz aspect of television. It was a shame that Mike Brunson, who recently retired from the ITN job, did not have the modesty to resist comparing himself favourably to Robin at the weekend. In doing so, he missed the point that trust has to be the unique selling point for a successful BBC political editor.It also means that to continue delivering its established standard of judgement and authority in the long term, the BBC must secure the best possible successor to Robin.