Monday, May 9, 2011

Jemima Khan's agony over tweets falsely accusing her of fling with Jeremy Clarkson

By Arthur Martin

★She fears her sons will be bullied at school over allegations
★Clarkson and his wife send text messages comforting Khan
★Twitter user who made allegations now has 40,000 followers

Jemima Khan, pictured outside her London home, has been hit by false accusations that she took out a gagging order to cover up a 'fling with Jeremy Clarkson'

Jemima Khan says she is ‘trapped in a bloody nightmare’ after false allegations on Twitter that she had an affair with Jeremy Clarkson.

The message claimed incorrectly that intimate photographs exist of her with the Top Gear presenter.

Writing on Twitter yesterday, she said: ‘I’ve woken up trapped in a bloody nightmare.

Jemima Khan has received a text message from Jeremy Clarkson, seen out and about in Belgravia, saying: 'I'm sure I'd remember if any photos of us existed'

Jemima Khan took to Twitter to deny that she had taken out a super-injunction

After waking up to an escalating situation she tweeted about the nightmare she was having

Anguish: Jemima Khan now fears the effect it will have on her children

Responding to a journalist she expresses her fears over the false allegations

‘I hope the people who made this story up realise that my sons will be bullied at school because of it. Plus I’m getting vile hate tweets.’

The celebrity political activist said she was particularly concerned about her elder son, adding: ‘My 14-year-old would never talk to me again. He’s painfully shy and hates any fuss.’

Only minutes after the claims were published on Sunday, 37-year-old Mrs Khan denied having an affair with Clarkson, saying the allegation was ‘untrue and upsetting’.

‘OMG – Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of “intimate” photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!,’ she tweeted.

A minute later she added: ‘I have no super injunction and I had dinner with Jeremy and his wife last night. Twitter, Stop!’

She added: ‘The proof that I haven’t got a super injunction is that the papers have printed my name (and no one else’s – for fear of being sued).’

The socialite received supportive text messages from both Clarkson and his wife Francie after the allegations emerged.

Clarkson used humour to dismiss the claims. In a text to Mrs Khan he said: ‘It’s odd. I’m sure I’d remember if any photos of us existed.’

Despite the denials of all concerned, some Twitter followers wrote yesterday that they still believed the allegations.

Mrs Khan is no stranger to the secret world of injunctions.

In March it emerged that she, her brother Zac Goldsmith and his former wife Sheherazade obtained injunctions from the High Court to stop sensitive emails obtained by a hacker from being published.

At the weekend, TV presenter Gabby Logan issued a fresh denial over false rumours that she has had an affair with BBC colleague Alan Shearer. She was again trying to damp down internet speculation sparked by a privacy injunction granted by a judge to a different TV star

The trio asked for the injunctions after the hacker accessed the email accounts of the two women and threatened to sell personal secrets to newspapers.

The woman hacker, identified by the High Court as BCD, accessed the Hotmail accounts in December 2008.

The family was alerted by the newspapers. BCD accepted a formal police warning.
Last week BBC TV sports presenter Gabby Logan protested to the Daily Mail that she had been wrongly identified on the internet as someone who had taken out an injunction.

She said she was ‘devastated’ at false accusations of an affair with colleague Alan Shearer.

The addition of Jemima Khan to the list of people wrongly identified as taking out privacy injunctions has deepened the impression that while men benefit from privacy law, women are often victims.

Last month Appeal Court judge Lord Justice Ward gave a landmark privacy ruling in favour of an adulterous entertainer, saying he should not be named because his teenage sons might be bullied in the playground.

The effect of the judge’s ruling is that the entertainer’s teenage sons are safe from playground abuse, while the sons of the innocent Mrs Khan are exposed to bullying.


No comments:

Post a Comment