Privacy hypocrisy

It is illustrated by the hypocrisy of Andrew Marr, the BBC presenter, after he chose to lift a so-called super-injunction that he took out shortly before details of an extra-marital affair were due to be disclosed. Three points need to be made.

First, Mr Marr says he undertook this legal action to protect his children. That may be so. But why did he – and the other celebrities who are using gagging orders – fail to sufficiently think about their offspring, and families, before committing their indiscretions?

Second, these “personalities” invariably have an inflated opinion about their own self-importance. Mr Marr has brought far more attention to his philandering, and his family, by suppressing this story in the courts, and then having to make a humbling admission at a later date.

Third, how can the presenter continue to question politicians, and other public figures, about the morality of their policy decisions – or their own private lives – when his reputation and credibility is so tarnished?

As David Cameron implied last week, the courts need to review the use of such injunctions so they protect the vulnerable. They should not offer any shelter to prominent public figures looking to utilise their fame and fortune. Justice should apply equally to all.

Yet people like Mr Marr – and those who cannot be named because of the all-encompassing nature of their injunctions – have only become noteworthy (and well-remunerated) because of their public profile. This should never, however, be used as a means to exempt such people from the scrutiny – and standards – that they expect of others.