What curious fellows these journalists are! Andrew Marr spends thousands obtaining an injunction to prevent publication of the well known gossip that he fathered a child by a Times Journalist whilst still married to a Guardian journalist. Obviously a sensitive subject for a £600,000 a year BBC journalist.
He takes no notice of Guido breaking the story two years ago beyond opining that bloggers are “socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother’s basements and ranting” and their output is the “spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night”.
He then declines to defend the injunction when he finds that Private Eye is about to publish another story on the subject, and breaks the injunction himself by flogging the sorry tale to the Daily Mail.
What could have changed since he thought that as a journalist it was perfectly reasonable for him to use the law to censor other journalists?
His original application for the injunction was on the grounds of protecting the child – his child, the product of worthy left leaning loins.
Then he discovered it wasn’t his child after all, and could have been fathered by God knows who – suddenly the ‘child’ was not worthy of his protection, in fact he doesn’t believe in super-injunctions any more, they make him feel ‘uneasy’, bracketing him along with sundry priapic footballers and other unsavoury characters. Besides – he has ‘talked it over with his wife’ and apparently come to the conclusion that the bastard child of his ex-mistress is not worth investing any more money in.
So you see readers, it is not ‘all children’ and ‘all family’ that must keep their reputation unmarred, their privacy un-invaded – just the ‘chosen ones’. This is not a matter of a law available only to the rich, Marr can still well afford to protect the child’s reputation and privacy – it is now a matter of genetics.
Nothing could have marred his reputation in my eyes more effectively than the knowledge that he believes in censorship – but only to protect the product of the ‘right’ loins.
I wonder, will he donate his fee from the Daily Mail, to the upbringing of the child he believes is no longer worthy of protection from intrusive publicity?