David Aaronovitch is surely right. A public figure has a right to some privacy even if his name happens to be John Prescott:
Last Thursday listeners to the Today programme heard John Humphrys ask the following question to the Deputy Prime Minister: "There are now reports, and they’re
circulating on the internet, as you know, that you have had other affairs — is that true?"
...If I were a politician or a public figure of any stripe, I would worry about what happened... And members of the public should worry too. Unlike some of my colleagues at The Times, I am a fan of a powerful BBC, acting as the gold standard in journalism and information, as in popular entertainment. I can even accept that its executives may need to earn three or for times as much as the Prime Minister, and its senior presenters considerably more than the Deputy Prime Minister. But if its news programmes are going to become glorified scandal sheets, then I don’t want to pay for it any more than I want to pay for the Daily Mail. Which I don’t.
Latest news from the looking-glass world of Westminster: the slimy Max Clifford will be speaking at the parliamentary press gallery lunch today. Serves them right if they get food-poisoning.
No, you're wrong. Enquiries into who-whom are legit because of the wisdom of establishing whether Prescott pays his lovers, or pays them hush money. Who gets the government contracts, the promotions...? After all, it may turn out that he doesn't divert taxpayers' money to his own end.
Posted by: dearieme | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 03:46 PM
If someone comes up with evidence that he's been funding mistresses with public money, then fine, publish. But general questions about his love-life? No, thanks.
Posted by: Clive | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 04:10 PM