By Alex Deane
Many will be astonished today by the news that Andrew Marr obtained a superinjunction in the past. The hypocrisy of someone who has held forth on privacy laws, as he has done, and a journalist to boot, gagging free speech, is plain for all to see – so on one view there's no point in banging on about it beyond noting the one rule for them dictum in action once again (with the "them" being our media elite, of course – you can imagine all too easily the reaction to any politician admitting this).
There is, though, something else to note I think.
The injunction, which he apparently now regrets, elicited a comment from Mr Marr this morning which ended with delicious pomposity – and optimism – when he said that he would be making no further comment. Dream on, I think.
Our friends in the fourth estate, who like little better than turning on the prone carcass of one of their own, will now be picking over every interview he's done. Should he have offered even the mildest criticism in any interview with someone who has obtained an injunction – especially since the time of his own, when he should perhaps have declared his interest in the subject – I think that Mr Marr will find himself with an awful lot more to say on the subject. None of it, I imagine, will answer the question of why we taxpayers should pay for his hypocritical career, but some will wonder.