A gentleman writes, that Mr Andrew Marr, the news-reporter and erstwhile foe of judge-made privacy law, now desires to be kept privy not only certain information concerning himself, but also the knowledge that he has secured an injunction to that effect from the court.
If any correspondent should care to illuminate this dark matter, he shall find us all ears; though we grant, that ears cannot see.
Might it be item 35 here? As revealed by Guido in January?
UPDATE: Another gentleman writes in defence of Mr Marr's right to privacy
*** 2009 UPDATE: Alastair Campbell implies exposure of Andrew Marr
1 comment:
Why assume he stopped at one?
Post a Comment