Well I do, there will have been occasions when he’s been commenting about other people taking out injunctions, and his opinions would naturally be coloured by his own situation.

I don’t think being a journalist means you have to be opposed to privacy law, or take an oath not to use it yourself. You might as well say journalists should try to opt out of data protection law, or publish their own medical records and tax returns.

If being a journalist did mean you had to oppose privacy law, then of course it would follow logically that you’d have to oppose the European Convention on Human Rights, which contains that privacy law. It also guarantees media freedom of course.

Nor do I think using current privacy law is at odds with believing, or writing, that it should be different or made by someone else.

This is nothing like the Naomi Campbell case, where the newspaper story about her directly proved she’d been telling “public lies” about illegal drug use, itself a matter of public interest. Marr hasn’t told any public lies as far as I know, and I’m not sure there’d be any public interest in his personal life even if he had.