Letters to Lillys.

WHAT is and is not in the public interest was the bee under most correspondents' bonnets this week, all of whom wanted to talk about whether or not the things we're not allowed to talk about should be talked about.

Still here? Then I'll begin.

We started out with this post on Max Mosley's failed privacy battle in the European courts which caused Ralph to ask:

"How many [prostitutes] have you met? And is what you state above everyone elses' experience too, who have known, or asked, prostitutes?"

Ed: I can only speak of my own experience; as to how many I'm not sure but I'd say it's 100-plus.

Bevin wrote:

"Great blog, as always! Everyone is entitled to have a private life that is just that, "private".  And most of us can manage to keep it that way.  But anyone who is 'famous' (or notorious) has a different relationship with the rest of the world and different rules apply.  Not rules that mean you can do what you want without being held to account.  Rules that mean you are more accountable. 

What consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is their business.  It becomes someone else's business when the rules are broken - when someone who is damaged and vulnerable is degraded. Ask any little girl what she wants to be when she grows up, and you can be damn sure it won't be a sex worker.  It is even more important that such behaviour is exposed when the person in charge is 'famous' - money and power are no excuse for exploitation.  It is even more galling that such people think their money and power can buy them a privacy and immunity from morality that us mere mortals don't enjoy."

Syed saw it differently, going to a great deal of trouble to rewrite the post in full. It's quite witty, highly defamatory in parts, and I'm afraid there's space only for a small bit to give you a flavour:

"Arrogance is normally defined as a sense of superiority or self-importance; but now we can add 'acting like a Fleet Street journalist’ to the dictionary description. They appear to be on a crusade to make sure we never forget Max Mosley’s German-speaking, military-themed, in-no-way-Nazi sex orgy which was caught on tape by one of the hookers he employed to mistreat him... And yes, a shagger gets an injunction, just as I would try and obtain myself if I knew that my sex life was about to be exposed by a colleague bearing a grudge."

Ed: I would never injunct the truth. 

We moved on to political fraudster David Laws whose punishment for diddling £56,592 was seven days off work. Unsurprisingly every one who contacted me about this post was angry at him, his crime and the penalty.

Duncan said: "Any person who wants to be an MP should be imprisoned! Only people who can't do fuck all else choose it as a profession!"

Chief added: "Nick my money one day, shut a library the next. This is the stuff. Get them Foxy."

At the end of the week your correspondent was interviewed on the superinjunction issue by former director of BBC news Richard Sambrook. The reactions were less about what was said than the voice that was heard:

Mark said: "You sound like you are about 26, GSOH, NS, wears glasses with tiny beady eyes and like to wear stripey stuff."

Ed: No, yes, yes, no, and no.

Ben added: "Fleetstreetfox on the super-injunctions podcast. Bit too sensible sounding. I expected her voice to be a trumpet."

Ed: Um, sorry...

Michael said: "Love your blog... but are you Marina Hyde in disguise?"

Ed: No.

And finally, Mark summed it up better than me when he said: "The real point is that it is just wrong and corrosive to hide truth. Privacy is not immunity from gossip and consequences."

Editor's postscript: This round-up from the mailbag is normally done at weekends; apologies for the delay. 

Foxy out.