Andreas Whittam Smith: Intrusion into lives of young people hurtful and unnecessary

Internal links

'Telegraph' wrong on Euan story, says PCC

A list was pinned up in the porter's lodge of Trinity College, Oxford, upon which appeared the name of the Prime Minister's 17-year-old son, Euan Blair. From this it could be deduced that Euan had applied for a place at the college.

I guess that what happened next is that some enterprising student telephoned the diary column of The Daily Telegraph. At all events, the newspaper duly ran a short item. The following day the Daily Mail followed up the story.

Mr and Mrs Blair went to the Press Complaints Commission. They stated that both newspapers had breached its code. As regards privacy the code states that "everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence". There is also a clause covering children, which advises that young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.

In defence of publication, however, newspapers can argue that the public interest requires disclosure. In the case of people in public life, I would add a further consideration. Where they have willingly exposed their private life to media scrutiny to create a particular image that advances their careers, they thereby weaken their claims on the protection of the Press Complaints Commission.

After vigorous debate, the Press Complaints Commission has upheld the complaint. The Daily Telegraph made a public interest argument. Its line of reasoning was that the educational choices made by the Prime Minister for his children are of public interest because of the previous controversy over admission policies at Oxbridge colleges.

It is difficult to make this argument stick. In the first place you would have to show that the Prime Minister himself is actually dictating to his son what his plans for higher education should be. When I was the same age as Euan Blair I made the decision myself – and then received the warm backing of my parents. I am sure this is how these things are normally done. Is the Blair family different in this regard?

Second, the newspaper would also have to contend successfully that without this knowledge of the higher education plans of the Prime Minister's son, the public would be misled by the Government's exposition of its policies for higher education. Let us only see what Euan Blair is doing, the newspaper would have to argue, and then, and only then, will we understand what the Government really thinks.

All of this is beginning to feel like nonsense. Then take into account an innuendo in the article. It was pointed out that the head of Trinity is Michael Beloff, a former law partner of Mrs Blair and friend of the family. Now one can begin to see the cruelty of the item. If Euan Blair succeeds in getting into Trinity College, people will say that this was done to please his powerful parents. If he isn't accepted he will be marked down in public as not having been clever enough to make the grade.

You are 17. You didn't choose to be the son of a famous father. It's probably a hateful experience anyway, even if you do get to meet Kate Winslet. Articles such as the one in question make the situation harder to bear. Intrusion into the lives of young people can indeed be unnecessarily hurtful.