People often confuse that which is interesting to the public with what is in the public interest. Clearly the public has a right to know if the PM or Leader of the Opposition suffers from health issues which could affect or are affecting his performance. But to ask about some issue, a journalist has to have some decent basis for asking. No evidence exists for grounds for asking the questions beyond a sighting of the PM at a routine eye test hospital visit, the results of which the PM was able to report were perfectly within the normal parameters for someone of his age (one eye has been blind for decades, as is well known). Most Labour MPs are aware of bin-sifters rummaging for anything which can be used for starting rumours (funds to finance this seem bottomless, Labour does not have similar funds even if it lacked the scruples to want to do so). Andrew Marr has yet to justify his anti-depressant question, which cast a cloud on his otherwise fine reputation as a journalist. It was OK to ask if endless personal attacks get you down but to suggest more than this without evidence was unwarranted
Dan Filson ● 5649d