Is it in the public interest for us to know of a potential domestic abuse incident for someone who is standing for election as PM?
More to the point, can anyone give me a good reason why it is not in the public interest for us to be aware of concerns of this nature?
This is the nature of being a politician. You should be held up to scrutiny. This is especially true about Boris Johnson.
The public interest in this story is extremely strong and legally virtually water tight.
We should reflect on the background to this a little.
His affair with Carrie Symonds had previously been under scrutiny because there are questions as to whether he is a security risk. He was disappearing, giving his bodyguards the slip for hours at a time to see her whilst he was foreign security. This is a big deal.
So his judgment and conduct over relationships is already under scrutiny.
Part of this story also appears to be that he has no respect for parking laws. He seems to think he is above them and they do not apply to him because he can just pay them off. This is a concern because he does not think the law applies equality, nor should it. He think that you should be able to buy your way out of breaking laws if you have the means. That's a two tier justice system and has serious ramifications for the rule of law and the future integrity of the justice system. It is a potential red flag about corruption and abuse of power.
If you have established a very strong public interest argument then questions over recordings are weak and not particularly pertainent.
The point with Levenson and phone hacking is that phone messages were accessed illegally AND the public interest argument was weak or non existant. They amounted to intrusion and harassment. However Levenson WAS NOT against investigative journalism though there are concerns that the implementation of Levenson 2 would have the unintended side effect of effectively destroying the ability of the press to conduct investigative journalism.
In the Johnson case, you can argue that he was being intrusive and anti-social to his neighbours by disturbing them and parking illegally too. The neighbours therefore have an argument to record this information - the idea they have to do a day by day diary is frankly laughable. You just have to prove the problem.
Just to remind people of why the 'public interest' argument is fair and why recording people without their consent is not illegal under certain circumstances, the recent Panarama programmes on the abuse of vulnerable adults could not have been made. At the heart of this is a concern that Johnson might be abusing his girlfriend.
Those screaming about Levenson and how unfair it is to Johnson might want to reflect on a) the law b) whether we should be concerned about potential abuse c) this man could be the prime minister d) every paper - including right wing papers has covered this story without hesitation.
Because yes its a big deal and yes its a legitimate use of recording without consent. It's just that politically not everyone likes this because it holds them up to scrutiny.
Do you really want politicians to be immune to scrutiny?
The "leftie smear" accusations over this are highly alarming regardless of your political persuasion because this is a movement to restrict accountability over potential abuses of power. It is not a defendable position. Not if you believe in democracy.
The word 'abuse' needs to be stressed on several levels. Concerns over a potential abuse of any kind should be a matter of public scrutiny.
I find it concerning this is even a debate. It is an erosion of governmental accountability by the press which forms part of the triangle of checks and balances between the executive, the media and the law which are crucial to the functionality of a liberal democracy, which prevents abuses of power within society against the people.
It's not 'just a private domestic argument' not on any level. It goes WAY beyond that.