There is a lot of coverage of the private life of England football captain John Terry in the Sunday newspapers.
The failure of a Terry super-injunction is being seen as an important case in the issue of media freedom, as John Kampfner argues, though it remains the case that we have developed quite extensive privacy case law with very little Parliamentary or public scrutiny.
The more parochial football question is whether Terry should be England captain in a World Cup year. The 'cash for access' allegations in December made over Terry's involvement in tours to the Chelsea training ground seemed potentially more serious than the FA acknowledged publicly. (Terry claimed the money was going to charity). It is harder to see why Terry's private life is relevant, especially as a good deal of the criticism seems to focus less on his having an extra-marital affair but that he did so with a teammate's ex-partner.
You might well expect politicians to steer clear of the JT question.
But there is surely one political leader who ought to be asked about the implications for his own flagship policy.
Conservative leader David Cameron is very keen on sending "signals" about marriage.
Isn't this the perfect opportunity for him to explain to us all why John Terry, the
£170,000 a week England captain who is worth an estimated £17 million, certainly merits the Cameron pro-marriage tax break?