British nosiness is to blame for the terrible tabloid treatment of Ben Stokes and Gareth Thomas

We hear a lot about the positive aspects of being British, but what about the downside – our love of gossip, snooping, and sneering at anyone different

I’ve always found nosiness repellent. Yet our insatiable desire to know the most intimate details about someone’s life – usually someone we’ve never met, someone more talented than us – continues to sell millions of newspapers, drives websites and dominates chat on social media.

Photograph aren’t enough. We crave that little bit extra: what are they really like, these famous men and women?

This week two public figures had their private lives exposed to the full glare of publicity by the tabloid press. Have the results made my life any richer or more fulfilled? The answer has to be a resounding no.

Both stories were justified by editors as being in the public interest because they involve high-profile sportsmen. I beg to disagree. Let’s be clear, that phrase “the public interest” is a polite disclaimer for their true intent: to feed the peculiarly British appetite for utterly inconsequential information.

Why are Brits such nasty nosey parkers? We hear about the positive aspects of being British, our creative spirit and resourcefulness, but what about the downside – our love of gossip, snooping, and sneering at anyone different. Editors wouldn’t publish this stuff if we didn’t want to read it.

One of this week’s “exclusives” involved the retelling of events that took place in New Zealand more than 30 years ago. A family was devastated when a man shot two of his children and then turned the gun on himself. His wife remarried and her son is the England cricketing star Ben Stokes.

By any stretch of the imagination, retelling this story has no bearing on Stokes’ career, and can only cause immense upset to his close family. He wasn’t even born when it happened. Why do we need to know anything about his mother’s past?

Stokes reacted furiously on Twitter, calling The Sun “immoral and heartless”, stating: “I will not allow my public profile to be used as an excuse to invade the rights of my parents, my wife, my children or other family members.” His posts were viewed and liked by hundred of thousands of followers, and supported by leading sportsmen and women.

The Sun justified its story, saying they published after being approached by the killer’s daughter from a previous marriage, that the events were in the public domain and reported extensively at the time. Stokes’ version is rather different: he says a reporter turned up at his parents’ house in in New Zealand “out of the blue” and the story contained inaccuracies which have caused even more distress.

Stokes has discovered, just like Meghan Markle did, that some people cannot be trusted not to blab and flog photos and stories about events which took place many decades ago, drawn in by silky-tongued reporters and sometimes the offer of large sums of money.

The Duchess of Sussex has had to contend with a continuous drip of revelations about every aspect of her life prior to meeting Prince Harry. As she was a well known actress you might say she ought to have been prepared for the high level of interest in her past. But all the stuff about her mum and dad’s relationship, and the drivel spouted by her half sister and brothers, is of no consequence.

Newspapers can’t justify it being “in the public interest” because it has no relevance to what she’s doing right now, which is being a member of the royal family and trying (in her own way) to support good causes. This tittle-tattle has been bought simply because millions of us read it.

Ben Stokes was charged with affray in 2017 after an fight outside a nightclub. There was much speculation then about his “temperament”. He was found not guilty and acquitted. Was The Sun story an attempt to try and dredge up something revelatory about his (imagined) temperament after a summer when he has played so well?

Whatever the intent, it has failed spectacularly.

As for the second exercise in muckraking, Welsh rugby star Gareth Thomas revealed he co-operated with the Sunday Mirror to reveal he was HIV positive because a reporter (not from these publications) had gone to his parents earlier and informed them of his diagnosis. Thomas, who came out in 2009, said of the matter: “I can never have that moment back to sit down with them and explain to them why their son is going to be OK and is going to be able to live through this and live a normal, healthy life.”

Thomas is the first UK sports star to disclose he is HIV positive, and the reaction has been hugely supportive, but he made it clear this information would have stayed private if he had not been threatened. He said, “it has got nothing to do with anyone else.”

His story has seen traffic to the Terrence Higgins Trust website soar, with three times as many requests for HIV self-testing kits. This is to be applauded. Yet the original reporter (who Thomas calls “evil”) turned the rugby star into a poster boy for HIV testing. It is a role he has risen to with pride – but did he have a choice?

It should be everyone’s right, no matter what their sexuality, to keep their medical status private and disclose that information as they see fit.

I support Aids charities and the excellent work they do, but Thomas has been catapulted into a role he didn’t plan for. The reason why other sporting stars have not come out and HIV positive ones have stayed silent, is because they are exercising their right to privacy. Being diagnosed HIV positive is no longer a death sentence and it’s important to eradicate the misinformation and stigma attached to the condition. But each person has the right to deal with it in their own way.

The tabloid press routinely use sexuality and medical history obtained through coercion and blackmail to force well known people to open up for our entertainment – just to feed our appetite for nastiness.

By splashing Gareth’s story on the front page, the Sunday Mirror could be accused of emphasising his “differentness”. Of course it was done with his cooperation – but he had no choice after that reporter knocked on his mum’s front door.

In short, he was blackmailed.

Fleet Street long ago perfected the art of uncovering secrets that the public will pay to read. The real villains in this saga are you and me, dear readers, who allow this revolting tradition to continue.