Just in case my suspicions are right I don't like linking to this article, but maybe I'm wrong. I'd love someone to help me out on this one. Maybe this was more widely known or reported than what I understand.
An article in yesterday's Sunday Independent says that Richard Boyd Barrett "confirmed that he is the biological son of well-known actress Sinead Cusack".
It was when I got to this line in the article that I was shocked: "Despite several attempts to contact Ms Cusack this weekend, she was not available". That makes me think that Sinead Cusack didn't actually want this information published. Is that how I should interpret that line? Was Sinead Cusack's privacy grossly violated by the Sunday Independent for absolutely NO GOOD reason?
Today's Irish Independent has a column applauding Sinead Cusack for her "valour and discretion". I don't disagree with that, but I do wonder why the Independent couldn't have shown some discretion before it published Cusack's private business.
UPDATE May 15: Sorry about that. I only realized this morning that I had messed up the links to the two articles. I've fixed them now.
