I WANT A DIVORCE from the McCartney muck-slinging circus. Even those who might think that this charming couple deserve each other should worry about what their case says about our tell-it-all times.

In divorce papers leaked to the press Heather Mills apparently accuses Sir Paul McCartney, her estranged husband, of politically incorrect offences ranging from domestic violence and drug taking to being “disabilist” and anti-breast-feeding. The image of a modern monster could hardly have been bettered if he was alleged to have called Ms Mills “autistic” or forced her to don a veil. Sir Paul has denied the allegations.

These “private” documents have been splashed all over the news even though, lawyers point out, few are likely to make it to the judge. They are weapons in a celebrity divorce case that has become a PR battle of media stunts, leaks and briefings from “friends” on either side.

In some ways it resembles a throwback to the Edwardian era, when salacious details of aristocratic divorce scandals filled the papers. Back then, however, people had to dish the dirt or embroider the truth, since they could obtain a divorce only by proving cruelty or adultery.

Today it is far easier to get divorced, and a law passed in the 1920s to prevent “injury to public morals” says that few details of divorce claims should be disclosed. The McCartney case has driven a horse and limo through that.

Once it was considered a sin to “wash your dirty laundry in public”. Forget washing; now it is deemed OK to soil your linen publicly and just hang it on the line. Britain has long been seen as a nosy “nation of curtain-twitchers”. But who needs to twitch curtains, when the neighbours are performing on the front lawn with spotlights and a backing band?

The McCartneys initially blamed their divorce on media intrusion into their private lives and Ms Mills’s spokesman has again called for the media to respect their privacy. “Privacy” in an ideal world would mean keeping control of your own press coverage. Their divorce has been compared to that of the Prince and Princess of Wales, with the same lawyers employed. Ms Mills certainly appeared to be making another pitch for the Diana role yesterday, when she revealed a wish to keep her counselling work with London bombing survivors out of the media — live on BBC television. Yet even the Waleses limited the sordid tales by agreeing a confidentiality clause. Sadly there seems little chance of a gagging order here.

This surely marks a new low. It is not just that the line between what should be public and private is being blurred. The public sphere itself is being colonised by this sort of private crap, filling the news headlines and rewriting the law. And then, of course, the likes of me add to the fun by using a column to criticise the overexposure.

• THE FILM VERSION of The History Boys reminds us that teaching the past remains a battleground. The latest shot has been fired by David Lammy, the Culture Minister, who suggests that the history of slavery be made a compulsory part of the national curriculum to mark Britain’s abolition of the slave trade in 1707. The other compulsory history subject is the Holocaust.

  Of course these are important events. But why single them out as compulsory? It seems as if history is being rewritten again to highlight whatever those in authority feel strongly about today. And when we start changing the curriculum to mark anniversaries, history risks getting confused with fashion.

  Worse, slavery and the Holocaust are now likely to be taught as little chunks of history, removed from any proper context. They become simplistic parables of good and evil, over which children are encouraged to emote and empathise (“How do you think it would feel to be a slave/Jewish victim?”). This seems less likely to encourage historical insights than hysterical outbursts.

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone