BUCKINGHAM Palace's action in getting a temporary injunction against the Daily Mirror, to stop it from printing further covert photographs of the Royal Family's private apartments, is a classic case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted (a metaphor that the Queen herself would surely appreciate). There are probably a lot of people who think that the newspaper has acted in an underhand way by encouraging one of its reporters to give a false reference in order to get a job as a footman at the Palace and that, in any cause, all it is interested in doing is increasing its circulation. Perhaps so, but consider the argument used by David Pannick QC in seeking the injunction: The Daily Mirror's claim to be exposing breaches of security was cynical in the extreme. If this is the concern of the newspaper it could have, and should have, informed the Home Secretary, Metropolitan Police, Attorney-General or any of the authorities. And what would have happened, Mr Pannick? Precisely nothing. If any of those persons or authorities had a real interest in the Queen's security they would have done something effective about it years ago. Instead it takes a newspaper to show that Buckingham Palace is like a sieve when it comes to security. The authorities may say they care but obviously they don't. The Daily Mirror can be faulted for wanting to continue with the exposures once it had made its central point but I am inclined to agree with its editor Piers Morgan when he says that making that central point was in the public interest and that if subertuge had not been used we would still be living in the comfortable, but erroneous, belief that our monarch's safety is taken good care of.