I sincerely hoppe we get a privacy law that prevents the publishing of photographs without the subjects permission. I also hope it covers photos of the subject with the face blurred.

I have zero sympathy with the media, their behaviour has lead to the situation whereby the must be curtailed. They have failed to self regulate, I suggest they be severely regulated and demonstrate they deserve greater freedoms in the future.

Is it not the case that the French have a privacy law preventing the taking of photos without consent in public. I believe it was demonstrated when a Pap photoed Eric Catona who promptly kicked his ass and took his camera off him. When the pap called the cops, he was told "merde dure".

I doubt you've thought that through.

poop lasts?

Granted what the paps do is, by and large, not currently illegal, but the rags that buy their pictures are in a similar position to those who receive stolen goods, which I was always led to believe is a greater crime than the actual thieving.

No, but she might run into the path of Kate Middleton's onrushing Mercedes. In a few years when Phil has had enough of her, that is.

This is all IMHO ...
If someone walks or drives down the street then they are in public and cannot complain if their image is captured.
If, however, they are mobbed, harassed or chased (whether on foot or vehicles), that is vastly different.
Flash photography in a driver's face is dangerous behaviour.
A gaggle of paps outside someone's front gate is aggressive behaviour.

I read this morning about the Sun having printed a countdown to Charlotte Church's 16th birthday (the age of sexual consent).
I hadn't been aware of that .. another reason (if any more were needed) why I will never buy a copy of that rag or have any respect for its editor or proprietor.

Isn't it time for boycotts?

They've been boycotting the Sun in Liverpool for some years over its reporting of Hillsborough and the Jamie Bulger case.

I don't think that, for many people, they see a connection between their buying a publication and the nature of its content.

It is easy for me to suggest a boycott but difficult for me to actually do it.
How can I boycott what I never buy anyway?

Rather than banning photo's/images i'd bring out a kind of royalties fee for using their image, at least make some money out of the paps and rags.

My main gripe is they can headline a paper with some complete ballcocks and then when made to apologise it's a tiny paragraph on page 37

I think that whatever page they 'lie' on should be the same page they apologise on and devote the same area, so one full page of lies = one full page apology