I thought you shared similar interests in your spare time!?

Good point, well made.
To paraphrase from Fawlty Towers, you started it.



I'm not defending the tactics or methods of the gutter press, but what I will defend is their readership from the insinuation that somehow Milly Dowler's phone being hacked and her parents being given false hope is as much their fault as it is that of Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch, Glen Mulcare or any of those others at NI and NoTW who chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on.

Oh, I do know that.



I would never, ever excuse the people you mention – and quite a few more. But quite serious question: do you think that we, as consumers, have no ethical responsibility to consider what it is that we buy?

Fantastic film and I do like [iFour Weddings[/i too.

Even though not sworn statements, the witness statements of Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant rlhererl make for interesting reading, as I'm sure the others do.

Coogan claims the press have gained details of his cash machine withdrawals and Grant that the press have obtained details of late night emergency hospital visits (including his condition).

The more this goes on, the deeper and more disgusting the rabbit hole gets.

Exactly.
Miller, Mosely, Rowling, Coogar, etc,etc have done nothing other than being successful.
They haven't courted the press like Katie Pric....Jorda...Katie Pr...Jord...Katie Price has so how anyone can then think they are allowed to be a target because they are good at what they do it baffling.

Both Mosely and Coogan have made the same point.
That being that they took the press on because they were able to and because others are not so lucky, Sounds a very sound and ethical stance to me.

The invasion of someone else's private life for their amusement.



I also remember 'ordinary' people having their stories splashed across the pages of the rags. And then stories like Mosley's, for which there was no public interest justification.

Are you really suggesting that, because stories in the public interest have been published, the titillation and the invasions of privacy (which, I suggest, far outweigh the former) is acceptable – or even that you cannot have one without the other?



Forget that. There is the invasion of someone else's private life for the amusement of the buyer – irrespective of the means used to gather the information. If you want to be slightly more philosophically complex, there's the commoditisation of private life. Are you suggesting that all [iNOTW[/i readers were too thick to consider such things?

This morning was good again – a 21-year-old woman chased down streets at night by a pack of 10 men with cameras. Legal. And nice.

I think the most damning thing about Sienna Miller's testimony is the point she made about the effect it had with her and those closest to her, with her accusing them of selling stories. Never mind the picture out of context, but the effect that the actions of the paparazzi have reaches far beyond the subject of the stories/scoops/bullshst to completely innocent people whose only mistake is to be close to someone.

Indeed.

And on the same theme, Max Mosely is certainly convinced that the actions of the [iNOTW[/i (and subsequent media orgy) were contributory factors in the subsequent death of his son. Indeed, when he attended his son's funeral, he was mobbed by the gutter press.

Well it seems the Pap's and the papers who buy their trashy pictures really are thick.
Just as she left the Leveson inquiry JK Rowling is chased down the street by camera wielding nutjobs.
Irony as a concept really is beyond these scumbags isn't it.

You really couldn't make it up.

Oh, they do [ithat[/i all the time.