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 [iSun[/i 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

I seem to recall hearing they did something similar for Emma "Hermione" Watson

I don't think anyone would argue that the Press Complaints Commission has done a pretty sh[ii[/itty job at the self-regulation of UK newspapers, especially when you see that the publishers of the Express, Star and OK magazine no longer contribute to the funding and are effectively outside of its jurisdiction. We also have the laughable situation where Paul Dacre (Executive Editor of the Wail), is chair of the Editors' Code Committee - now that is like setting a fox among the chickens.

Unfortunately an independent body can never be truly independent, they will be appointed by politicians and then be subjected to all the wooing that the media barons have always undertaken. Perhaps a system of licensing could be introduced, alongside a system of penalty points, awarded for the various transgressions, whether brought before the courts or not. With financial penalties applied not just to the proprietors but also to the Executive Editors. Continued transgressions could then lead to further sanctions such as mandating a blank print run, where a newspaper must print and distribute a full edition, containing no advertising and nothing other than an apology, apart from the masthead. If a newspaper continues flouting the rules, then the ultimate sanction of suspension or revocation of the license could be applied.