Sorry, don't buy that at all. I don't know of any celebrity (except Jordan and the like) that states, "I will take this money on the strict understanding that everything I do in life can be justifiably placed before the public."

Do you believe you are entitled to know what goes on in the privacy of their bedrooms? If so, why, if not, why not?

Do you believe the taxpayers also have an entitlement to know what everyone on welfare is doing in their private life as well? If so, why, if not, why not? What about those employed by the Civil Service?

But only if they are not celebrities or members of the Royal Family, correct?

I don't get the last question I think you have a typo.

News Of The World (more commonly referred to as the 'News Of The Screws') had it's uses in the days when us 'prols' had to put up with outside toilets. Made passable bum wipe in the absence of anything more readable before indulging in the final operation. Good bloody riddance I say...pity it didn't take the rest of the tabloids with it....no tears here at all. As to it's popularity...a sad indictment on the intellect/required stimulation of the UK's Mr average Joe Public.

As has been stated, won't be long before it's replaced with something equally shite!

I do not understand your argument at all. It is possible to be famous without courting fame (Kate Bush, Steve Davis, David Attenborough, etc.) Even if fame is sought, I fail to see why that entitles you to know everything about their personal lives.

As has been mentioned previous times on this forum, members of the Royal Family do not get to choose being a member. Your argument appears to be that they are "paid" by the public, so the public has a right to know. You then go on to say that you have no interest in what civil servants get up to. So it would appear that what you are actually saying is: I should be entitled to know everything about those I wish to. That seems a bit neanderthal to me.

The suggestion that taxpayers don't care what those on welfare are up to also appears to ignore the hysteria in the media about "welfare cheats", "benefit scroungers" and "healthcare tourists" Again, what you appear to be saying is: I don't want to know about it.

Then again, maybe you are just interested in those that have more money than you.

Again that's what sells the Newspapers. Any one who trades of their own name be it a snooker player, musician or who ever attracts this attention directly or indirectly as mentioned the press attention is the job hazard that goes with the big money.

By the way police have just raided The Daily Star apparently....

I read in Michael Caines biography that when "The People" found out that he had a half brother locked up in a mental institute in Essex, rather than just go ahead and write a piece on it the reporter called him to ask him about it.


It turned out that MC had no idea at all about his existence, his mother had had an illegitimate child, who was severely autistic and self harming. She kept it secret from her husband and family her whole life, it only came out after her death, by chance.

However, what could have been a nasty hatchet job, painting a famous actor as cold and heartless, became a different piece altogether about the pressure on single mums in the past and on the care in the community policies of the time.

So I guess Im saying not all tabloids/ journalists are necessarily evil. In this case the paper found out something purely by chance (writing a piece on "care in the community"), and gave the people involved a fair chance to respond.

Make sure you all get your last copy on Sunday, might be worth somethin' in the future

When you say the "Royals" are paid by the public I think you missed out the word "well" and "exceedingly" and a few other words like "cosseted" "glamourised" "receiving the best" etc as compared to civil servants simply getting a wage for mostly humdrum stuff of interest to nobody.

I think that's quite a difference and explains the corresponding difference in attitudes.

Perhaps you've not noticed that hysteria/interest is actually about what those people are doing - ie cheating the system. It has some relevance. It's not about whether they're gay, having sex with a prostitute, having an affair etc.

So it is about the money then

I really don't care who is being listened to, it is wrong.

I think you and the posters above have explained the hypocrisy of saying it is bad for some, good for others.

Phone tapping and illegal activities are bad for anyone and shouldn't be condoned. No matter how famous.

On the other hand, being followed around by paparazzi, and having details of your private life published is part of being famous. Providing these details are found out using legal means then tough shit really.

Having said this, hacking jordans phone is somewhat less of a crime than hacking the parents of the kids murdered in soham. Yes it's still illegal, but it's the difference between pinching a mars bar from the local shop and robbing somebody of their life savings.

Phew....This old debate of the royals being overpaid namby-pamby suckers? Well civil servants don't bring in the tourists and the revenues

If the story in the link below is anything to go by, then at least queenie realizes there is an austerity in the UK right now, and coats need to be cut according to size

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...s-pound-18m.do

Unfortunately Almost Canadian does not understand this as he has pointed out many times.

They are. Don't you believe in acquisition of wealth/status through work?

Yes...but are we saying there is a fine line, or that all acts as mentioned above are just criminal? Looks like some serious action on this matter has started

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...be-arrested.do

I think everybody on here has said phone tapping is wrong as it's illegal.

There is clearly some disjoint between what people are saying and what your understanding.

Go figure..........