It was in the context of the post to which I responded. There was a reference to scabs and that description generally doesn't apply to union members.

You mean those who would like to exercise their democratic right to work, but are ostracized (or worse) by other union members for doing so?

Union doesn't mean squat...we saw that recently with the Canada post folks, you can still be ordered back to work by the Govt.

On a lighter note, see the link below with Murdoch reading the past copy

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2092608/

Thank you and goodbye

You asked why I mentioned unions. I told you. Fight with someone else.

Just been reading now about the Toronto Sun picture that slightly shows Kate Middleton's left bum cheeck.

This is where the waters are very murky. What is "wrong-doing"? Is it only illegal stuff, or anything out of the "ordinary"?

If I have an affair, and I am just me, no-one of any consequence to anyone else in the wider world - then it's just me and my life and family that I affect. No-one gives a shit and certainly wouldn't pay to read about it.

If I am slightly famous in my local town, 'cos I won a trophy, or the lottery - and I still had an affair - is it more "useful" that my local community knows of my indiscretions?

If I am a little bit more famous - perhaps I've made a film, or my single went to number one, is it now everyone's right to know I've had an affair?

What if I was into handcuffs and stuff, and yet my daughter was murdered - is it in everyone's interests that I am cross examined about my sexual preferences and have that splattered all over the press (Milly Dowler's father)? Personally, I thought that was a disgusting lowballer by the defence team and equally disgusting by the press to report it the way they did.

It makes me feel that, at any moment, you could be the next victim (of crime, of the press) and yes, I do think you have a right to privacy. Everyone does. Of what consequence is it to me to know David Beckham screwed someone else? It's none of my business.

I'm still amazed that the so-called right wingers on this site support Stalinist command economy government intervention of this kind. Amazing!

I'm still not sure what a right to privacy really is. I think you have to separate journalists behaving legally and illegally.

If a journalist behaves legally then there is no right to privacy. Essentially what you thought was private was actually already in the public domain as it didn't require doing anything illegal to find out.

If a journalist breaks the law to get at the information then they have to justify their actions or face the consequences - which for normal people is prosecution, fines and/or imprisonment.

I don't really see this as murky at all.

i.e. the NOTW broke the law for ultimately no real reason = some people should go to jail. If they'd exposed some major government corruption it would be a different thing entirely.

I'm not sure I wholly agree.

I DO agree that journalists should act legally. But I don't agree that just because they didn't break the law to confirm something, that they still have the right to blab it all over the front page. I suppose that's where I draw my line, ie, what some people deem is in the public interest and what I feel is no-one else's business.

Now, supposedly politicians and public figures in authority have to be, and be seen, to act honestly at all times. But I don't agree that it's in anyone's interest to publicly declare them gay, or unfaithful, or gasp, they have cellulite on their thighs. It's the crap tabloid-isms I suppose I hate. The gossip-for-gossips sake stuff.

Phone hacking is illegal, full stop. If journalists discovered highly illegal activities going on while themselves illegally snooping, they would usually have the common sense to prove their facts in other ways.

By phone hacking someone like Sienna Miller, or David Beckham, we're hardly talking national security levels here - it's just fast-buck crap.

Do you believe that the police should be able to do the same thing then: Use illegal means to obtain "useful information" (illegal survellience, agent provocateur, etc)? Should the military (torture, etc)?

Either it is illegal, or it isn't. Whether the information obtained is "useful" is irrelevent.

I note that, once again, the rules don't appear to have to apply if they don't agree with what you believe is correct

If wrong doing is exposed, then the wrong doer should be prosecuted. The agency who obtained information or exposed it should also be responsible for how they acted.

If a pedophile is found by police, they search their home and find evidence proving guilt, should they be left to continue doing what they do because the police acted improperly or they allege their 'right to privacy' was violated? Such a case occurred in Vancouver a few years ago and the alleged perpetrator was let free because the court agreed that their rights were violated because the arrest was filmed for TV. They should have been prosecuted regardless, leave the police to answer for how they behaved separately. How many more kids suffered protecting the rights of scumbags like this?

Just because you personally dislike something doesn't mean it's wrong.

The sales of these tabloids pretty much mean that the electorate has spoken and disagrees with you.

Fame brings the job hazard of the press and that is the bottom line. They have highly paid PR people around them to handle it how they want. They are delighted to play on the good press and marketing so must except the otherside of the coin.

Lastly the government is still smarting from the expenses scandal and now has an opportunity to "regulate". Let's hope we don't go the other way and start getting the censorship that you and others seem to be leaning towards.

I don't believe that anyone has been arguing for censorship - whatever that means.

You seem to believe that the privacy of an individual is not an issue. Put your money where you mouth is and post your name, address and bank balance on this forum. Afterall, what's the harm?

You seem to be getting privacy and fame confused.

Posting all of the above would result in theft of finance. It has absolutely nothing to do with selling Newspapers and generating content legally that an audience wants to see.

Should some one in this forum wish to follow me on a night out and post pictures of me drunk then so be it. The reality is no one will care or particularly want to see it.

If you want to test the theory you can put your money where your mouth is. Fly to Toronto and follow me around.

You obviously need your privacy because you don't want people associating your posts with what ever it is you do.

Illegal just means that you can be prosecuted, not that your actions aren't justified. I would hope that motive and consequences would have an effect in a reasonable legal system, and that the courts can decide whether or not prosecution is 'in the public interest' or whatever.

It is different for the police because they are agents of the state rather than private individuals. Their job is to uphold the law and ultimately if they want the information they usually have legal means to get it - things like search warrants etc.