http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eding.html

Sometimes I think it would be for the greater good if the net destroyed newspapers...

I'd try to find out who fitted it (I imagine one of the newspapers permitted it) and get the editor banned for twelve months or something similar. The paparazzi could have caused another Diana and that would have peeved me off no end. The last time it happened, it ruined my television viewing for days on end!

Well maybe they should consider that they now have to hire a bug sweeper every week as a consequence of being rich and overpaid?

I love all the implied outrage in the Mail, it wouldn't surprise me if they had it fitted. This is the same newspaper that also vowed to "never buy photographs from paparazzi again". Er, that lasted long!

Anyway, the only reason the "newspapers" - and I really struggle to call them that given the lack of "news" content - get away with it is because millions of plebs buy and digest the [LIFTED] they shovel on a daily basis.

And because it's so handsome in monetary terms, the Times, Telegraph and to a lesser extent the Guardian have started getting in on it too. The Independent isn't off the hook either because despite its promises of "no celeb gossip" the i is full of this sort of thing.