Justin Bieber can no longer be nude

To be fair to Bieber, you should be able to do what you like in what should be a private place, with your private places, but this just sounds wrong:

Now, Bieber has told Access Hollywood that he felt "violated" by the incident. "My first thing was like…how can they do this?" he said. "Like, I feel super violated. Like, I feel like I can't step outside and feel like I can go outside naked. Like, you should feel comfortable in your own space… especially that far away".

"I don't feel I can go outside naked" doesn't sound like a problem - indeed, "I feel I can go outside naked" is the sort of thing your Uncle said just before he stopped being invited around for Christmas. It's not the small penis, it's the long lens that's the problem, surely, and that remains a problem even if you were swaddled like a new born in a snowstorm, Justin.

Taylor Swift goes into reverse

So apparently, when faced with paparazzi and not in the mood, Taylor Swift does this:

There's two problems with this approach: firstly, as the video shows, the paps don't exactly stop taking photos. Secondly, it just means your arse is getting all the attention.

On the other hand, maybe she's just thinking of releasing a cover of this come December:

Gordon in the morning: Off-colour

How can you tell when you're just running a pap snap for the sake of it, and not because there's even a slither of a story attached?

Yes, having to change the colour of your headline in a bid to add some sort of interest. That'd be a clue.

Gordon in the morning: The Booker surprise

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, and given the rising tensions between "News" International and the Guardian Media Group the long-lens pap snap of a Guardian columnist on Gordon's pages this morning isn't some sort of attempt at revenge.

I'm sure Gordon thinks he's just invading the privacy of Konnie Huq, and the fact that Charlie Brooker is also violated at the same time is just - what would the phrase be? - collateral asshattery.

Gordon in the morning: Chronicle of a death retold

Without any apparent sense of irony, Gordon's deputy Lia Nicholls reports how Lady GaGa worries she'll die like Lady Diana did:

A source close to Gaga says she sees herself as a "pop version" of Diana who died aged 36 in a horrific car smash in Paris in 1997. The source revealed: "Gaga has always been absolutely fixated on Diana and sees herself as a 21st-century incarnation of her.

"She knows she is almost as recognisable as Diana and is hounded by photographers and fans on the same level.

"Gaga has had dreams about dying the same way as her and has genuine fears that her fame could literally kill her, either in a chase or at the hands of crazies."

Goodness, "source close to GaGa", these terrible photographers. I wonder why they'd even be chasing her?

Surprisingly, Nicholls doesn't put a "GaGa fears we'll kill her someday" headline on the story. Second day running The Sun has missed the chance to play up its central role in a big news story.

Just one thing: GaGa "almost as recognisable as Diana"? Really? Doing ITV2 specials with Perez Hilton hardly in the same league as dissing the Windsors on Panorama, is it?

Gordon in the morning: Will this do (part 379)

There's a massive headline:

Nicole Scherzinger looks down after split

And, indeed, a massive photo which backs up the story. A photo of a woman with her head so inclined that her eyeline appears to taking her gaze towards the ground.

Daily Mail ignores mother's wishes, PCC code, own proprietor

Well done, Daily Mail. By running creepy long-lens shots of Pink and her baby, you're ignoring both the PCC code forbidding using the fame of a child's parent as an excuse for running a story - or "story" in this case; and Pink's own request that paparazzi leave her alone.

Oh, and also the late Viscount Rothermere's pledge not to buy paparazzi photos following the death of Diana.

Perhaps there's a 'but none of the above applies if the photo is cute' clause I've been missing.

E! pokes its face into a baby

E! has published a long lens photo of Pink carrying her daughter.

Despite being obviously shot by a stalker-with-a-camera, E! write about it as if they'd been invited to tea:

Cuteness alert!

Punk rock queen Pink and her hubby, Carey Hart, have been keeping baby Willow Sage out of the spotlight, save for the one time they released their own family portrait to the press.

But the protective new mama was ready to drop the curtain as she and her 1-month-old daughter were spotted stepping out together in Malibu.

We're keeping our fingers crossed for more Pink family outings because her baby is just too adorable. All together now: Awww!

They were out doing family things. They were not putting themselves in the spotlight.

What makes E! even more scummy is that in the middle of this article, they actually link to their own article where Pink asks paparazzi to not invade her kid's childhood. They link to it. While ignoring it.

Daily Mail drives coach, horses, large camera van through Pink's request

Twenty-four hours ago, Pink asked politely to be left alone by the Paparazzi.

The Mail has clearly seen the request, because it reprints large chunks of the post on its website today.

Not the bits about not wanting cameramen forcing lens into her kids' face, or the requests to not be hassled. No, the Mail doesn't find space for those bits, because it needs to leave space for a large number of snatched photos of Pink's baby.

Perhaps if Paul Dacre wants to stop people pointing out that he is a horrible, horrible person he should stop his newspaper being such a cynical, heartless beast.

Pink versus the Paparazzi

Pink has flogged photos of her baby to the media. But... it's not for money (she's given the cash to charity). It's in a bid to try and get the photographers out her baby buggy:

We will be donating the money to children's' charities, among them one of our favorites, the Ronald McDonald House, an organization that houses and cares for the families of sick children so they can be together during treatment, as well as Autism Speaks.

Like any parents, we believe our little girl deserves the right to have privacy and be protected, but unfortunately, this media climate doesn't seem to provide for that. I feel so grateful that after many years of hard work, music and motorcycles have elevated both Carey and me to such a place that the public has supported us in building our life and lifestyle together. We recognize that celebrity has its upsides and downsides and do our best to manage just being people without hiring stylists and bodyguards before one of us goes to the store to buy some milk. I've seen some photos of myself that make me smile and some that make me less smiley. But you see, it's one thing to harass and stalk us, the adults, the celebrity that signed up for this life, but children should be protected and safe. There should be a clear distinction between us.

In EVERY other country that I recall, children's faces are blurred out in magazine photos. Why is USA the only country that continues to financially incentivize intrusive paparazzi behavior to capitalize on photos of babies, infants and children?

It's not, of course, only the US. Happens a lot in the UK, too. I wonder if Gordon will mention this in his column tomorrow?

Here's the bottom line: we don't want you to take our little girl's picture. We don't want you to one day follow our little girl home from school. We don't want our little girl's picture in a magazine or on a blog. If you take or publish her picture, it is against our wishes, and without our consent as parents, as people.

That's a fairly explicit 'don't do it' request.

You won't see any snatched photos of Pink's baby on the Daily Mail website, though. They promised to never buy any more pap snaps way back in 1997 after the death of Diana:

"The proprietor of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Evening Standard announced last night that his papers will not in future purchase pictures taken by paparazzi

Viscount Rothermere, chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc said: 'I am, and always have been, an admirer of Diana, Princess of Wales, and nagged my editors to protect her so far as they could against her powerful enemies.

In view of Earl Spencer's strong words and my own sense of outrage, I have instructed my editors no 'paparazzi' pictures are to be purchased without my knowledge and consent.'"

Hang about, though... there's loads of long lens shots of Pink and family here. Presumably Viscount Rothermere must have okayed each one of those personally?

Gordon in the morning: Rihanna tries to watch the game

- Morning, Bizarre junior. Anything to pad out the bits that aren't talking about the Katie Price divorce this morning?
- Nothing much, Mr. Gordon, sir. We got some photos of Rihanna watching basketball
- Ooh, that sounds interesting
- Not really, it's just a woman watching a basketball game
- Let me see... that one's a bit dull... that's slightly out of focus... looks a bit normal... aaah! this is an interesting one...

- This one? But it's just a picture of her looking at the game like all the others, Mr. Gordon, sir.
- Ah, but don't you notice? She's been caught with a look on her face that looks like she's a bit upset.
- But that's just a single photo where she has a bit of a glum look, isn't it? And she only looks like she's going 'oh, that was an easy point missed there'.
- Rubbish, minion. By the time we've put a title on the web page which reads "Rihanna looks depressed"... and then pumped up the text around it like... this:

SULTRY R&B artist RIHANNA looks pretty close to tears as she watches a basketball game.

... we'll have her on the edge of suicide watch.
- But... but... is it...
- Is it what?
- Is it true, Mr. Gordon, sir?
- I've told you about using language like that, haven't I? Look, I hear Lady Wade is looking for some fall guys to take the heat for Coulson's phonetappers and hunters club over at the News Of The Screws, so if you don't like it here...
- No, no, sorry, Mr. Gordon, sir. You're right, sir.
- Tell you what, given that we know it's a load of old bollocks, I'll add some ironic distance by adding one of my super trademark gags, shall I? Make it clear it's all in fun.
- You do gags? I mean... erm, yes...
- Let's try this:

Maybe it was her hairdo that made her see red.

... because her hair is 'red'. Do you see?
- But why would her hair colour make her angry? And aren't we saying she's depressed and upset rather than angry? Wouldn't that be blue rather than red... ow, ow, ow, don't hit me so hard with your metal slipper.

Axl Rose issues dull statement denying issuing earlier dull statement

I admit it. I snickered a little at the Axl Rose statement about nothing much happening at LAX airport.

Now, though, Axl is even more angry than he says he wasn't, issuing a statement which says he never issued any statement:

"Axl Rose denies releasing press statement regarding rumored LAX incident," read the new statement on the band's official MySpace blog. "I did not release any statement or authorize either any statement or anyone to release a statement regarding anything at any airport anywhere," Rose explained, apparently referring to a statement issued on Thursday by a Los Angeles-based publicity firm that blamed the LAX scuffle on an "unruly group of paparazzi." A spokesperson for that firm could not be reached for comment at press time, and though the original statement is still on the band's MySpace, the name of the firm has been removed from it.

"We had recently began working with newer individuals in management in relation to our current Asian tour in support of our Guns N' Roses album Chinese Democracy in addition to [manager] Irving Azoff's though as it happens we are once again touring Asia without management of any kind," the new blog entry says. "Imo this nonsense may be some type of manufactured or publicity stunt."

We're expecting a press conference around 3pm EDT on Wednesday when Axl Rose announces his sudden discovery that nobody actually gives a hoot about any of this. He's due to appear on Letterman shortly after Christmas plugging his new book 'Does All Of This Make Me Seem Ever More Faintly Ridiculous?'

Norma Desmond is 72.

Axl Rose issues dull statement about having his photo taken

Do you really need to stick out a release when you've been quite near a scuffle?

“Axl Rose, lead singer for the legendary rock group Guns N’ Roses, was unhurt last evening when he was accosted by an unruly group of paparazzi at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

“At the time of the incident, Mr. Rose was en-route to Taipei, Taiwan, to kick-off Guns N’ Roses’ tour of Southeast Asia including shows in Taiwan, Korea and Japan.

“Mr. Rose, who was about to enter a security checkpoint at LAX when the altercation took place, was approached by a group of unchecked and unruly photographers who became aggressive with the singer and female members of the traveling group.

“Mr. Rose was not injured during the unprovoked attack and was able to board his flight without further incident.”

It doesn't actually include the words "during the occurrence, a carton of milk was upended and Mr. Rose's hat was knocked from his head", but this seems to be the area of incident we're in.

Kasabian: I am not a camera

Talking of Kasabian, there's an almost heartbreaking quote in the current NME where Serge is talking about the paparazzi:

I went out in London the other night and I went into a bar and I was with some people and they walked out and there was a fucking crowd of paparazzi. I walked out behind and not one snapped me. I was like 'still got it'.

Oh, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel a little pang - "nah, nah, I'm glad all my mates had their photos uploaded to OK the minute they emerged from the doors and that when I walked out every photographer looked the other way. It's brilliant. It's like my special super power that nobody's interested in me at all. Really. I'm like the Invisible Man. Or WonderWhoYouAre Woman...

Don't take photos of Amy Winehouse

In court yesterday, Amy Winehouse tried to guarantee her privacy:

The order bans leading paparazzi agency Big Pictures from following Winehouse but also refers to any "persons unknown" seeking to photograph the musician outside her home and in other public places if they have pursued her.

This means that any photographers could face prosecution if they follow Winehouse by any means or approach her within 100 metres of her new home, which is near where she lived as a child.

All photographers are also forbidden from taking pictures of her in her home or the home of any members of her family or friends according to the order, which cites the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

And you can understand why. Although this does seem a little curious - how, exactly, in law is one of Amy Winehouse's "friends" defined? Would merely having been accepted on Faceplace be enough to qualify? Or would there have to be some sort of actual, type-of-friendship-people-had-before-the-internet friendship there? Could a photographer hauled in front of the beak say "your honour, the house was not owned by one of Ms Winehouse's friends, because they'd sold details of when we she was coming round to us..."?

Actually, had the injunction been in place before, would it have made the photos of Amy doing crack (or whatever it was she was up to, or up on) in breach?

And isn't that catch-all "persons unknown" a little worrying? Catch-all court rulings are generally bad ideas, simply because they are catch-all. I'm all for her protecting her privacy, but not in a way that creates a sloppy model which could start being cookie-cutter applied all over the place.

Still, when you read the response of unpleasant stalk-snapper Darryn Lyons, your misgivings melt away:

"We work very firmly within the rules and other paparazzi are using our name," said Lyons, who claims he has received an apology from Winehouse's management about the order. "We are also developing a situation where there is one rule for the rich and famous and another for everybody else – the rich and famous who use the paparazzi when it suits them but complain when they are doing something in public they don't want recorded."

How shocking that people might not want to be photographed except when they want to be photographed.

Lyons has a point - if you ride the tiger, there's every chance you'll discover the saddle will slip and leave you at a disadvantage - but watching him justify his trade is like seeing a jewel thief complaining that, if people don't want their diamonds pinched, they shouldn't make them shiny:

"Whether we like it or not celebrity is very much a part of British culture now and we record aspects of that and what celebrities have to understand is that they need the oxygen of publicity – with these kind of orders many are denying themselves that and they will feel the effects of that."

But to be fair to Winehouse, she isn't famous for being famous, is she? She's pursued because she's a singer. Or used to be.

"These privacy rules are mandated from Europe and they are eroding a tradition of press freedom which people in this country have fought for for centuries."

I would like Lyons to find one example, just one, of where a person has laid down their life in order that the British people might see snatched photos of a drunken woman's pants, or a gameshow host leaving a house in the morning. The only thing more odious than Lyons pretending that he performs any useful 'public right to know' function in British society is seeing him invoke the deaths of others in the name of protecting his business interests.

If people fought and died for anything, surely it was more often against the idea of a nation where your every move could and would be documented by people paid to invade your privacy than the idea that 'girl has drink' is some sort of crusading journalism.

Stalky photographer bloke says he didn't frighten the horses

The paparazzo who was hanging about taking pictures of Madonna on horseback has denied Liz Rosenberg's claims that he startled the horse and caused the accident. In fact, he says he'd left before the incident and only returned after hearing that she'd fallen off her horse.

You obviously can choose who you want to believe, but...

"If I had startled the horse, I would have gotten pictures!"

is quite a compelling argument.

Britney: Goodness, where do the kids get these ideas?

Britney's kids are obsessed with the idea that there are creatures lurking outside:

The pop star admits she's amazed by Sean Preston and Jayden James' imaginations - but can't get them to go to sleep until she's made sure there are no ghoulies lurking in the garden.
She tells Rolling Stone magazine, "They're obsessed with monsters, and every night we look outside, and we have to show them that there's no monsters out there: 'It's dark outside, but there's nothin' out there.'"

What lively imaginations these kids have - convinced that, just beyond the safety of the home, there lurks rabid forced trying to grab them and do them hard. Where would they even dream up an idea like that?

ContactMusic helpfully illustrates the story with photos of paparazzi swarming around Britney and the kids as they attempted to go out the house.

More bemusing questions from the News Of The World

The NOTW gets incredible excited this morning over some really grotty pictures of Ron Wood and Ekaterina Ivanova having supper:

IT COULD be the most EXPENSIVE dessert in HISTORY as Ronnie Wood lets his Russian lover tenderly spoon ice cream into his mouth in our pictures of their intimate dinner together.

For the final chilling bill for the old Stone’s cosy £100 meal with 20-year-old Ekaterina Ivanova could run to as much as £50 MILLION.

On the front of the site, they go further, describing the grimy shots as

Photos that could cost Ronnie £50million

But, clearly, they're not. If it's true that his wife has had enough, and is planning to divorce him, and the settlement does match the paper's back-of-a-condom-packet calculations, it's hard to see why the photo would make much difference one way or another to the already very public and apparent situation. Unless, perhaps, sharing a tiramisu with a woman not your wife is a bigger betrayal than any other.

Britney's knickers nix snappers

There's been an attempt in LA to introduce some sort of law to curb the excesses of the paparazzi - clearly, the city is worried that if it becomes impossible for anyone who has ever had a guest slot on Lost to walk down the streets without having their arse photographed from sixteen angles, the celebrities might take their lovely money somewhere else to live.

However, the local police - seemingly keen to live up to their doughnut-eating, crime-missing stereotype - aren't that keen on having more work to do and so are suggesting that, oddly, there isn't a problem any more:

"If you notice, since Britney started wearing clothes and behaving; Paris is out of town not bothering anybody anymore, thank god; and evidently, Lindsay Lohan has gone gay, we don't seem to have much of an issue," [LAPD Chief William ]Bratton told KNBC, L.A.'s local NBC affiliate.

He went on to offer similar sentiments to several other local outlets, calling the would-be crackdown on paparazzi a "farce," and further claiming that interest in candid pics has already waned.

Bratton is a grown man, and yet he believes that Lindsay Lohan going sort-of-perhaps Sapphic has made photographers less, rather than more, interested in her. He should try standing outside his police station and shouting "look - isn't that Lindsay Lohan kissing A LADY" and seeing just how uninterested they are.

"If the ones that attract the paparazzi behave in the first place, like we expect of anybody, that solves about 90 percent of the problem. The rest we can deal with."

Now, it's true that Britney might have drawn a little attention to herself, but given that she was clearly, actually, out of her mind - not to mention hounded every time she steps outside the house - it's hardly fair to just snort "she brought it on herself". Is Bratton really suggesting that the mentally ill shouldn't be protected if their behaviour makes them draw attention to themselves?

Still, let's take Bratton at his word, and see this as a wonderful victory for self-regulation. Presumably he'll be pushing for the city to adopt the same approach to pimping and drug-dealing. LA might wind up not needing a police force at all.

Rav chides Martin

Now, we're not over-fond of Chris Martin here, but we're tending to support him in the face of his ticking-off from Rav Singh.

Supposedly, Martin got angry when photographers kept asking him how it felt to be with Brad Pitt's ex and had a bit of a pop at them. Rav tuts:

Chris, you must stop snapping at the snappers.

Even when they're deliberately being rude in a bid to get a snap of him snapping, Rav? Isn't your wagging finger aimed in the wrong direction?

Still, it's news to us. Who knew Chris Martin was involved with Jennifer Aniston?