‘Pictured for the first time: Shotgun siege widow and her new lover the High Court judge’.
The Mail proudly has the photographs of someone who was once in the news because her husband was shot to death by armed police during a siege in London. Quite how her moving on with her life – the event happened over two years ago – deserves this kind of invasive reporting is beyond me – along with more information on house values and earnings. Once again, I’m just puzzled how the Daily Mail never faces any rebukes for its constant invasion of privacy, given that the editor’s code states:
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent.
I would be intrigued to see how they would justify this ‘story’.