most outrageous behaviour has taken place. Finkelstein in Australia and the Convergence Review were looking at a situation and a system that actually works reasonably well, and were looking at ways to improve it. What Bartlett glosses over is that the TV culture, particularly with the tabloid consumer affairs shows have a track record of intruding into individuals privacy well beyond what the story justifies or even a broad definition of public interest.  This is noted in Carrick's paper (see below). Damien Carrick : Second point, there have been an enormous number of civil cases in the UK courts arising out of phone hacking, and are they along the lines that we're talking about here? Peter Bartlett : Yes they are, and these were outrageous situations where people were hacking into phones, et cetera, and totally breaching people's rights to privacy, and now the courts are looking at all of those situations and the courts have not actually created a tort of privacy in the UK. And in fact the recent parliamentary committee in the UK recommended that they not have a statutory tort of privacy, but said that the area develops so radically over time -- that our concepts of privacy change so much -- that it's necessary to allow the courts to decide, over time, just what is private and what isn't private. And a statutory right to privacy has that ability provided the elements of the action are drawn carefully and not codified.  Section 52 of the