**

the sun. we hate it.

Just read this today, and thought of your comment:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...795471,00.html

Here's the (or at least, an) explanation:

"A former executive at News International, which includes the Sun and News of the World, said yesterday that the papers had been reluctant to attack Mills McCartney when she was with the former Beatle, describing it as a classic example of editors holding back when a figure as powerful - and beloved by the public - was involved.

"There are a few people, and McCartney is one of them, whom editors are reluctant to have a real go at. If you attacked Heather, you attacked Paul and the public might not like that." The executive said it was not just that Sir Paul had the wealth to sue, it was that if he launched a public attack on News International, or another newspaper group, he could do serious harm to their sales.

The executive also suggested that Sir Paul knew all about the allegations against Mills McCartney and might even have spoken to Rupert Murdoch about them. "But now she has lost Paul's protection, it's gloves-off time."


Papers - dontcha love 'em?

Especially hippocritical when they're quite happy to publish pictures of teenage girls with their norks out on page three!

As another poster has commented, Sir Paul is one of our most loved (and wealthiest) celebrities, the papers aren't silly; they're not going to slate her whilst she is still in his favour.............but now the gloves are off.

Fair enough, but tabloids should at least lay off criticising her for her "porn" -if you can even describe it as that- past. That just makes them look very silly quite frankly.

Ns04