UPDATE 04.07.14: As a result of the European Court of Justice’s oppressive judgment requiring the removal of virtually all of history from the internet, I feel I am forced to edit this old post. This is nothing at all to do with childishly making a point. Honestly.
10 December 2006
The shock publication by [REDACTED] that world-famous [REDACTED] and celebrity, [REDACTED], was snapped with several large [REDACTED] on his [REDACTED] raises profound data protection issues.
[REDACTED] surely never expected that his night out with [REDACTED], Sir Jimmy [REDACTED] and Elizabeth Taylor, would end in him being [REDACTED] so ignominiously [REDACTED] as they looked in on Wang with [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] and a miniature trombone. Nor would he have expected it to be plastered across the front page of the News of the World.
Whether the journalists can rely on the section 32 DPA exemption will depend upon how the ICO or the courts assess whether knowing that [REDACTED] has such an hilariously small [REDACTED] – despite his well known predilection for [REDACTED] – will depend on [REDACTED].
My assessment is naturally clouded by my enormous [REDACTED WHOLE OF REST OF BLOG POST]
informationrightsandwrongs 
It isn’t enormous.
It depends a lot on where you’re standing.
[REDACTED]