Make your mind up, Liz

The first time I ever saw Liz Hurley, her legs were draped across the folds of a magazine, with just a hint of pubic hair showing from whatever she was only just wearing. She was in a 'men's fashion' magazine and it was 1993.

Few months have gone by since when a photograph of her hasn't appeared somewhere. Over the years she's looked ever slimmer, ever shinier, ever richer; posing with one leg slightly forward, hand on hip, as all good jobbing celebrities are taught to do. It's hard not to think of her as one big photo opportunity.

Unfortunately, a batch of snaps were published last year, by the Mail on Sunday and the News of the World, that were not to Hurley's liking. They were taken whilst she was on holiday in a 'private and secluded resort' in the Maldives, with two other men:

her husband and her ex-boyfriend, some actor. The pictures invaded their privacy and yesterday they were able to slap wrists and take home £58,000 to ease their pain.

Legally, it seems an open-and-shut case, because it would appear she had a right to privacy (she was not in a public place) and, furthermore, publication of the pictures was not in the public interest. But from a commonsense point of view, it's very confusing understanding celebrities who want to switch the publicity on and off at will. 'Look at me. Stop looking at me.' It's hard to keep up.

It's a different matter if children of famous folk are involved (they do not, after all, seek to court fame), but when someone exists in the public eye for little more than being famous, you really hope a judge will say, 'Come on now, bit late to complain, isn't it?'. Or better yet, award them damages but demand that no pictures of them may appear in the media for a whole year. Now, that would hurt.