BRITISH PRESS GIVEN STRICTER PRIVACY CODE.

Byline: Associated Press 

No more paparazzi pictures. No more gangs of reporters outside people's homes. No payments to children for stories.

Reacting to the uproar over press intrusion following the death of Princess Diana, the Press Complaints Commission asked editors Thursday to voluntarily adopt ``the toughest set of industry regulations anywhere in Europe.''

``Motorbike chases, stalking and hounding are unacceptable - and editors who carry pictures obtained by them will be subjected to the severest censure,'' said the commission's chairman, Lord Wakeham.

``I have found that editors across the industry have been of the same mind - times have changed - and we want to change with them,'' he said in outlining the new code at a news conference.

However, work continued on details of the code, including conflicts between an ``overriding public interest'' and personal privacy - questions that are acute in coverage of Britain's royal family and government officials. No timetable was set for the issuance of a final code.

``I think we were able to put them on paper in such a way that you will see a change,'' said Sir David English, editor in chief of Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and the Evening Standard.

The new press code is much more specific than any in the United States, where The Associated Press Managing Editors Association code of ethics says only that newspapers ``should respect the individual's right to privacy.''

British editors have already agreed not to pursue Diana's sons, Prince William, 15, and Prince Harry, 13, who are back at their boarding schools a month after their mother's death Aug. 31 in a Paris car crash.

When the code is complete, editors will have to justify the behavior not only of their staff, but of any free-lancer whose material they use, and if they expose someone's private life they will have to show there is an ``overriding'' public interest.

Wakeham's proposals cover five main points: protection of children, discretion at times of grief, avoidance of harassment, a redefinition of privacy and raising the threshold of public interest that would justify intruding on someone's privacy.

``I'm suggesting a new definition of privacy so that people . . . where they have a legitimate right to think they are in private, they should be in private,'' Wakeham said.

Personal privacy would include family life, an individual's health and personal correspondence, he said. Restaurants and churches as well as homes would be off-limits.