If you are asking yourself what can be done about the News of the World following the Milly Dowler hacking revelations, here are some ideas.

The public is not impotent. People can act in response to what the prime minister has called "a truly dreadful act."

1. Boycott the paper. Treat it just as the people of Merseyside did when The Sun ran its infamous Hillsborough story in 1989 following the deaths of 96 Liverpool supporters.

2. Pressure advertisers and media buyers not to buy space in the News of the World and to withdraw ads they've already booked.

In last Sunday's issue, the advertisers included Tesco, Aldi, Currys, the Body Shop and Xtra-vision. If you're reading this in Ireland, there were also ads for SuperValu, Bulmers, Aer Lingus, Steam-Packet.com, Cost Plus Sofas, Steel Tech Sheds and Joe Duffy Motors.

I called for a sales boycott and for public pressure on advertisers on Twitter last night. Now see some of the tweets here, with more names of advertisers.

3. Back the call for an independent public inquiry into the whole hacking affair. It will be officially launched tomorrow at a meeting in the Lords.

Among the organisers are media academics, lawyers, MPs and peers. More information will be found soon on the hackinginquiry.org website.

There are so many aspects to this saga that require proper investigation: the roles of the paper and two police forces; the activities of various private investigators; the response of the Press Complaints Commission; and the relationship between the paper's publisher, News International, and senior politicians.

4. Demand to know who has been, and is, paying the legal expenses of Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who was jailed for intercepting voicemail messages on behalf of the News of the World.

News International has consistently refused to confirm or deny that it is funding Mulcaire. Note clauses 15 and 16 of the editors' code of practice, which is the PCC's "bible". So...

5. Ask the PCC if it has inquired of News Int whether it, or any of its associated companies, has been responsible for paying the legal fees of a convicted man? If it has not, why not? And is it therefore time that it did so?