Should have known better!

[Russethouse]

That the press in the country where Princess Diana was hounded by paparazzi which may have been a contributory factor in her demise, should seek to get and then publish topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge on a private holiday http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19595221 shows a real lack of integrity IMHO

[ericd]

I see no difference with other A rated actresses on holiday some place (........in publishing the pictures). I don't see why she/they should be exempted from it. You don't want your breasts to make the headlines? Don't show them.

[Gardian]

Well I don't disagree RH but having said that, it just seems like another Royal Family 'own goal'.  Perhaps its them who should have known better?

Also, we shouldn't delude ourselves that the refusal of the British Press to print these pictures stems from a new-found puritanical zeal.  It's Leveson and the knowledge that the British public would be less than amused.

At the end of the day, its all a bit of a fuss about nothing.

[Quillan]

I read the link RH and the comments.

Considering the type of lens (about £15k worth or more) that would typically be used for this and the quality of the photo's even after being 'cleaned up' (the report said they were of bad quality) means that the person was some distance away, perhaps as far as a kilometer away. To go to such lengths is unbelievable and if it were any other person the photographer would probably be arrested as some form of pervert. There is absolutely no public interest in these photo's except from a few perverted people who might like to have a look at the size of her knockers or whatever.

Personally I think these type of photographs should always be accompanied by a photo of the person who took it so we all know who they are.

As to Gardian's comment about why the UK press didn't print them, and no disrespect intended, I disagree and my 'proof' is the photo's of Harry recently in the Sun which to my mind was 'f**k you' to the UK from that despicable owner of News International. Touch of 'think you can give me grief well stuff you', it bordered on contempt of the government for daring to challenge him. Well thats my thoughts on the matter anyway.

[Russethouse]

ericd. The Duchess of Cambridge is not an actress A rated or otherwise. Neither do most A rated actresses have mothers in law that died when their car was trying to out run/avoid photographers. A stunning lack of sensitivity

Would it be OK for the French press to publish photos of Hollande ? or a topless Trierweiler?

[ericd]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

ericd. The Duchess of Cambridge is not an actress A rated or otherwise. [/quote]

Does that make her any different to any of us ???....No is my answer. Why should they be any different to anybody else just because of their ancestry ?? She is nothing to me nor is William. I respect the Queen as Head of State, that's all.

[quote user="Russethouse"]

 Neither do most A rated actresses have mothers in law that died when their car was trying to out run/avoid photographers. A stunning lack of sensitivity

[/quote]

She died in a road accident because her driver was drunk and missed the bend. I don't see the link.

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Would it be OK for the French press to publish photos of Hollande ? or a topless Trierweiler?

[/quote]

I don't really care neither.

[Hoddy]

I can't believe some of the comments here. A man and his wife on a private holiday in a private place and some creep decides to take photos of the wife's breasts and publish them in the papers. This is not allowed even in the UK. A couple of 'celebs' have threatened to sue and have received out of court settlements because the newspapers were afraid to go to court. This happened before Leveson was even thought about.

Are we really saying that no woman is allowed to sunbathe topless anywhere unless she wants her photo taken and published ? It's beginning to sound a bit like the 'she was asking for it' argument to me.

Hoddy

[DerekJ]

[quote user="ericd"]

You don't want your breasts to make the headlines? Don't show them.

[/quote]

Rubbish. If you are doing it well away from what could be considered the public gaze then you are entitled to your privacy regardless of who you are.

[ericd]

You are all making such a big dance of it. They are targets for terrorists and paparazies wherever they are in the world. No big deal, I won't be buying the mag.

[Russethouse]

My recollection from 'The Bodyguards Story' is that there would have been no need to swap cars/drivers at the last moment, or use that route had it not been for presence of the press.

Photographing the Duchess of Cambridge was a shabby, shoddy and cheap thing to do.

[Loiseau]

Not sure if I have got it right here.

If they had been of French nationality, then strict French privacy laws would apply? Is it just because they are NOT French that the French press is free to splash these pix?

Angela

[Théière]

The pictures were taken from such a distance they are so pixelated they shouldn't make a difference. What makes the difference is people buy the magazine and they are the ones who are below contempt. The same with buying stolen goods, if no one bought them, there would be no market.

[Clair]

[quote user="Loiseau"]Not sure if I have got it right here.

If they had been of French nationality, then strict French privacy laws would apply? Is it just because they are NOT French that the French press is free to splash these pix?

Angela[/quote]

No, that's incorrect.

The law does not differentiate between nationalities.

Broadly speaking, there should be no publication of pictures when people are on private property (without their consent).

Art 226-1code pénal:

Le

code pénal définit à l'article 226-1 le

délit d'atteinte à la vie privée [...] la fixation, l'enregistrement ou la transmission, sans le consentement de

leur sujet, de l'image d'une personne se trouvant dans un lieu privé.

I would expect anyone on a private holiday in a private property to have the right to their privacy, whether the individuals are inside or outside the house.

Edited to add link to legislation

[JohnM]

[quote user="Hoddy"]I can't believe some of the comments here.

A man and his wife on a private holiday in a private place and some creep decides to take photos of the wife's breasts and publish them in the papers. This is not allowed even in the UK.

A couple of 'celebs' have threatened to sue and have received out of court settlements because the newspapers were afraid to go to court. This happened before Leveson was even thought about.

Are we really saying that no woman is allowed to sunbathe topless anywhere unless she wants her photo taken and published ? It's beginning to sound a bit like the 'she was asking for it' argument to me.

Hoddy[/quote]

Well said.

[Théière]

This I find far more shocking than a poor quality long range photo.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19588547

[Quillan]

Seeing the One O'Clock news it seems that they may well take the magazine to court however the 'damages' or fine is a maximum of only €10k. I agree with the comments of one ex 'hack' in that if she was on a public beach it's a different matter and 'fair game' but seeing as they were in a "secluded private home" there is no justification. Also interviewed was a French financial chap who said that for the value of the fine imposed the magazine is laughing all the way to the bank. Another person working in the media said it will only be a matter of time before they will be on the Internet.

Personally I look at it this way. He never asked to be born nor did he ask to be in the position he is. She on the other hand had a choice but appears to love him to bits and is willing to accept everything that goes with the marriage. I understand there is a two years agreement with the UK press in as much as they will pose for photo's, accept they will be photographed on official trips but their private life will remain private for those two years. This may be the real reason why the photo's are not being published in UK newspapers.

I notice that the editor of the magazine, which is actually Italian by the way, said "It's a young woman who is topless, the same as you can see on any beach in France or around the world.". I find this hypocritical because why then did they need to print any photo's if that's the case.

I still believe that Diana was hounded to her death even though the driver had been drinking. Having a flash go off in front of you whilst driving at night, at speed, is an accident waiting to happen and mixing alcohol in to the equation makes it inevitable.

[DerekJ]

I can't get my mind around this one. The child is in a pushchair alongside mother and grandparent. Someone goes up to the child and gives it a bottle. And the parent does what exactly? Carry on munching their Big Mac?

[idun]

Trouble is that IF she likes topless sun bathing, then Balmoral hardly has the weather to do it. So then in France, in the warm, on a private estate and I would say, away from prying eyes, unless someone was well equipped with a very very high powered lens. Sadly that too could have been an assassin.

Why shouldn't she have some privacy at some point, in her life, I do think that it is a right that she has.

What do you call someone who follows someone all the time and takes inappropriate photos.............. a perverted stalker...............or a paparazzi.

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="DerekJ"]I can't get my mind around this one. The child is in a pushchair alongside mother and grandparent. Someone goes up to the child and gives it a bottle. And the parent does what exactly? Carry on munching their Big Mac?[/quote]

I know it's off subject but I agree with you. The newspapers are full of these things. The mother who was ranting and raving because her son half beat to death a boy to steal his mobile phone and got 5 years in prison. Her solicitor said it was unjust as that was the same sentence a paedophile would get. My question is since when did we lock up paedophiles for only five years?

The teacher recently sacked for grabbing a boy in the classroom during a lesson who was about to throw a milkshake over him. My question is since when are kids allowed to drink (anything) in a classroom during a lesson?

There are loads of these dotted around in the papers.

[Théière]

If they published but no one purchased the magazine then they wouldn't bother again? but society (some of them) do want this garbage.

[Rabbie]

A link to the pictures was given on another forum. They were of very bad quality and in most of them she was wearing her bikini top or had her back to the camera. I feel a lot of people buying the magazine are going to be rather disappointed if they wanted something saucy.

[nomoss]

The pictures are so blurred and edited that they could be of anyone. Most probably they are simply fakes.

Clever to make them blurred, as really clear pictures would be less believable.

I don't see why anyone should accept they are pictures of the couple.

[KathyF]

[quote user="ericd"]You are all making such a big dance of it. They are targets for terrorists and paparazies wherever they are in the world. No big deal, I won't be buying the mag.[/quote]

So the fact that they are already targets somehow makes this no big deal? And if it was someone you loved whose privacy had been similarly invaded - would this still be no big deal? I think you should be ashamed of yourself!

[Gardener]

I do have more sympathy for Kate than I did for Harry, but she is very much the public eye and there will always be people willing to try and make a buck. Either develop a thicker skin, or take more care.

The media does invade ordinary peoples privacy every day. The trashy newspapers frequently show pictures with 'warning graphic content', of dead or injured people but because they tend to be of people from far off places, no one seems to mind. I find that a lot more offensive than a pair of pixellated titties.

[ericd]

[quote user="KathyF"]

So the fact that they are already targets somehow makes this no big deal? And if it was someone you loved whose privacy had been similarly invaded - would this still be no big deal? I think you should be ashamed of yourself!

[/quote]

 

I am not ashamed at all, as this doesn't bother me one yota. Please do get a life, there are people dying of hunger in Africa, what are you doing about it?