Should have known better!

[ericd]

[quote user="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.[/quote]

 

hear hear.

[YCCMB]

[quote user="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?

[/quote]

I see some judicious editing of your post whilst I was replying, Ericd.

Perhaps you should consider rephrasing again. Along the lines of "there are people dying of hunger in Africa. What are the press doing about it? Oh yeah. Photographing naked royals. "In the public interest".

Still, changing the subject to one more worthy..what are you doing for Africa's starving?

[Russethouse]

ericd, Actually the people actually doing something about the disadvantaged in Africa are Prince Harry, and to some extent Prince William

http://www.sentebale.org/home/AboutUs.html

[KathyF]

I have a deeply satisfying life, thanks, Eric, during which I have been giving regularly to charities working in developing countries (Christian Aid, Save the Children, etc) for the past 50 years or so. That doesn't stop me being concerned, not only at this particular invasion of privacy (and you didn't answer my second question about that, did you?) but about a whole lot of other social problems too. In my book individuals and their feelings and dignity count, even if they do happen to be royalty.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"][quote user="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?

[/quote]

I see some judicious editing of your post whilst I was replying, Ericd.
Perhaps you should consider rephrasing again. Along the lines of "there are people dying of hunger in Africa. What are the press doing about it? Oh yeah. Photographing naked royals. "In the public interest".

Still, changing the subject to one more worthy..what are you doing for Africa's starving?
[/quote]The press always seem to have a difficulty in distinguishing between "the public interest" and  "what quite a lot of the public is interested in"

[Rabbie]

A certain irony in the fact that in a interview this week both William and Kate said their wish super power would be "Invisibility"

[Alan Zoff]

OK, no one wants to be spied on when they believe they are in a private place.

But why all the interest in the photos in the first place? If people want to look at a pretty woman's breasts, they have endless opportunities every day in papers, mags, internet, etc. And they can be wonderfully sharp images. These, I gather, are out of focus and could be of anyone. Even if they are the genuine article, are they bigger, better, more interesting than a model's breasts? What does anyone gain by seeing these in particular?

Public demand for the prurient, especially when it involves "celebrities", brings out the worst in those wanting to make a fast buck. And it seems it will always be so. Society gets what it deserves.

[Tancrède]

Perhaps the Queen  -  after her crowd-pulling and populist success at the Olympic Games  -  has asked them all (the young ones) to play to the baying gallery by doing Something Really Rude ?

I am a little troubled, however, by the new style embraced by The Palace.   Hugely saddened…   grotesque…   violated…  

Who on earth is writing this postured, sensationalized, hack-journalistic, Diana-reminiscent, soap-operatic drivel ?  

The universal cliché of bien-pensant reproof 'inappropriate' surprisingly failed to put in its mealy-mouthed appearance.  

But at least on this occasion the Duchess can thank her lucky stars she hasn't been  [an ultimate boo-word of this trashy style]  'marginalized'.

[Quillan]

This magazine thing is all very interesting as to who owns what and who is responsible.

The Closer France it appears is run under licence (via Mondadori an Italian company) from Bauer Media (a UK company) who issued a statement yesterday in the form of a press release, a link is below. Seems they are not too happy with what has gone on.

http://www.bauermedia.co.uk/press/news/article/statement-on-behalf-of-closer-magazine-uk

It seems the licence for Closer France is owned by the Italian company Mondadori which in turn is owned by Fininvest. Interesting to note that Fininvast is owned by the Berlusconi family and is run by no other than one Silvio Berlusconi. The reason I researched this was because somebody mentioned Berlusconi's name and I thought it a bit odd but it turns out they were right. Having read a little about these companies and who owns what plus the bad history between the previous owners of Mondadori and Berlusconi I think there is a little more than meets the eye with regards to what is going on with these photo's.

[ericd]

[quote user="KathyF"]I have a deeply satisfying life, thanks, Eric, during which I have been giving regularly to charities working in developing countries (Christian Aid, Save the Children, etc) for the past 50 years or so. That doesn't stop me being concerned, not only at this particular invasion of privacy (and you didn't answer my second question about that, did you?) but about a whole lot of other social problems too. In my book individuals and their feelings and dignity count, even if they do happen to be royalty.[/quote]

KathyF, I didn't ask you to justify your past involvement in African charities, which in itself is commendable, I just commented that people "le petit peuple", jumping up and down at the sight of some pictures of their royals being published in a tatty magazine should remember that people are dying of hunger in Africa. And I don't see much activity on any forum (nor in the Press) about that.

 

 

[Russethouse]

'News' just doesn't work that way Eric - frankly I can't remember a time when there haven't been people dying of starvation in Africa, its not 'new' . More to the point and pertinent to this forum (as many of the contributors are British) according to Save the Children there are Children starving in the UK : http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/2012-09/uks-poorest-children-bearing-greatest-burden-recession but news is a kaleidoscope, not a comparison

[Gardener]

The Daily Mail ( who aren't adversed to publishing grainy long distance shots of celebs or needless stories about people who clearly don't seem very well eg Emily Lloyd

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2188193/Emily-Lloyd-Wish-You-Were-Here-star-looks-scruffy-unkempt-20-years-on.html )

have 10 separate articles at least on their website relating to this story, so whilst they may be feigning outrage, they must be rubbing their hands together in glee in their offices.

[Salty Sam]

One of the first locations to show the images of semi-nudity was no other than a web forum.

Nothing unusual there, only the forum concerned is for serving and former British RN personnel![blink]

Watch out for the Court-Martial  process and executions for treason, on a large scale.[:D] 

[Gardian]

Mrs G has just told me about a letter in today's Telegraph.

The writer has pointed out that if you can take a picture with a long lens, you could also fire a round from a rifle with a telescopic site. I hope that the Royalty Protection boys have had this pointed out to them.

Methinks that the nasty little mago may have done the Royal Family and their minders a favour by pointing up their carelessness. I still maintain that this whole business was yet another 'own goal', but Mrs G reckons that I'm a miserable old git.[blink] 

[KathyF]

But they take this risk every time they appear in public. Of course what you say is true, but it still doesn't excuse the gross invasion of privacy or the prurient "public interest" which makes it worth the photographer's while to do so.

[Gardian]

[quote user="KathyF"]But they take this risk every time they appear in public. [/quote]

Well maybe, but any 'serious' assassin would make an attempt when the defences were down, rather than in a public place. Stands to reason.

And yes, it was a gross invasion of privacy and all that, and its a nasty tacky magazine .............. but isn't there anybody (other than a few of us) who'll concede that it was just a bit daft to leave oneself (literally) open to scrutiny? 

Believe it or not, I'm actually fairly pro the Royal Family - but they're as daft as brushes.   

[Russethouse]

Believe it or not, I'm actually fairly pro the Royal Family - but they're as daft as brushes. 

That's why IMHO Kate Middleton was such a good choice as a wife, her family seem to have their heads screwed firmly on.

Additionally, to Prince William it must have brought back the gut feelings of dislike of the press founded when he was young and saw his mother pursued and photographed at every tiff and turn.......just when the Royal Family  have had something of a stellar summer...such a shame....

[Frenchie]

My gut feeling is that some of you have double standards depending on the person who's been photographed, and maybe her/his nationality......

I'm not against the Royal family, just don't care.

Of course the paparrazzi are evil, but W&K indeed should have known better, they know too well what they can do...

This does not deserve such revolt, IMHO....

And I'm more preoccupied about what's happening in Syria ,etc....

 

[Russethouse]

Hmmm...As I said there s lots of news of different types and there always will be and has been, caring about this doesn't preclude anyone from caring about other news, why should it.

As John Major said this morning these pics were taken by a peeping Tom, in the UK we prosecute such people.

It seems odd to me that in a country where the populace were not allowed to know that Mitterand had a lover and a child of that union, that these photos should be allowed.

It probably is hard to understand our attitude if you have brought up in a country without a Monachy .

[YCCMB]

If, as a member of the Royal Family, the Government, the "A" list or for that matter a bog-standard member of the public, you can't expect privacy in your own front garden or in a secluded place without some (*^()_!! taking your photograph, then the world is really going mad.

I have no particular love for the Royal Family..nor, indeed for trashy magazines that tell me about the minutiae of the lives of people I've never heard of...but there seems to be an enormous appetite for such crap. Frankly, I have never really wanted to see anyone - famous or otherwise - photographed going about their day-to-day business, whether that involves sunbathing topless or doing their weekly shop in Tesco.

Clearly, the "double standards" of which Frenchie speaks are something even she is guilty of. I seem to remember there being quite some differences of opinion about Mr Strauss-Kahn as well.

I think it odd that people feel the need to "remind" us that there's famine, war and destruction going on in the world. Is this based on an assumption that because people choose to have a discussion on a particular topic, they have no knowledge of, or interest in other subjects? Or is it because they feel a need to establish some sort of moral or intellectual superiority?

[Clair]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]If, as a member of the Royal Family, the Government, the "A" list or for that matter a bog-standard member of the public, you can't expect privacy in your own front garden or in a secluded place without some (*^()_!! taking your photograph, then the world is really going mad.[/quote]

+1

In my mind, there is a clear demarcation between celebrities and famous people.

Celebrities choose to exploit every aspect of their lives for money and press coverage. They seek the press and deserve everything they get from them.

Someone who is famous because of his/her profession or whom he/she is married to, does not relinquish every facet of his/her life for gossip and public consumption, and is as entitled to expect privacy as any other person.

[Rabbie]

I think that we need to remember that in life if we have great priviledge then we also have great responsibility.

 In this case it is worth asking ourselves why it seems to be just the british royal family that are targetted in this way. The swedish crown princess and her sister seem to avoid this sort of paparazzi attention. Is this perhaps because the british royal family put themselves on a pedestal and expect people to bow and scrape to them?

It can hardly come as a surprise to Kate and Will that the paparazzi are interested in them and so perhaps they should not do things that invite unwelcome pictures in the gutter press. There has been a claim that the pictures were taken from a public road some distance away in which case it seems that french privacy laws do not apply. Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge of the privacy laws can clarify this.

Having been brought up and lived in a country with a monarchy I take the view that in exchange for their priveledged life members of the royal family have a duty to behave responsibly. If they wish to live ordinary lives then they should renounce their privileged status. You can't have your cake and eat it. as they say.

[Alan Zoff]

I don't know about the double standards point  but Frenchie is right, though. In the scheme of things, this affair has no importance whatsoever. It is simply given importance by everyone showing an interest.

[KathyF]

Precisely, Clair.

I gather the road from which the photos were taken was at least a kilometre from the chateau. My guess is that at that distance people would be nothing more than indistinguishable specks without the use of a very powerful telephoto lens. Hardly a case of displaying yourself carelessly to the public gaze as the editor of the magazine in question has claimed. The use of such a lens would breach almost anyone's privacy anywhere.

[Russethouse]

I am somewhat amused by the idea that the royal family live a privileged life.....having to dress up and put myself on show is not my idea of privilege, neither is being caretaker to x number of artworks or buildings, in addition these buildings are often well adrift from modern standards....