Quite the post I expected from you, and you didn't disappoint eh?    Yeah, I know, you're not a royalist, neither am I, a staunch one, but peeps are still allowed their privacy no? unless they're doing really wrong 

 

 

I don't care of it was Kate Bloggs, she was in a private villa, using a private pool, royalty or not she's every right to her privacy in private places. I would defend my next door neighbour the same in the circumstances and I'm not a royalist either. 

Sorry for not having the same opinions as you Sprout, [not really]. I didn't realise commenting on this was limited to supporters of royalty!

 

Perhaps royalists shouldn't comment on this, as they're hopelessly biased?

 

Of course people are allowed their privacy but let's live in the real world, eh?

 

If you have a media profile as high as hers, you've got to be so cautious and she just wasn't (maybe intentionally).  Seems very soon after the Harry business to me, when you'd think they'd be a bit even more cautious.  Didn't it enter her pretty little head that this might happen if she went topless on a beach?  Even if our press were silent, there's no obligation of the media in other nations to be understanding.

 

I've no desire to see her topless nor would I argue there's public interest and press freedom issue in seeing her topless, as the Sun claimed when going to press over the Harry pictures, I just think it's kind of - her fault!

 

Against that, I'm not entirely convinced they are as bothered as they claim.  Good publicity, good for her to be 'the victim' especially when criticism that she isn't really doing anything in the public interest are being raised.

Listening to 5live, I am quite amazed how many ppl think that she brought it on herself. I'm not saying that they are that naive not to think about these things, but they are just a young couple who happened to want 3 days AWAY from the public view. In some of the 'photos she apparantly was getting dressed, WTF, why would anybody want to see this stuff.

I'd like to think that I could do the same in my secluded garden without some idiot climbing over the fence. I know the french attitude to baring all is different from here, but that makes no difference.

The real world is that there's a global print and internet media external to this country which has no obligation to abide by our standards or laws on the privacy of individuals. 

 

Privacy isn't a human right.  It isn't even a right in most countries - including this one. US corp, Google, collected data on the location of our private wi-fi routers for heaven's sake!

 

We've come a whisker from having all our emails and internet activity warehoused on gov't servers to be interrogated by police on a whims, so, living in the real world, Kate should have used an ounce of common sense and been more careful.

Against that, I'm not entirely convinced they are as bothered as they claim.  Good publicity, good for her to be 'the victim' especially when criticism that she isn't really doing anything in the public interest are being raised.

 

I think they are as bothered, William's mother may or may not have died as a result of over exposure. He certainly hates the press. They've only been married for 1 year, why on God's earth can't they be left alone. They've been so careful to do things right this time round, I just find it sad that they can't just lead their own lives.

I get you on that one, but hey.......what are we all to do? stop using the internet?

 

And on the second point, I believe they're only looking for the peeps that want to do us harm and the normal day to day stuff is ok  

 

Again.........

He does hate the press but perhaps he's externalising his hatred for his old man and how Diana was treated by 'the firm'.  It can't be easy if your dad is now married to the women who was shagging your dad behind your mum's back.  I guess hatred of the press is a good substitute but the fact is, Diana's misery was mainly caused by her loveless marriage to Charles.  The media didn't drive her to her death, it was just an unfortunate accident with many unfortunate factors. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I don't rule out her death being orchestrated by the powers that be.  The media, for all its faults, adored her and she courted its attention.  The press nearly always stood in her corner.

 

They can't be left alone because of who they are!  They can't lead their own lives because of who they are and what they will become.  Kate has purposely chosen that life and William could abdicate from it if he wished.  It's exactly the same for David Cameron.  I don't suppose he was happy to have his forgotten pub daughter splashed all over the media or have idiots trolling over the death of his son.

Carnelian, one question. How much do you know of Europian Royalty?

"Who wants to do us harm", depends the politics of the those defining it.  It has been the PM and trade unionists in the past.  Then there's our government's general IT incompetence and its willingness to pass on private data to the private sector.

 

Once you have information like that stored, a remit can easily be widened as it was under anti terrorist legislation, so-called 'mission creep'.  A society that stores information like that is ripe for the picking by a totalitarian government. 

I've just listened to some baffled Irish editor on R5! Why do these people want to see photos that might humiliate someone? Consent. Consent. Consent. What an arsehole! I defy anyone to put forward an argument to justify publishing this sort of material.

I think it boils down to the fact that the only way to prevent this sort of culture is if people stopped wanting to read (and see ) this salacious rubbish , then maybe the press would stop producing it!.

I'm not quite with you.  I know that UK royalty has a global high profile compared to other European royalty because of the role UK royalty has and its commonwealth duties which gives it a global visibility.  It is also a by-product of our close cultural relationship with the world dominant English speaking US media and the powerful Australian media. If America's official language was Spanish, the British monarchy would have a considerably lower global profile.

Well exactly.

They've just produced another idiot on R5.

In Europe there's a large contingent of so called Royals and they are plastered all over the papers on a daily basis. My point is that because these ppl are fair game, the British are fair game too (for them), but for us they are not, 

Yep! They managed to find someone who said that it was her fault. I give up. They really are the lowest of the low.

I think I've more or less said that. 

 

However, the British and US media has little interest in foreign royalty when our own circus is so much bigger and more interesting.

 

It's like having Manchester United on your doorstep and filling your sports pages with the trials and tribulations of Wycombe Wanderers Football Club.

 

I have no desire to see Kate topless and I don't see it as a freedom of the press issue. Do I think the press should print the pictures? No I don't, but ultimately there's a global market and media organisations have to make money and they will make big money on this. Kate has the same high media profile as say, Lady Gaga or Jessy J has.   With Harry being a recent target, Kate should have used her common sense. 

 

 

A bloke stood a mile away with a camera taking pictures of a womans breasts... should be arrested, nevermind the pictures even being published.

 

Bit disturbing how easily people could get to the future King though, a road in the middle of nowhere with a clear view of him and no one about. Sounds like the security within the family needs a kick up the arse at the minute.

I wonder how much our royal protection people get paid. If I did my job as successfully as they did theirs I would be sacked on the spot.

 

Surely they could have insisted their were no cameras at Harry's private party. And surely they could have looked about a bit and found a sheltered spot where Kate could have sunbathed. 

 

I'm writing my letter of application now ...

It's a trade off between an open monarchy and a distant one.  Cameras are everywhere now, not least on mobile phones.  Ten years ago they didn't exist, and people had to purposely take their camera out with them, which they never did on a day to day basis, Now almost anyone has the opportunity to take pictures anywhere, any time. 

 

I guess it would make for a party pooper and make Harry look a bit up himself if he said, "let's go on the lash like normal geezers, mates! But first, my royal flunky has to confiscate all your phones for the duration, because I'm third in line to the throne and don't trust you."

Complicity?

True

 

But ... If was going to get my kit off at a party (heaven forbid!) I'd make damn sure that no one had a camera or phone on them ... And, when I was sunbathing topless in my garden in the summer I always positioned myself where no one could see me.

 

And I'm not royal

The fines for invasion of privacy, should be for the total takings for that publication, as well as criminal prosecution of the photographer.

 

They'd soon stop doing it, or the shareholders would get rid of them, sharpish.

From the Diana debacle to The Duke of Edinburgh's constant gaffs.

From Prince Andrew's dodgy friends and Edward's hopeless TV daillances.

Harry's Vegas cock up with strangers and Kate assuming no one could possibly see.

The Royal Family never seem to learn, appear ill advised and lurch from one error to the next.

I'm just waiting for the next one  . . .

 

And that's the attitude that keeps it all going, sadly. 

Not with relish Blizzie - with sadness to be honest

Get out of it! 

 

You love a bit of gossip and it's given you a chance to admonish the 'silly girl', whilst joking about 'tiddies'. Can't say I noticed any sadness in your posts. 

Gosh you are  harsh. Time of the m . . . never said that, ok

 

Honestly i have every sympathy and really wish others would be more respectful. However she was rather naieve.

Just sick of the victim being blamed, to be honest.

 

She shouldn't have to cover up, especially in a private place. Security aside, there is a principle involved here and women's 'modesty' being controlled.

 

We have a female French editor using the excuse that French beaches are full of topless women, so there is nothing wrong with printing photos of a lovely, young, 'in love' woman with her top off, never mind getting her consent.

 

Then others saying that she must never do this again, as it is too risky and she must, at all times, act with decorum, in case some scumbag pap is nearby, or not even nearby.

 

Don't agree with either stance. She should be allowed to choose and those who invade her privacy and those who pay them to do so, are the ones who should be targetted

Beleive it or not  ... i totally agree

She has every right - but sadly this world has almost no concern for others.

This is the same mag that printed pics of Diana in the car crash i believe.

Royalty's a farce.

There's  a lot of obfuscation going on in this thread and make no mistake.

 

Forget the using this as a stick to beat up Royalty. (I still can't grasp the Harry/Fancy dress/Nazi uniform biz)

Forget the using this as an excuse to stick up for the royal family.

The faux security, (we are bothered about their safety) arguments are also pretty pathetic

 

It is just plain wrong.

Isn't that a bit harsh for the people who work for it and have no say in its editorial content?

 

I'm still less than convinced that she's as bothered as is claimed. 

 

I can think of many worse things our press has done than embarrass royalty a bit.

I'm not against the idea of having a Royal family.

I think we have a rich heritage that wud be a great miss without Royalty.

They could be a great force for good, ambassadors really out their banging the drum for this country, role models, interested, involved- leading us forward.

Sadly i can never see this happening.

So Kate did what many women do on holiday, so what! who really cares, I sure don't but maybe some Press assume I do and want to see the pics, not interested