-
Posts
-
I think her point was that it was a good job that victims spoke up when badly treated as it changed things. I thought your reply was that by speaking up, they were raising the subject unnecessarily and stopping it from dying out, but that’s all done with.
I don’t think these photos are a big deal. Lack of privacy is part of the Faustian pact the rich, famous and powerful make in order to maintain their wealth, position and influence. I guess public fascination is part of it.
Despite their undoubtedly picturesque nature your breasts are not objects of fascination to the general public, so even if you put them on display in the local high street, the international media wouldn’t be interested. So this incident won’t affect your privacy or mine and there will be no change in the law.
Kate’s position is different. How the paps (phnar! phnar!) found out where she was is one question, what would have happened if someone more dangerous did is another. But that’s about security and “they” have probably already dug deep into the matter.
However she does have access to places which cannot be overlooked even from a distance, so her misjudgement on this occasion will sell a few papers and keep us all talking about something other than David Cameron’s plan to take us all back to the 1950’s (just wait for the ration cards and the roll back from HD colour to black and white TV).
I really do think that the pictures were a gross invasion of privacy and that they were an obvious, shameful attempt to earn money rather than an intervention in the public interest.
However (and many apologies for going against the grain here)……….
….if you are going to be queen and want to make sure nobody publishes pictures of your breasts, that you are worried could be a bit undignified in future, there is only one way to make sure it doesn’t happen. Nasty to be caught out unawares like Kate was, but now she knows.
….Harry’s behaviour was not desperately uncommon for young soldiers but not really acceptable for a young officer. He would have been bounced around by his commanding officer for being so naive, quite correctly.
….let’s not pretend that random nakedness in hotel rooms and on country estates is OK for public servants such as teachers and social workers or senior managers in large organisations. A primary school teacher brandishing his weapon in a hotel room in front of people he’s only just met can expect serious consequences if they have phones or cameras.
The people earning money out of this kind of picture are indeed scum.
It is also true however that everyone does not have complete freedom to be naked outside or act immaturely, however much sympathy we have for them.
I am genuinely sorry for the young royals for having to learn the hard way but many other grown ups do not have these freedoms, and neither do they.
Life’s shit – think on.
Grow up. Get dressed and get a life. It’s not really such a hardship to take a little care.
I actually think it doesn’t matter if her boobies were out or not – it is an invasion of their privacy, and as has been mentioned before, it could have been a sniper!
Best they choose a more secluded/security conscious destination next time, as most celebs manage to!
As for Princess Di and others, I think they wanted to have their pics taken.
@anc wrote:
. . . . As for Princess Di and others, I think they wanted to have their pics taken.
Same goes for Kate and Harry – they’re hardly naiive teenagers . . .
The fact she was topless ?
…well i think she should be very naive not to be well aware of the length that the paparazzi will stoop to to get a pic that’s worth a lot of cash! so maybe in future best not to be out on balcony however ‘secluded’ …. unless of course it doesn’t really bother you !
It is an invasion of privacy but the worrying thing here is that someone was able to get access to be able to take such a pic!
I would hope the Royal machinery would be more concerned with the security aspect of this rather than anything else ….
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@anc wrote:
. . . . As for Princess Di and others, I think they wanted to have their pics taken.
Same goes for Kate and Harry – they’re hardly naiive teenagers . . .
Either that or they really thought that their earlier protection from press intrusion meant that they were above some basic precautions many other members of the public have to take.
We’re alright Jack, so let’s have fun.
I want them to have fun, but a male social worker in children’s services couldn’t have the fun Harry had without consequences so why is it so unfair that they have to button it too?
a male social worker can’t have some naked fun in a hotel room in privacy if he so chose ?
well what can i say other than, thats as wrong as anything else, what people chose to do as a consenting adult with another consenting adult should be there business and no one elses, whatever that may be. Before you know it they wont be allowed to have sex before marriage if in certain jobs, maybe that would be a good thing, but i guess that would mean gays can’t indulge either ? like ever !
I agree with the fact if Kate had been visible by the human eye and her pic was taken thats one thing using a long lens to achieve this isn’t, i’m sure she never thought they would stoop so low or that she could even be seen, its a terrible invasion of privacy.
And words i said regarding a culture of victims that certain people don’t need to use the culture of victims in the incorrect way, ie use it as some form of attack or defence, but i agreed with panda that yes the genuine cases that bought to light such laws in the first place were well worth the trouble, and i feel this privacy law is worth looking into further and having clearer and more stringent laws on it. As previously said what they did would be illegal if you or i did it, it should apply to the press too. Naked or fully dressed it shouldnt be allowed to happen.Is it actually illegal? I thought the right to privacy in law mainly applies to the actions of the state.
Actually, I don’t really give a shit.
Poli, flattered that I am that you have remembered something I posted on another thread, I don’t think you can call Kate a “victim” in the same way you can call someone who has been subject to homophobic or racial abuse a “victim.”
It’s an invasion of privacy and nothing more.
I wonder who is paying the solicitor’s bill for Kate and William’s legal action? :-k
believe it or not panda i do take notice of what others post yes, and sometimes it can make me see things slightly differently on reflection too, which is the whole point of a debate and being open minded enough to see a bigger or different picture from a different viewpoint.
And i agreed with that particular point you made, not on the culture of victims, but that specific point.
As for her being a victim, she has been a victim as far as her privacy has been invaded yes, im not saying she has been seriously hurt by this, merely she is a victim of this circumstance, and who pays her solicitors bills is irrelevant i would think the same if it had happened to you or anyone.
Illegal …. words, i believe so, i think you can take a picture of someone in a public place, or if that person is visible via the naked eye on their own grounds it is still ok, but i believe if anyone comes into your property to take the picture or uses enhanced camera ie.. long lens it becomes illegal, but i’ not entirely sure on that, thats the trouble isn’t it the law is so cloudy about certain things and not strict enough on ceratin things.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!