http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202895/French-magazine-set-provoke-outrage-claiming-print-topless-photos-Duchess-Cambridge-captured-private-holiday-month.html?ICO=most_read_module
What do you think?
When papers published pictures of Harry, I really didn't care. Just thought he'd been a silly boy. But this is unfair, at least I think so. There has to be some restrictions to invading her private life. Maybe they won't print it?
Originally posted by yo its meYou are right. I think that everybody has a right of privacy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202895/French-magazine-set-provoke-outrage-claiming-print-topless-photos-Duchess-Cambridge-captured-private-holiday-month.html?ICO=most_read_module
What do you think?
When papers published pictures of Harry, I really didn't care. Just thought he'd been a silly boy. But this is unfair, at least I think so. There has to be some restrictions to invading her private life. Maybe they won't print it?
The question remains: who is buying the magazine? If population would be decent, it would be a gigantic flop.
Originally posted by yo its meMembers of the Royal Family are celebrities and celebrities are usually fair game.. but, even so and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202895/French-magazine-set-provoke-outrage-claiming-print-topless-photos-Duchess-Cambridge-captured-private-holiday-month.html?ICO=most_read_module
What do you think?
When papers published pictures of Harry, I really didn't care. Just thought he'd been a silly boy. But this is unfair, at least I think so. There has to be some restrictions to invading her private life. Maybe they won't print it?
Harry notwithstanding, this does seem a bit over the line. These days, all of us are surrounded by
cameras, phones, electronic devices and lenses of every description. Not much is private anymore.
Originally posted by HandyAndyhttp://www.newsy.com/videos/is-prince-harry-in-the-royal-doghouse/
Members of the Royal Family are celebrities and celebrities are usually fair game.. but, even so and
Harry notwithstanding, this does seem a bit over the line. These days, all of us are surrounded by
cameras, phones, electronic devices and lenses of every description. Not much is private anymore.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 191173
Originally posted by HandyAndyWith all the aforementioned technology and the savey of such technology with their generation you'd think they'd know about the chances of their escapades being publicized. I never go around half dressed anymore. When I go into our pool I always wear a t-shirt just in case one of our neighbours (who shall remain nameless...Mildred Johnson) is hiding behind the hedge or using her telescopic lens from their bedroom window an 1/8 of a mile away.ðŸ˜
Members of the Royal Family are celebrities and celebrities are usually fair game.. but, even so and
Harry notwithstanding, this does seem a bit over the line. These days, all of us are surrounded by
cameras, phones, electronic devices and lenses of every description. Not much is private anymore.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Great Big SteesIn theory you may be right, but it has come to a sorry state if such caution is necessary.
With all the aforementioned technology and the savey of such technology with their generation you'd think they'd know about the chances of their escapades being publicized. I never go around half dressed anymore. When I go into our pool I always wear a t-shirt just in case one of our neighbours (who shall remain nameless...Mildred Johnson) is hiding ...[text shortened]... hind the hedge or using her telescopic lens from their bedroom window an 1/8 of a mile away.ðŸ˜
Of course, personally, I think shooting a trespassing (or "only" peeping) paparazzo in the face with a deerslug should not be punishable at all - his profession should be taken as prima facie evidence of self defence.
Richard
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 191173
Originally posted by Shallow BlueWhatever happened to "common decency" eh?
In theory you may be right, but it has come to a sorry state if such caution is necessary.
Of course, personally, I think shooting a trespassing (or "only" peeping) paparazzo in the face with a deerslug should not be punishable at all - his profession should be taken as prima facie evidence of self defence.
Richard
"Excuse me Kate. Would it be OK to take a shot of your breasts? No. Oh, OK sorry for the intrusion. I'll just go now""
NOTHING is actually private being a member of the Royal family...they know this, Edward VIII abdicated for far more reason than merely marrying a divorcee...he prized his privacy...and to think that a modern Royal would assume she could 'freely' sunbathe in whatever manner she wished is just plain naive ... the problem lies with the fact that for hundreds of years no one would dare print whatever they witnessed from the Royals. 'Things' started to change in the early part of the Victorian era when the satirical 'Punch weekly' decided to draw upon the public's demand for 'warts and all' publicity and humour. They quite happily avoided censorship with cartoons and innuendo thrown in for good measure. Previously such cartoon publications were overtly political and no holds barred ( suspected sexual diseases from high society political figures were prized copies for example ), they were usually in the form of back street rough 'unofficial' copies from established printing firms prepared to run the censors gauntlet for 'some' monetary gain but far more for the sake of their temporary sponsors enemies...
Back in the 70's when "streaking" was the rage in the US, there was a statement made
that should hold true now. It was "You streak, I peek".
If she keeps her clothes on when she is outside the house, she will have no worries.
If she is inside her house and they get photos, then they have grounds to go after the
photogs for invasion. Their celebrity status carries with it certain losses of privacy.
Such is life.
Originally posted by shortcircuiti jumped in that pool, drunk and naked,
Back in the 70's when "streaking" was the rage in the US, there was a statement made
that should hold true now. It was "You streak, I peek".
If she keeps her clothes on when she is outside the house, she will have no worries.
If she is inside her house and they get photos, then they have grounds to go after the
photogs for invasion. Their celebrity status carries with it certain losses of privacy.
Such is life.
and YOU were watching my ass???
please tell me you took pictures, and have them still,
so i can remember and relive my past...
😀
Originally posted by PonderableMakes you wonder what kind of people become paparazzi, there can't be much job satisfaction in selling peoples privacy.
agreed. Legal action is ongoing anyway. The problem is the pictures are out and this can't be brought back.
Paparazzi are the most disgusting persons...and that includes Hedgefonds managers.
I hope they win with thier legal battle.