Kate Middleton topless photos: with camera phones and drone technology, soon no one w

rhody said:
You are missing the point and muddying the water.

I have seen a few grainy images but I believe there are some 26 pages about to be published.

It's the invasion of privacy I am appalled at and the pandering to the baying mentality of the lowest common denominators in society who think this sort of snooping is in the "public interest".

These photos are no better than the sneaky images perverts take at the seaside.

People have a right to privacy, Royals or otherwise.

I hope the proposed legal action by the Royals through the French courts is successful.
Click to expand...

Actually I think that you missed the point. Despite being horrified and appalled at the invasion of privacy, you not only sought the photos out on Google, but studied them in detail. If you detest the idea of them so much why did you look at all? So that you could be even more outraged?

People buying the magazine/seeking the images out to reenforce their opinion just increase the market value of the shots.
 
DemiLion said:
Actually I think that you missed the point. Despite being horrified and appalled at the invasion of privacy, you not only sought the photos out on Google, but studied them in detail. If you detest the idea of them so much why did you look at all? So that you could be even more outraged?

People buying the magazine/seeking the images out to reenforce their opinion just increase the market value of the shots.
Click to expand...

There's a video on Youtube which has a description which is something along the lines of "in memory of Princess Diana, hounded to death by the paparazzi" - the video is made up almost exclusively of papped shots of her, and only made more ironic by the attached advert being for Mercedes....
 
stormienam said:
Sorry but it's all down to supply and demand, if people all weren't so Ficking nosy now days there would be no demand and as such no point taking the pictures, everyone kicking off about it is only adding fuel to the fire keeping it in the press and mags which they (mags/papers) love as they will just sell more.

Tbh who really cares she must have done it 100s of times before with her mates I sure somewhere she is in the back ground of someone's picture on a beach with her baps out, or her mates have pics of her etc really why does everyone care so much.

really future queen with baps out is head line news PLEASE give it a rest and me a break there are FAR more important news worthy stories but hey like I said people would rather be nosy and 'outraged' about a photographer taking a pic than the 100s of innocents killed daily.

Celeb culture for you...
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, but you have no idea about right and wrong, you are only interested in protecting the interests of the perverts who look at this rubbish.
 
5 pages on this? seriously?? Wow. The news must be really slow.
 
Very interesting replies.
It is sad, but probably a fact that there is a 'Celeb Culture' in the western world. Unfortunately, I belive there are plenty of people who will buy a magazine to see a Princess baring her boobies. And hence why magazines will cash-in on such pictures.

Prince Harry managed to laugh off his pictures, I think that Princess Kate should do the same. However, they should at least take action against the photographer (or who hired him) for invaision of privacy. Isn't this Voyeurism , and is illegal in most European countries?

I know that the Royal Family like to use the press sometimes and that they are of general interest amongst many of the public, but there also needs to be a line drawn when and where the public are allowed to see their lives in pictures/videos etc.
 
Cagey75 said:
5 pages on this? seriously?? Wow. The news must be really slow.
Click to expand...

The Princess may just be considered a Celeb to you from a neighbouring country of the UK?
She is quite a Celeb here too of course, but more than that, she is a member of the Royal Family.

I have for years not been a big fan of the Royals, but have come to the conclusion having this Historical weird thingy a good thing to have in place of having some twot as a head of state if we were a Republic. :p
 
Cagey75 said:
5 pages on this? seriously?? Wow. The news must be really slow.
Click to expand...

Or, it provokes an interesting discussion on the rights of privacy from photographers and brings to attention the differences in law in other countries.
 
On the Huh said:
I have for years not been a big fan of the Royals, but have come to the conclusion having this Historical weird thingy a good thing to have in place of having some twot as a head of state if we were a Republic. :p
Click to expand...

Just to balance this out, not sure if I've covered this on here but I support the royals, well having taken an oath to serve and protect them...

I've met a few, always amazed by how much effort they've put in to learning about the event they are attending, the queen is especially good at this. Charles is fascinating to listen/talk to.

And I think it's one of the things that defines us as British, rather then just another european country.
 
Personally, I think this is only about money. The magazines will print them, knowing that people will buy, simply to see what Royal boobs look like.
There is no supply and demand argument, until this incident there wasn't a great deal of demand. The magazine is creating the demand by offering the supply, and of course massively increasing it's profit in the process.
Publishing the pictures wasn't in the public interest, and it therefore begs the question, where does this stop? Do we think it's right to publish photos of a couple in their bedroom, royal, celeb or anyone else? I doubt it. Whats the difference here, apart from extent? None.
If you're on private property, you should have privacy. Simple as that.
 
If all that happens is the magazine gets a fine (which I heard was likely to be £40,000) then taking legal action, even if successful, is not going to stop anything like it happening again as I am sure the magazine have got more than their monies worth.

It could have backfired and the magazine could get boycotted but that is unlikely to happen in these days of celebrity.
 
andy700 said:
Sorry mate, but you have no idea about right and wrong, you are only interested in protecting the interests of the perverts who look at this rubbish.
Click to expand...

Really? Want to explain that one to me fella?

I have no idea about right and wrong yeah? You base your opinion on this of me on my view on pictures of a bloody royal sunbathing topless, do me a favour and get over yourself mate.

Bet you looked for the pics too like everyone else.

And For whom am I protecting? And against what? He did nothing illegal, they just don't like the fact that someone co*ked up and made them look bad. Security fail I'm afraid.

Oh and calling everyone who look at the pics perverts REALLY come on now there are 10 pages on the thread so you are saying all of them that have seen the pics are perverts? for looking at the pictures of a 30 year old woman sunbathing topless to see what the big fuss is about.

You must live a very sheltered life my friend.
 
It's definitely about the money. The magazines who publish will have worked out the publicity and money made from selling the publications will outweigh any fine. It's got a few more days to run until the pics become old and the news moves on, but those photos are out there now and will always be bought up.

Should be a good pay day for the photographer as the photos are getting syndicated around the world. Whilst there's good money to be made from shots such as these, they'll always be people doing anything to get them.
 
Security fail I'm afraid
Click to expand...

A comment which shows a lack of thought.
These pictures were taken at between 1 and 2.5 miles away, depending on who you believe. In the best possible case, 1 mile, the amount of police and or troops required to provide effective security would be huge, amounting probably to 1000's of people.
So security fail? No, as clearly it wasn't ever intended to prevent the taking of a set of photos.
Afterall, why should it, if you're on private property you should expect privacy, no doubt the owners of the magazine and or the photographer would be a tad annoyed if photos emerged of them scratching thier bit's first thing in the morning. Or are we to understand that it's one rule for one person, a different for everyone else?
 
stormienam said:
Sorry mate your talking rubbish illegal demand obviously no come now let's not get to high on the soap box here, the photographer did nothing illegal as he was on a public highway.
Click to expand...

if he was in the UK possibly, but in France, where they have the strictest privacy laws in the EU, thats just not true.
 
boyfalldown said:
if he was in the UK possibly, but in France, where they have the strictest privacy laws in the EU, thats just not true.
Click to expand...

It's potentially against the law over here as well (civil law anyway) and certainly breeches the PCC Editors code.
 
stormienam said:
Sorry mate your talking rubbish illegal demand obviously no come now let's not get to high on the soap box here, the photographer did nothing illegal as he was on a public highway.
Click to expand...

What Hugh said a couple of posts up.

On the Huh said:
The Princess may just be considered a Celeb to you from a neighbouring country of the UK?
She is quite a Celeb here too of course, but more than that, she is a member of the Royal Family.
Click to expand...

[pedant] I believe she's a duchess rather than a princess but she is married to a prince so may automatically become a princess. [pedant]
 
Nod said:
[pedant] I believe she's a duchess rather than a princess but she is married to a prince so may automatically become a princess. [pedant]
Click to expand...


[bigger pedant]

You're sort of correct in that she's a princess by marriage, rather than birth, so she adopts her husband's title. In full:

Her Royal Highness Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus.

Because William's most senior title is Duke of Cambridge, she's styled Duchess of Cambridge in shorthand.

But in general, yup, she's a Royal Duchess.

[/bigger pedant]
 
ROFL at there being a bigger pedant than myself - I should have Googled her full title. The naked tit model anagram made me ROFL too.
 
Used to work for a company that dealt with some A-listers. I've seen events where the "evil paps" are dished out glasses of champers to keep them happy, then headlines about celebs being "upset" at the "private" pictures that were taken...

No sympathy at all for these people who carefully manage the press when the odd snapper oversteps the line - especially when their only claim to "celebrity" is being the fortunate result of one particular screw.
 
Just for the record I haven't seen or searched to try & see the images. :)
 
stormienam said:
And For whom am I protecting? And against what? He did nothing illegal, they just don't like the fact that someone co*ked up and made them look bad. Security fail I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's wrong. I'd suggest before you go abroad you learn the laws of the country.

boyfalldown said:
if he was in the UK possibly, but in France, where they have the strictest privacy laws in the EU, thats just not true.
Click to expand...

Try Switzerland.
 
Last edited:
Don't see how they can say it is a 'security fail' just because someone got within 1 mile of the couple.

If it is a fail, then that means nobody should be allowed within a 1 mile radius of her, ever. I'm sure I have seen pics of her out shopping in Sainsburys or Waitrose or some supermarket anyway. They didn't have a 1 mile exclusion zone around her.

Saying it could have been a rifle rather than a camera is pathetic. A gunman could get a darn sight closer when she is going about her everyday life home here in the UK.
 
Ploddles said:
Saying it could have been a rifle rather than a camera is pathetic. A gunman could get a darn sight closer when she is going about her everyday life home here in the UK.
Click to expand...

The true art of an assassin is getting away with it! :)

But on the whole I agree.
 
I looked up these "photos" to see just how "good" they are and all I can say is if they were taken from as far away as some claim, then can someone tell me the camera and lens combo that was used ? I could do with it next time I'm out birding ! !
 
stormienam said:
Really? Want to explain that one to me fella?

I have no idea about right and wrong yeah?
Click to expand...

Not if you defend the photographer/magazines who took and published these images. There have to be boundaries which cannot be crossed, privacy laws which protect anyone, regardless of whether or not they are considered "celebrities". These are people like anyone else, and the photographer who took these shots, without their permission, from a distance of around 1000 metres (? seems to be what people are suggesting), is a pervert/scumbag/peeping tom.
 
DemiLion said:
Actually I think that you missed the point. Despite being horrified and appalled at the invasion of privacy, you not only sought the photos out on Google, but studied them in detail. If you detest the idea of them so much why did you look at all? So that you could be even more outraged?

People buying the magazine/seeking the images out to reenforce their opinion just increase the market value of the shots.
Click to expand...

Not so DemiLion. I am appalled at the low life behavior of the photographer and the lowest common denominator of the gutter press.

I looked at some of the images to have an informed opinion rather than relying on hearsay.

People should be able to protect their privacy.

I am fed up hearing about "photographers rights".

People have rights too and for an expectation of privacy.

She was not in a Travel Lodge sunbathing topless next to a roundabout in a busy city.

She was on a private estate and had no idea she was being spied on by some morally bankrupt low life intent on spying on her to make some money.

If she did this on a public beach - she would have no defence.

But to have someone stalking you to make money out of a private moment on a private estate when she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a situation to be deplored.

Thankfully, one of major shareholders, Richard Desmond in the Irish Star is seeking to terminate his partnership and financial support with this low life paper, which may even bring about its closure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/15/desmond-irish-daily-star-kate-photos

Moral integrity should never be dictated by low life, gutter feeding photographers out to trade in someones misery.

Don McCullin once said, "You have to know when to put your camera down and walk away" - this was one of those occasions.
 
Last edited:
rhody said:
Not so DemiLion. I am appalled at the low life behavior of the photographer and the lowest common denominator of the gutter press.

I looked at some of the images to have an informed opinion rather than relying on hearsay.

People should be able to protect their privacy.

I am fed up hearing about "photographers rights".

People have rights too and for an expectation of privacy.

She was not in a Travel Lodge sunbathing topless next to a roundabout in a busy city.

She was on a private estate and had no idea she was being spied on by some morally bankrupt low life intent on spying on her to make some money.

If she did this on a public beach - she would have no defence.

But to have someone stalking you to make money out of a private moment on a private estate when she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a situation to be deplored.

Thankfully, one of major shareholders, Richard Desmond in the Irish Star is seeking to terminate his partnership and financial support with this low life paper, which may even bring about its closure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/15/desmond-irish-daily-star-kate-photos

Moral integrity should never be dictated by low life, gutter feeding photographers out to trade in someones misery.

Don McCullin once said, "You have to know when to put your camera down and walk away" - this was one of those occasions.
Click to expand...

You can rant about being outraged as much as you like- the fact is that you still actively went online and sought out the photographs. You then studied them in detail, rather than a cursory glance.

Congrats. You became part of the market.
 
I have not looked at the pics.

I have no interest in the lady concerned.

She, as all others ,should be allowed some privacy when not in public places.

Considering the hounding to death of the young mans mother by some of the press, surely,for the sake of human decency, they should leave the lady alone.

And if people stopped buying these despicable rags, then there would be no money available for the photographer in question.
 
Having read most of this, I generally agree that it would be nice if peoples privacy was respected.

We have to accept though, that there are huge numbers of ordinary folk who will buy the press that publishes pics like these & that drives the industry along & the guys who take the shots. The magazine in question will have factored in the fines/trouble it will get when deciding the monetary value of publishing.

Above all I'm amazed that the royal couple would put themselves in this position. The balcony could clearly be seen in the BBC commentary piece, which was presumably from a public area. Surely before you take your top off you consider where you are & you would automatically feel vunerable if you're facing out towards "the outside world"? I find it hard to believe that there wasn't somewhere more discreet to get semi naked.

Also, I don't think sueing has helped. It's just extended the story & value of the pictures. I bet the magazine is rubbing it's hands together at the thought of an even bigger payday!
 
If you can't presume to be discreet and private, in the middle of the woods on a private estate on a balcony 1km away from the nearest human being....where can you ??
No, its not their fault, regardless of the market or how many peeps want to see this kind of thing, if peeps still find it economical to invade privacy in this way, the law obviously isn't strong enough.
 
DemiLion said:
You can rant about being outraged as much as you like- the fact is that you still actively went online and sought out the photographs. You then studied them in detail, rather than a cursory glance.

Congrats. You became part of the market.
Click to expand...

You are wrong yet again DemiLion.

One Google click and they were there.

A cursory glance was all that was needed to confirm these are firmly in the "seaside pervert" category.

Your wild assumption that I "studied them in detail" is again totally incorrect and laughable - but it is the sort of allegation that would appear in the gutter press to create a wrong impression and smoke screen to disguise the real issue - the invasion of privacy.

These are photographs of a young couple, sharing an intimate moment who clearly and rightly assumed they were in a private place until some low life decided to spy on them.

There is no justification for this type of low life, gutter image - as the newspaper owners have now clearly stated in their public apology this afternoon.

When the owners distance themselves from the images it is clear that even they accept the line has been crossed.

I need to correct you, yet again, on one other issue.

I can assure you I am not part of the "market" for this image. I would not buy or support this type of publication as long as there is a hole in my ar*e.
 
Rockman said:
Is this the same Richard Desmond who brought us "Asian Babes"?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the "Asian Babes" in question were filmed with their full knowledge and cooperation and also in the full knowledge of how the material would be used and distributed?

Do you think the Royals would have agreed to the photographs being taken on this occasion?
 
Keith Ws mate said:
Note for Kate Windsor, dont get your baps out if you don't want them photographed. Simples.
Click to expand...

I think this still stands and summarises the whole situation.

The photos would have been worthless if she'd kept her top on

If my wife went topless when we were on holiday, even somewhere remote then there's a chance someone can take photos of her.

The pair of us would probably have a good giggle at the photos, especially if they were this poor. Sadly we never could find the TV footage shot of my wife heavily pregnant at Le Mans when she was showering out the back of our camper in 2006.

But neither of us have had one of our parents hounded to the point of leaving a date with their playboy boyfriend, getting into a chauffeur-driven limo, driven by someone drunk to get away from the press, maybe that changes things a bit.

BUT

It does not excuse any of the Royal family for sunbathing topless, or partying naked with some number of no doubt pretty fit birds.... and then being appalled that they're having photos taken of them.

Harry and Wills have had a lot of media protection as they've grown up, due to the lionization of Diana. I think this is now back-firing on them as they're out there enjoying what appears to be a pretty full life, without thinking 'is this what a Royal should do?' before they strip naked in Vegas, or sunbathe topless.

Even if we were at a friend's house I think my wife would be a touch recalcitrant about getting her baps out, even if she was told it was 'all clear'

This bears repeating once more, while people are up on their Daily Mail-sponsored high horses:

Keith Ws mate said:
Note for Kate Windsor, dont get your baps out if you don't want them photographed. Simples.
Click to expand...
 
rhody said:
I'm assuming the "Asian Babes" in question were filmed with their full knowledge and cooperation and also in the full knowledge of how the material would be used and distributed?

Do you think the Royals would have agreed to the photographs being taken on this occasion?
Click to expand...

Do you think the aforementioned Mr Desmond would have any qualms about publishing said pictures, were he not trying to ingratiate himself with David Cameron?

He probably thinks that showing his "outrage" at the images will put him in the running for a knighthood.....
 
joxby said:
If you can't presume to be discreet and private, in the middle of the woods on a private estate on a balcony 1km away from the nearest human being....where can you ??
No, its not their fault, regardless of the market or how many peeps want to see this kind of thing, if peeps still find it economical to invade privacy in this way, the law obviously isn't strong enough.
Click to expand...

I think "presumption of privacy" is not enough.

It wouldn't be for me, & I'm not sure photos of me would command much interest :suspect:

Incidently, I'm not saying it's their fault but I don't think it was very smart. If they'd been more cautious, & not abnormally so IMO, we wouldn't be having this conversation!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top