Prince harry photos

POAH

POAH

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,882
Edit My Images
No
I'm a bit confused about why the images have not been published in the uk.

As far as I can see they were taken in the room by people he was socialising with so there is no invasion of privacy. The person who took them owns the copyright so they can sell them to who ever they want. The pictures are already published online where people can see them.

If you are in the public eye and you play strip games and get your kit off surely you are fair game?

Not that I actually GAF about the photos
 
No invasion of privacy? In your own hotel room?

You're kidding me.
 
It's no different to people posting pics of themselves with friends on facebook, only 99.9% of people aren't of interest to the world at large which is why Harry pictures have made it to the publications worldwide.
Be interesting to find out how the images made it online. A so-called "friend" taking payment? Photos being bandied around amongst friends of such a high-profile figure are bound to leak somehow.

Not that I have any love of gossip/celeb mags, etc and have less love for photographers invading privacy.
 
Last edited:
If you are sad enough to want to see the pictures you really need to get a life,he's a single young man who has already put his life on the line for his country and if he wants to have fun with serious totty in Vegas then good luck to him.
The ***** who took the shots and sold them are the villains of the piece
 
I read this yesterday.
had a chuckle and thought, well why not
soldier with national responsibilities on R&R in vegas

If I was 27 and famous, I would also wish to do this on vacation :)
and he also bet an olympic swimmer to a race across the pool, in his jeans, and he lost the bet....and didn't welch :)

I see no major problem here. camera phones are a fact of life now, so is gossip.
party on I say :p
 
You need to use a flashgun and bounce it off the wall or the ceiling so you can take the ISO down, and the white balance is way off.
 
The press are running scared because of the Levenson, about time to. They alone decided what was in the public interest, but of course what lay behind their interpretation of that was surely vested in their own commercial interest. There have been instances of newspapers hiding behind 'public interest' to justify stealing images and ignoring copyright.

As for Prince Harry, well as has been said above, he wasn't in a public place as far as I can tell, so yes surely it is invasion of privacy? Let him get on with it I say, what else would you expect a 27 year old off duty soldier to do in Vegas? Party on!
 
The public interest aspect comes from the fact the tax payers are paying, so feel like they have a say/or need to know what their money is being used for.
I would have hoped there would have been more important/more contentious things to worry about that are costing billions a year of tax payers money but there you go.
 
ernesto said:
The public interest aspect comes from the fact the tax payers are paying, so feel like they have a say/or need to know what their money is being used for.
I would have hoped there would have been more important/more contentious things to worry about that are costing billions a year of tax payers money but there you go.
Click to expand...

How do you know that, pure supposition? He has a job and gets paid for that job & loads of people give him freebies.
 
not read the story but have seen the photos

Who says its tax payers money for him having jaunt in Vegas? could be out of his own pocket, from his military wages thats paying for it, not like he has a mortgage, car loan to pay for:shrug:
 
The tax payers pay for a lot of things, doesn't mean we have to have access to it. Try getting into Buckingham Palace without an invite, or Aldermaston chemical weapons facility. OK, these are extreme examples, but my point is that the press will view something like this as public interest if it will help them prop up their collapsing circulation figures, irrespective of the ethics, hence all the hacking stuff over the past few years.
 
Ploddles said:
How do you know that, pure supposition? He has a job and gets paid for that job & loads of people give him freebies.
Click to expand...

Prince Harry would not exist as an entity if not for the tax payers.

Did he pay for his own bodyguards when there, did he pay for their flights etc, etc,.
 
POAH said:
I'm a bit confused about why the images have not been published in the uk.

As far as I can see they were taken in the room by people he was socialising with so there is no invasion of privacy. The person who took them owns the copyright so they can sell them to who ever they want. The pictures are already published online where people can see them.

If you are in the public eye and you play strip games and get your kit off surely you are fair game?

Not that I actually GAF about the photos
Click to expand...

There is a world of difference between getting your picture taken when out in public and having them taken when you are in a hotel room where you don't believe what you do is going to be splashed over the papers.
It does not matter whether you are in the public eye or not. Whilst you are "enjoying yourself" in a hotel room then there most certainly is an expectation of privacy.

You obviously do GAF about the photos or you would not have posted this in the first place.
 
awphot said:
Whilst you are "enjoying yourself" in a hotel room then there most certainly is an expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...

That is where he has gone wrong, expectation issues. He should know and be more aware of the potential, especially when having "guests" around.

He is 27, not 11.
 
awphot said:
There is a world of difference between getting your picture taken when out in public and having them taken when you are in a hotel room where you don't believe what you do is going to be splashed over the papers.
It does not matter whether you are in the public eye or not. Whilst you are "enjoying yourself" in a hotel room then there most certainly is an expectation of privacy.

You obviously do GAF about the photos or you would not have posted this in the first place.
Click to expand...

its not the actual photos I'm trying to discuss but the fact that not publishing them seems to be news.

had it been someone else there would be no problem publishing them - its no different to a sex tape type thing.
 
To make my position clear, I am happy that he can have time to enjoy himself and I don't care who pays. He does more for this country that I ever will.
 
POAH said:
its not the actual photos I'm trying to discuss but the fact that not publishing them seems to be news.

had it been someone else there would be no problem publishing them - its no different to a sex tape type thing.
Click to expand...

didnt whats her name from n-dubz successfully block her sex tape being published?
 
ernesto said:
Prince Harry would not exist as an entity if not for the tax payers.

Did he pay for his own bodyguards when there, did he pay for their flights etc, etc,.
Click to expand...

A common misconception. In actual fact the royal family don't 'cost' us anything. Sure we give them money via the civil list but what most people don't realise is that all the revenue from the crown lands that the royal family own generate millions more than we give them. This has been in place since King George III.

If I remember rightly the civil list is about £40 million a year and we get about £200 million from the Crown Estate.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
The press are running scared because of the Levenson, about time to. They alone decided what was in the public interest, but of course what lay behind their interpretation of that was surely vested in their own commercial interest. There have been instances of newspapers hiding behind 'public interest' to justify stealing images and ignoring copyright.

As for Prince Harry, well as has been said above, he wasn't in a public place as far as I can tell, so yes surely it is invasion of privacy? Let him get on with it I say, what else would you expect a 27 year old off duty soldier to do in Vegas? Party on!
Click to expand...

Where as the goverment would be so much better at telling us lies? ;)
 
gadgeteer said:
A common misconception. In actual fact the royal family don't 'cost' us anything. Sure we give them money via the civil list but what most people don't realise is that all the revenue from the crown lands that the royal family own generate millions more than we give them. This has been in place since King George III.

If I remember rightly the civil list is about £40 million a year and we get about £200 million from the Crown Estate.
Click to expand...

not since 1961.

The royal family dont own the Crown Estates anymore.
 
gadgeteer said:
A common misconception. In actual fact the royal family don't 'cost' us anything. Sure we give them money via the civil list but what most people don't realise is that all the revenue from the crown lands that the royal family own generate millions more than we give them. This has been in place since King George III.

If I remember rightly the civil list is about £40 million a year and we get about £200 million from the Crown Estate.
Click to expand...

And who would own that if a Royal Family didn't exist?
 
ernesto said:
And who would own that if a Royal Family didn't exist?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean if the royal family were no longer 'royal' and became simply citizens like the rest of us.

In which case since they own the land, I'm assuming the revenue would go back to them privately.

Otherwise it's legalised theft is it not?
 
well this was a private holiday, so I assume that the tax payers didn't pay for it
however, there are tax paying implications of his protection detail as they are in vegas with him...however, that would be an expense irrespective of his duties and as he's normally on a military base or flying an apache, I think he doesn't always have his protection detail with him....so it's swings and roundabouts for me.
also his family is wealthy and could have paid for it from estate incomes etc etc etc.
any soldier-boy deserves to let off some steam so why not.
if he was photographed in fighting, accosting unconsenting young ladies then that is a different matter

also if he was photographed with with a bunch of 'munters' I would be embarrassed for him, as it was I think the ladies in question was all rather tasty so that's alright then :p
 
This has shaken my world view to the core. What happened to "what goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas?"

[caution contains sarcasm]
 
gadgeteer said:
I'm assuming you mean if the royal family were no longer 'royal' and became simply citizens like the rest of us.

In which case since they own the land, I'm assuming the revenue would go back to them privately.
Click to expand...

They DONT own the crown estate. It is now owned by the state.
 
Dave1 said:
They DONT own the crown estate. It is now owned by the state.
Click to expand...

True... they exchanged it for an annual allowance, the civil list.

It would be reasonable for them to claim their lands back, if the civil list was scrapped.... A deal is a deal....
 
Point being is that the royal family directly earn more for the country that they get from the civil list ( or the new arrangement) and has made significant cost savings year in year out. The payments haven't changed since John Major first negotiated them, and it allowed the Queen to put aside some money, which was being used to pay the additional fees over and above the civil list income. However The last Govt, now this one have dipped fingers in the pot and taken money out.

And that's just directly, it's probably more difficult to work out how much they earn the country indirectly.
 
crofter said:
And the Queen is head if state.
Click to expand...

She is, but the crown estate isn't the property of the royal family anymore (not since the Crown Estates Act 1961). If the monarchy was abolished the property would remain in state ownership.

I was answering gadgeteers erroneous assumption that should the monarchy be abolished that the royal family would own the properties in their own right. Which they don't.

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about-us/
We are governed by an Act of Parliament. The property we manage is owned by the Crown, and is not the private property of HM the Queen. We work supportively with government; in Westminster, in Scotland, in Wales, Northern Ireland and at a local level.
Click to expand...
 
Byker28i said:
Point being is that the royal family directly earn more for the country that they get from the civil list ( or the new arrangement) and has made significant cost savings year in year out.

And that's just directly, it's probably more difficult to work out how much they earn the country indirectly.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And that is why I remain in favour of the Royal Family even though I don't agree with a Royal Family in principle if it is profit making for teh country then I am happy with it.

It will lose a bit when Phillip leaves us though, he is great value and pity they didn't let him loose a bit more often...
 
Byker28i said:
Point being is that the royal family directly earn more for the country that they get from the civil list ( or the new arrangement) and has made significant cost savings year in year out. The payments haven't changed since John Major first negotiated them, and it allowed the Queen to put aside some money, which was being used to pay the additional fees over and above the civil list income. However The last Govt, now this one have dipped fingers in the pot and taken money out.

And that's just directly, it's probably more difficult to work out how much they earn the country indirectly.
Click to expand...

Didnt realise that:)
Im a lefty:D not exactly been a fan of the Royals but if they do help the country overall maybe Im not so anti after all:)
 
POAH said:
so you no longer have control over your own copyright anymore then
Click to expand...

Copyright is not a licence to do what you like. You are still subjet to the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top