The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Community => Coffee Lounge => Topic started by: sabrina on September 20, 2012, 09:09:36 am
-
Once more this morning on the news the topic is the photo's of Kate, this time a Danish Magazine.The power of the people should have stopped this right at the start but did not happen. I wonder how all these editors would feel if the pictures were of their mother, daughter, sister taken without consent. Seems there is no such thing as private anymore and the press do what they like regardless. There is a huge difference between freedom of speech and taking sneaky pictures just to make yourself money and 5 mins in the spot light.
-
I agree that it was a gross breach of privacy. It doesn't actually matter WHAT Kate was doing - sunbathing topless, reading a book, eating beans on toast. (Had she been doing the latter two, no-one would probably have been interested). The fact is that they were in private - they give the press so many photo opportunities when they are working, they should be left in peace when off duty.
I know how I'd feel if it happened to me.
-
So do I :thumbsup:
I think the Palace barristers should sue the mags & papers out of existence - then Kate & Wills can give the money to the charities they support.
-
Whilst i agree that this is a gross invasion of privacy i think that Kate & William were very naive at least to think they will ever get complete privacy, Kate is now going to be probably the most photgraphed demanded for royal along the lines of what happened with Diana, what concerns me is that what if that photographer had been a sniper ???
This will all blow over if the British media stop reporting it happening in other countries but they can't resist you can see them all salivating at the idea of these pictures but none of them dare risk showing them, but they'll still get mileage out of reporting about them. >:(
Also 10,000 euros fine for the french paper was hardly a drop in the ocean against the milions they will make, the fine should hvae been a milion euros and that might have made others think a little harder before printng.
mandy :pig:
-
well ive been dissapointed in this whole issue. i cant find the pics anywhere online..... :D
-
Bloody paparazzi,they should have their cameras stuck where it hurts,this is an immense intrusion of privacy regardless of whom the people are.
-
I agree with Fowgill Farm. They know its likely someone will be trying to find and photograph them where ever they go. If you dont want photographed topless dont take your top off! I never take mine off.....just in case :roflanim: !!
-
what concerns me is that what if that photographer had been a sniper ???
I agree what with the pics of harry and now kate, if i was charlie I would make sure a few heads rolled. But I do think she was very silly to go topless, one hard lesson she has learnt no doubt. On another note how sad are some human beings that they get titilation from seeing her topless. Apparentely the italian mag sold out within hours and is selling on ebay for thousands. More fool the idiots who are buying them, but how sad it that.
-
Well the Italians buying them probably haven't seen any that weren't covered in long black hair. :innocent:
-
If anyone should know what to expect , it would be William , but no it seems not ?
It is the same with all celebs , pictures of tits and fannies everywhere . If they don't want pictures of their bits in print wear knickers and a bra , it ain't rocket science.
Funny how the photographer gets vilified , along with the mags that show them , but what about the perves that buy them ?
If people really didn't want to see them , there would be no sale , simple !
But this i suspect has nothing to do with pics of her topless , more about control of the media .
-
If you dont want photographed topless dont take your top off! I never take mine off.....just in case :roflanim: !!
I tried taking mine off but nobody wanted to take my photo. :(
-
If anyone should know what to expect , it would be William , but no it seems not ?
It is the same with all celebs , pictures of tits and fannies everywhere . If they don't want pictures of their bits in print wear knickers and a bra , it ain't rocket science.
Funny how the photographer gets vilified , along with the mags that show them , but what about the perves that buy them ?
If people really didn't want to see them , there would be no sale , simple !
But this i suspect has nothing to do with pics of her topless , more about control of the media .
and a distraction from the fact that half of the worlds navy is currently playing 'war games' off the coast of iran, who have launched their (german i believe) submarine in return.
-
I know how I'd feel if it happened to me.
well ive been dissapointed in this whole issue. i cant find the pics anywhere online..... :D
Well I found them and they were such poor quality for all I know it could have been Rosemary.
but what about the perves that buy them ?
I only looked as research for this post, honest.
-
Yeah i bet , sticky keyboard brigade eh ? lol
-
The crazy thing is if you saw Kate out in the street you wouldn't probably notice her. I've seen her a few times around here and even spoken to her at the place I used to work and she's incredibly ordinary. You spot the security blokes way before you realise it's her.There was a story in our local paper a few weeks ago about how she'd been into a local shop to buy a wetsuit and the shop owner didn't even recognise her. If they hadn't made a fuss all this would be forgotten about by now.
-
I do wonder tho, if someone is on private property and are unaware they are being photographed and it is known they certainly would not have consented if they did - what is the difference between that and peeping tom - in fact worse as they are then selling the pictures?
What I mean is, secret photos are one thing, but secret photos of someone undressed when they think they are in private is to me a sexual offence surely? Landlords who install secret cameras go to jail - I dont see why it is different in this case.