Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. I don't know why. Get a bad batch of weed or something?Originally Posted by Alexander III
Thank you. I have been more than clear in several posts as to my positioning the this of breaching her privacy:
Last edited by Mutatis-Mutandis; 09-16-2012 at 10:55 PM.
It would be a shame if people judged her for taking her top off in private. It's the same as taking your top off before taking a shower in my mind.
I was really irritated by the editor's comment that Kate has a nice body, so she shouldn't be upset about the pictures. What a stupid thing to say. Yes, she has a great body, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to be upset about having her boobs exposed to world. She already has very little privacy as it is.
ooooo, missed this thread as I had too much work, but now I'm here, I'd like to say a few words.
I haven't read the whole thread, so it might be a little repetitive.
Two fusses: from their side and from the (initially) French magazine's side.
Indeed, the pictures are grainy. If you can see breasts in there it's pretty much your own imagination. And yes, Kate, like all women has breasts. Guess what William has down there... What's the point?
Even the French editor didn't see what the fuss from their side was about (would you like to stand naked on a magazine cover, woman?). That begs the question why she bought and published them in the pictures place, but that's me.
From the other side, these pictures are far worse in quality than that picture of Kate in a teensy weensy yellow bikini (without polka dots). That almost gave everything away, you just had to think the nipples with it. I don't know whether they complained about that.
Anyway: to me the fault lies on both sides.
A: what is so interesting about them being on holiday? They probably do what we do, no they do do what we do. They're people.
B: However, if the photographer could see them, they could see the road. Nothing made them think, 'Hmm, we better watch out.'
C: It is a gross breach of their privacy which they are entitled to as human creatures. And yes, they should pursue the magazine, but they'll have a hard time of doing it, because each country then has to have its own court battle. The magazines on the other hand sell millions of copies more, so do they care? The question is how much more expensive the court battle in their defence will be. If the balance does not strike a negative, it's very unlikely they will ever decide to leave people alone.
As to political figures. They should not be political figures and officially they are not either. They are however, people of interest (for some people). That's why they manage the press (giving interviews once in a while billed as 'unique insight into the prince's mind', photo opportunities for the press, etc.) so that they may be left alone when they need to unwind. Any human being needs some time he can relax without a camera lens being pointed at him/her. It would be great if they could just lie topless on the beach without anyone batting an eyelid. Sadly that's not the case. Although I do hear that the queen of Scandinavia go out cycling and shopping alone and no-one cares.
Indeed, the two of them will once be heads of state, but how does that role get affected by pictures of them on holiday?
So, I think, that there is a balance here: the press needs to respect anyone's privacy (be it celebrity or otherwise), but people in the public eye should also realise that there are people who will go to incredible lengths to get a good picture (which goes for a lot of money). If you don't want to get caught doing something embarrassing (or which could be embarrassing to you), you should not do it anywhere where it could become that. I'd say if you want to lie naked on the beach, do it in a protected resort for celebrities. Not in a castle in the South of France with a public road running next to it.
What gets me in all of this is that when Prince Harry plays strip billiards and these pictures are published (taken at a private party, I guess they are deemed private), we go, 'Ooooo, you dirty devil.' He gets told off by the Queen and that's about it. If someone takes a picture from a public road (admittedly the telelens doesn't plead in the photographer's favour, although I am not sure if these days you need a telelens and not just very high resolution), we go, 'Oooo, you nasty guy.' It must be because she's a woman and Harry is a man. Men voluntarily display their bits. Women don't.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
They will, though.
It's pretty clear actually. The paparazzi have a job to do whether we like it or not. From their standpoint, they are providing the press with pictures of interest to the general public. The problem here is that it is the silliness of the public in wanting to follow up on everything that is written about celebrities that is the cause of such photos rather than its exploitation by photographers.
I haven't seen the photos and have no intention of doing so; not because I am offended but if I want to see them there are bigger and better boobs on display elsewhere than those belonging to the Duchess of Cambridge.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
British women do not take their tops off on our beaches; we only do it when we go abroad. I my self have only done it once on my Honeymoon, guess I was felling a little daring. I must admit topless swimming was nice but my boobs are quite big and I tend to have Scammel wheel nut nips especially if I go in the sea.
So it kind of feels weird to me especially if kids are around.
Anyway the point being that seeing Kate topless is a big deal to us and who ever took the photos knew it would be. But the thing is she wasn’t on a beach or on a boat in the med, she was in a private area enjoying some private time with her husband. Those pics should never have been taken let alone printed. Else where does it stop? Will we get pics of them in their bedroom making the next heir in line to the throne (well there was a crack in the curtains – so they were asking for it – right?).
I guess the whole thing is not so much boobs as you said but about the fact that foreing press on their own turff can do what they want.
The French are pretty 'serious' about their private lives means that their own press now can direct their frustrations at others non french visitors inclduind or especially royalty.
Britain is complaintt or suing is totally pointless.
If Britain were to be taken seriously about their royalty, the private life issue versus public life, then they should do the same as the French and take their private life in Britain and outside Britain seriously.
That is the only to stop the press enjoying its freedom to do as it pleases.
The French did it Britain must do the same too otherwise it is paparazzi all the way. There is no stopping them.
Last edited by cacian; 09-17-2012 at 09:14 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
That is somthing I don't understand. I think no-one really thinks about that in Britain. Even if she were to go to an Italian beach and go topless there (I have seen that millions of times in my teens loooooong ago), I would think no-one would bat an eyelid, although they would raise questions whether it's for a future queen to do. They would get angry if someone were to publish pictures. I.e. the opinion of a lot of people is, 'She can do what she pleases in her free time (apart from dealing drugs and taking heroine), as long as she does her job properly', which they have obviously briefed her on.
Research has shown that women of my mother's generation were more inclined to take off their tops in a public place like on a beach, because they felt liberated. Younger women like me and Kate, don't do this in public places because they find their breasts are a private thing.
I personally haven't done this either. I just don't feel I should get them out for everyone to see, although they are small and they don't bother me (only running up and down the stairs is a problem
So I don't think people will judge her like that. Maybe in more conservative places by people who are unable to see things in a different way.
It's a bit sad, yes, that there would actually be people interested in these grainy boobies. And it's even more worrying that this would be 'of public interest' at all.
I think the big deal is indeed that someone would dare to print such pictures. That's obviously why hte paparazzo is there. If he couldn't get his pictures sold, he wouldn't take them. The English press, it seems, is reluctant (as they were with Harry) and the Irish newspaper who did publish them was closed down by its owner (probably temporarily I would say) because of it, my husband said this morning. Press in other countries have fewer scruples, it seems. But then they also have no mercy for their own celebrities and they don't hesitate to publish lies.
How many times have I seen 'Kate pregnant' on German magazine covers. It is amazing.
I am not sure that French people are actually so private in this business. Has France not got the biggest nudist community in Europe at least? Ok, it's not sex-related, but neither are these pictures. Still, everyone walks with their bits dangling. The south of France must be a very good place due to its weather, but nonetheless, there must have been an early feeding ground for nudism compared to, say, Italy or Spain.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
I am wondering if this debate that ensued did not sell more papers for the press.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
I'm mystified why publishing an intimate photograph of someone without their express consent (male or female) isn't considered a sexual offence and punishable as a criminal act.
Want to know what I think about books? Check out https://biisbooks.wordpress.com/
Actually I have not thought of it that way, but you are right, for all intents and purposes it is a sexual offense and should be treated accordingly.
It may be a criminal offence and that will presumably be decided by a court of law but there is a school of thought that says that if someone exposes themselves within sight of the public they are inviting an invasion of privacy.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
The Magazine will have done a calculation ie. We're going to intentionally break the law, so what is the fine going to be , and will the increased sales justify it. That is all they are bothered about. All this other stuff about freedom of the press and public/private places is just flim-flam. Its the money that counts.
Finally, I haven't seen the Dutchess' breasts but I bet they're lovely.
ay up
Why don't you tweet her for a private viewing?
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Well, there's also a school of thought that says a woman in figure-hugging clothes is "inviting" lewd attention or worse. That's blaming the victim.
Anyway, one could also argue whether "within sight of the public" could reasonably be expected to include "on a particular spot in a private resort that just happens to be line-of-sight for a risk-taking paparazzi with an insane zoom lens."
In the end, it comes down to supply and demand. As long as people reward this behavior with their money, the rats will keep getting fed, and they'll multiply.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
