Is this correct, pictures published of Kate knickerless?

(60 Posts)
MrsjREwing Sat 29-Sep-12 06:18:28

DM can't have this righ can they?

WipsGlitter Sat 29-Sep-12 08:47:59

Yes. If you google Kate bottomless then you can see them. She's changing her bikini bottoms.

Cordrazine Sat 29-Sep-12 08:57:22

Yeah, I've just seen them on a link from google news. Thankfully, in the ones I've seen, she is bent over with a towel over her and its poor quality, really long lens so you can't really see anything.

AViewfromtheFridge Sat 29-Sep-12 09:52:30

The worst thing is that she's clearly trying to protect her modesty by doing it under a towel, but unknowingly is actually facing the photographers. What a set of bastards.

diddl Sat 29-Sep-12 11:57:41

I wonder why she´s using a towel?

If it was me & I thought that I was secluded/unobserved, I´d just change!

Not suggesting she knows about the photographer-but perhaps staff are nearby?

MrsCampbellBlack Sat 29-Sep-12 12:30:17

I just really don't get how its legal to publish such photos - I mean to me that's a sexual offence really. Its horrid voyeurism isn't it? I feel very sorry for her indeed.

diddl Sat 29-Sep-12 12:40:42

Yes, you´d think that they would be illegal to take, let alone publish.

diddl Sat 29-Sep-12 12:42:28

And that spying on people in a private place through a long lens would be illegal.

If there wasn´t a capability to take a pic, wouldn´t it be voyeurism?

Machadaynu Sat 29-Sep-12 12:48:00

Does anyone know what the law actually is on this?

I am guessing that either it's illegal but the punishment would be a fine less than the value of the pictures, or it is legal to take a picture of someone in public no matter what they are doing?

cutegorilla Sat 29-Sep-12 12:53:26

Poor girl. She's never ever going to be able to relax is she. Even when she thinks she's in private she's not. Proper gilded cage she's in.

SoupDragon Sat 29-Sep-12 12:56:59

‘It’s a set of unique photos from an A-class celebrity. It is my job to publish them.’

What a wanker.

diddl Sat 29-Sep-12 12:57:07

I have a feeling that the penalty fine makes it worthwhile.

I think for me the issue about this was also that they were in a pretty private place.

I don´t know.

maybe she shouldn´t have done it "just in case".

But I think that if she a was snapped changing her bottoms-which I´m thinking wouldn´t take that long-then there was obviously someone ready & waiting with a long lens trained on them/the area.

Horrible thought.

diddl Sat 29-Sep-12 12:58:32

"‘It’s a set of unique photos from an A-class celebrity. It is my job to publish them.’ "

This is the other thjing though-when did they become celebs such that it is thought that there is such interest in their every movement & her every outfit?

SoupDragon Sat 29-Sep-12 12:59:32

I"d love to get similar photos of the loved ones of the people involved and publish those. See how OK they are about it then.

If a man was standing in the bushes with a normal camera or no camera at all surely he would be arrested for voyeurism? Or some other sexual offence?

But because this man is a pap and she is a person of interest its ok to publish indecent photos. hmm

Its a disgrace and it has to stop.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Sat 29-Sep-12 13:31:32

It is perfectly legal to take pictures of people in a private place from a public place.

The question is whether it is an invasion of privacy. The argument is that as Kate was out in the open where she could be seen by anybody she had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

It may not be moral, but there is a good chance it is legal.

diddl Sat 29-Sep-12 13:58:18

"It is perfectly legal to take pictures of people in a private place from a public place."

Then where does the needing a long lens to do it come into the equation?

I doubt that she could just be seen by anybody just walking/driving by though..

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Sat 29-Sep-12 14:06:09

But the picture was taken from a public place. And she was out in the open. Just because you are in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean you can expect privacy...

diddl Sat 29-Sep-12 14:44:54

I agree.

But to what lengths is it acceptable for someone to take a photo?

Staring through a long lens for hours on end & then taking loads when tops/bottoms are taken off?

I say if a long lens was needed then it´s no go.

edam Sat 29-Sep-12 15:10:18

It isn't legal to publish pictures taken in a place where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the UK. Human Rights Act.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Sat 29-Sep-12 15:12:41

But the problem is "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a very wooly definition, what does it actually mean?

ExitPursuedByJKR Sat 29-Sep-12 15:19:35

I read in an article in the paper the other day that there were photos of her taking her bikini bottoms off, and I felt a bit sick. Poor woman. The topless photos were bad enough but this is just beyond the pale.

Another sentence that chilled my spine was that their as yet unconceived child is the world's most famous yet to be born celebrity.

edam Sat 29-Sep-12 15:22:29

Reasonable expectation of privacy would clearly apply to the house where Kate and William were staying, where they weren't visible from the road - the snapper was something like a mile away.

It also applies to the street if it's directly outside a Narcotics Anonymous meeting - see Naomi Campbell v. the Mirror.

It is really hard to understand how this is "newsworthy" - we need to stop buying the dross it's printed in.

WipsGlitter Sat 29-Sep-12 15:49:05

It's not news, but neither is 95% of the stuff in the papers. The fact it's lrinted is almost irrelevant as most people will see them on the Internet. I feel very sorry for her, it's a hard lesson to learn.

But aside from that even if I was miles from nowhere I'd still probably go inside to change my bikini bottoms.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now