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.

Machadaynu Sat 29-Sep-12 15:49:47

Buy it? I'm sure you can just google for them (but I'm at work so I can't)

Bonsoir Sat 29-Sep-12 15:51:12

While I feel very sorry for Kate to have pictures of her nude available to anyone on the internet, I do think she was a bit naïve to take her top and bottom off outside. I mean, she does presumably realise she is Global Paparazzi Target Numero Uno...

THERhubarb Sat 29-Sep-12 15:53:56

What if this were you?

What if you discovered that someone had taken pictures of you topless and changing your bikini bottoms? How would you feel? How would your partner feel?

Just because she is married to Prince William does not mean that she should be subjected to humiliation and gross infringement of privacy.

I am no royalist and would quite like to see them piss orf, but she is a woman like any other and just like any other woman, she should not have to suck it up when people decide to take indecent photos of her. It's almost dehumanising her as if to say, 'well she's a royal, not a real person, so it doesn't matter, she has to expect it.'

Machadaynu Sat 29-Sep-12 16:01:39

You can't have it all.

You can't be next in line to the throne, young, good-looking and of interest to millions of people and expect people not to take pictures if you take your clothes off where you can be seen from a public place.

I would have thought it likely she could stretch to a beach tent to get changed in.

THERhubarb Sat 29-Sep-12 16:08:00

She was on a balcony I believe. The last time she was snapped they were holidaying in a remote villa, miles from anywhere. I fail to see what else you can do bar lock yourself indoors and close the curtains. No doubt they hoped that the injunction they got along with the potential fine for the photographer would put off any more rubberneckers.

I find it interesting that when photos like this come out, the blame is transferred to her for trying to lead a normal life and not onto the photographer. It's HER fault for being attractive. HER fault for marrying a Prince. HER fault for being young. Kinda sounds like jealousy and victim-blame.

She married the man she loved.

In doing so she gave up her privacy and her life to attending royal functions.

But she did not give up her right to not have intrusive men taking indecent images and publishing them for the world to see.

ImpYCelyn Sat 29-Sep-12 16:15:48

Oh God, that poor woman. What a month she's having sad

What really pisses me off is that French celebs are always sunbathing topless in just a string, and are always on the cover of French mags, but never with a "topless so-and-so - look you can see her nips!" headline, just "so-and-so relaxes on holiday" (or whatever other sideline activity they were up to). But because she's British and everyone "knows" we're uptight about nudity and don't get our kit off on the beach they've made a big song and dance about it. It's got feck all to do with public interest, it's not public interest when it's Vanessa Paradis, they just want to humiliate her.

Machadaynu Sat 29-Sep-12 16:22:14

I didn't say it was her fault.

It's society's fault for being interested - and we are - there have been many threads on here about these pictures: essentially grown adults typing words about pictures most of us haven't seen - pictures which do nothing other than confirm that a grown woman has breasts.

If we as a society weren't interested, there would be no pictures.

But then if we as a society weren't interested in the monarchy, there'd be no monarchy either.

It's not her fault it has happened, but it is an inevitable consequence of her being semi-naked where she can be seen. There are many things she could have done to prevent it - not get changed, go somewhere more private. (The villa where we went on honeymoon was more private then theirs - it was on a hillside and the pool had a wall around it, so they only way you could be seen by the pool was if someone got a very tall ladder - was pretty cheap too, so I'm sure they could have done better)

I'm tempted to say that it's so obviously a consequence that she might not actually care that much about it, but I fear that might be going too far.

THERhubarb Sat 29-Sep-12 16:24:45

Yes, it is public humiliation and yet here you have women saying that she deserves it or brought it on herself. So just how far would that argument stretch? How about if they took a photo of her in her bedroom? Or would she be naive for leaving the curtains open in a remote holiday home?

Is this woman now fair game for naked pictures taken without her consent to be leered at by all and sundry? Have all her rights to decency simply vanished? Will she be forever blamed for a photographer with a long lens?

THERhubarb Sat 29-Sep-12 16:27:37

x-posts but I still disagree.

You seem to imply that she should spend all her money in a virtual fortress on holiday? She changed her bikini bottoms underneath a towel. Hardly a crime is it? She's on holiday after a royal tour, she's not a prisoner. She should not have to take such extreme measures to stop these perverted snoops from photographing her. She has the same rights as every woman and therefore the law ought to protect her as it does us.

Machadaynu Sat 29-Sep-12 16:39:04

She has got the same rights as everyone else - it's legal to take pictures of people in public. Note that I don't say that's the same as moral.

There is just a lot more interest of pictures of her because of her position. There's not so much money to be made in pictures of Angela from accounts, but I suspect if you do an image search for women on beaches or similar you will find plenty of images of women on beaches.

She doesn't need tp "spend all her money on a virtual fortress" - the villa I mentioned was £1200 for a fortnight, for two, including flights and car hire (albeit 13 years ago) There was no way anyone could have overlooked the pool without a lens so long it would have distorted time. As heir to the throne she had access to rather more money than that.

edam Sat 29-Sep-12 17:47:11

It's not legal to take pictures of people when they are somewhere where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, actually.

edam Sat 29-Sep-12 17:48:02

Not in the UK, anyway, and not in France where their privacy laws are even more strict - yet the penalty for ignoring them is relatively small compared with what paps can make by selling these.

Machadaynu Sat 29-Sep-12 18:00:23

which is what I said earlier.

I would argue that, given the obvious public interest, she can't reasonably have an expectation of privacy if she is visible from a public place.

1605 Sat 29-Sep-12 18:02:15

This was a sexual offence against a young woman.

It doesn't matter who that woman is.

NO woman should have pictures of her vulva in the public domain unless she has explicitly chosen to put them there herself.

It doesn't matter who she is, and I hope the police are involved PDQ, because this is a criminal offence and not a civil one.

1605 Sat 29-Sep-12 18:03:20

I would have thought 300 metres away from a public road, behind a 6 foot perimeter wall, would satisfy anyone's standards of privacy, Macha

1605 Sat 29-Sep-12 18:04:58

WHAT is the public interest in someone else's growler, MAcha?

Naked pictures so that grubby men can jack off to a princess?

CotherMuckingFunt Sat 29-Sep-12 18:09:28

I don't give a shit what the law is. It is utterly disgusting that someone has taken these photos and even more disgusting that another person has chosen to publish them.

They are sick bastards. As someone said upthread, I'd love to see how they'd react if it was their wife/daughter/husband/son. Sick.

Machadaynu Sat 29-Sep-12 20:06:12

I didn't say it was in the public interest.

I said the public is interested. That isn't the same thing.

The public is interested therefore there is a market for the images therefore there would surely be an expectation on the part of the house of Windsor that they would be taken if possible?

grimbletart Sun 30-Sep-12 16:36:34

This is the same attitude of some towards e.g. rape - "she was in a bar", "she was drunk", she had a short skirt on and was walking late at night" i.e. victim blaming/naivety etc.

It doesn't matter what you could or could not expect - the fault is with the person committing the offence -100%.

Yes, it's not unlawful to take a photograph from a public road. The bastards doing this could not have seen this unless they were aliens with special long range eyesight.

The fact that it needed exception long range camera lens means they didn't just stumble across the situation by accident. They had to a) find out where she was and b) lie in wait with long range lens for an opportunity.

Sick, money grabbing wankers.

perfectstorm Sun 30-Sep-12 21:24:58

A guy who took photos of a couple in a ground floor flat with curtains open having sex, and showed people at the pub those pictures, was jailed for a year and put on the sex offenders register for a decade last year. He took the images from a place he had a right to be, as he was visiting someone who lived in the same building. Doesn't make it legal at all. It's a sexual crime, as the requirement to register on the SOR indicates. Though it may not matter if he is on the Register or not, as he is currently on remand for murder. He is alleged to have stabbed someone to death at a party, shortly after being released for the sexual offence. Nice chap.

Cannot fathom how or why people are blaming the victim of a sexual offence for her being treated this way. I can't see many on MN rushing to blame the victim in any other offence that could earn ten years on the register, plus a year in jail. hmm She's a human being and deserves the same support and sympathy as anyone else. I am a republican btw.

And it sounds from the comments as if she used a towel to shield herself from staff/visitors in case someone wandered past, because she couldn't possibly know that a stalker was precisely opposite, almost a mile away. Horrible. Makes you shiver - imagine a creepy shit watching you get changed in your room in daytime when you have a big garden and assumed nobody could see - but they are using binoculars? Vile.

Machadaynu Mon 01-Oct-12 17:09:45

I'v ejust read that paps are using teachniques I didn't know about, such as flying drones with cameras about. Obviously this means that anywhere outdoor is not 'safe'

I had thought it was still just a case of hanging about with a long lens, which I don't think is a good thing, but getting upset about it is a little like getting upset that people can be selfish.

The drones thing though is a different level.

I've never blamed her for it, I've just said that I think it's inevitable such pictures would emerge if it was possible to get them, and perhaps she should have taken more precautions. However,I hadn't realised what lengths they were going to in order to get them. if they are sending in drones then there isn't much you can do and she has my sympathies.

SoupDragon Mon 01-Oct-12 17:29:39

Saying that she should have taken more precautions is blaming her. At least in some part.

Machadaynu Mon 01-Oct-12 17:38:26

If something is foreseeable and you do nothing to prevent it, you are partially to blame.

For example, if I leave a cup of water in the middle of the front room it will get knocked over. It's partly the fault of the person who knocks it over, but it's also partly my fault for leaving it there - probably mainly my fault actually.

My point was I assumed the paps were still basically using a camera and a long lens as they have done for decades, thus the pictures were forseeable.

However, I've come back on the thread to change my point because I know now they use more than just a long lens, they use drones -basically a little unmanned helicopter with a camera on. That seems to make nowhere private, and things a lot less predictable, so I now have much more sympathy for her.

SoupDragon Mon 01-Oct-12 17:47:14

So you are blaming her for it then.

SoupDragon Mon 01-Oct-12 17:48:15

The only person to blame is the sick little wanker who took the photos.

Machadaynu Mon 01-Oct-12 17:49:48

I give up!

Machadaynu Mon 01-Oct-12 17:57:30

Actaully I'll have one more go:

Position 1 (that which I formerly held)

If she walked down The Mall naked in rush hour, there would be pictures. This would be 'her fault' in the sense that it would be an entirely predictable and foreseeable outcome.
If she stayed in a windowless room for all eternity, there would be no pictures.
She - naturally - is taking some middle line between these to extremes.

When I thought the pictures were taken from relatively close with old-fashioned means - a long lens - I thought she had perhaps strayed too close to the 'naked down The Mall' end of the spectrum and as such the taking of pictures was slightly predictable, and she was partly responsible. Although actually it's the public who are ultimately to blame really for creating the demand for the images, but that point seems to have been ignored.

I suggested she could have stayed somewhere more private.

Position 2 (which I now hold)
I have new information (new to me) about the lengths people go to in order to get these pictures, and I now realise that really, anywhere that isn't a locked windowless room is not 'safe' for her.

I came on the thread to explain this position and pass on the information I have gleaned.

I have been educated, and have thus changed my opinion based on new information.

However, you seem to want to want an argument.

BerylStreep Mon 01-Oct-12 22:37:10

Poor woman.

Particularly given that Princess Diana was literally pursued by paps to her death.

I hope they can take legal action which will act as a deterrent in future. What about all these super-injunctions that people get, can they not get one of those?

perfectstorm Tue 02-Oct-12 01:18:20

Mach if you are defending behaviour that, had it occurred in this country, could have earned ten years on the sex offender's register and a year in jail, then you shouldn't be too astonished to get short shrift.

Most people are not sympathetic to victim-blaming in defence of sex offenders.

THERhubarb Tue 02-Oct-12 09:18:25

Mach has changed her opinion perfectstorm. It takes real guts to admit to a change of heart on a thread such as this. Not sure why you insist on having a go at her but I suggest that this reflects rather badly on you.

Kate Middleton is a woman just like any other and should be treated as such. I uphold the rights of any woman to go about her daily business without being subjected to such intrusive and degrading attention. No woman should have indecent photographs taken of them and then published for all the world to see. No woman should become a virtual prisoner in her own home for fear of greedy press.

The only thing we can do is to object loudly and strongly about this and refuse to buy the mags or search for the pictures. Whilst there is demand, people will stoop to new lows.

She has rights like any human being.

niceguy2 Tue 02-Oct-12 10:02:19

She does indeed have rights and I would have thought a reasonable person would have thought she was in private. The villa was nowhere near any public highway and incredibly secluded.

I've seen a photo of the location from where the Pap shot the photos. It was so far away that he must have been carrying a 500mm lens with a 2x teleconverter. In layman's terms it's such a bloody big lens that no reasonable person would have expected that.

Personally I think the whole "Well she should have known better" argument is akin to blaming a rape victim for going out wearing skimpy clothes.

THERhubarb Tue 02-Oct-12 10:51:28

Completely agree niceguy2 and the photographer in question plus the magazine editor should be facing court charges of gross invasion of privacy. If this had been an ordinary member of the public I'm pretty sure they would be arrested. I really don't see what difference it makes her being who she is.

The whole thing is disgusting and incredibly seedy.

perfectstorm Tue 02-Oct-12 10:55:44

Mach I apologise; I posted very late last night and misread your post. I thought you were saying that you would still think it was acceptable to use long lenses and stalk people, but if they were using advanced technology then that would not be okay. Rereading, you were actually making the point that the level of invasion of her privacy is unacceptable in that it would make it impossible for her to ever have a private life at all if deemed acceptable.

I agree that changing your mind on something this polarised is really hard, and I'm sorry I didn't recognise that that was what you've done.

phantomnamechanger Thu 04-Oct-12 20:09:22

This is absolutely disgusting behaviour from the press - no other young married couple in the world would expect to be treated like this and why should they. In any other circumstances the photographer would be thought of as a dirty perv, a peeping tom.
I just hope the 2 of them are strong enough to get through all this sh** and the way they so far have coped with their public lives with all this rubbish going on is really remarkable. Good luck to them both.

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