Advanced search

To not agree with the Sun newspaper publishing photos of Prince Harry naked

(52 Posts)
NewlyMintedPeasant Thu 23-Aug-12 22:19:43

According to the BBC tomorrow the pictures will be in the Sun.

I don't really care too much either way about Harry, but I quite like living in a country where somebody is not allowed to use a long-range lens to photograph an individual in private. If my children were to grow up and become famous (somebody shoot down that pig...) I'd like to think they'd have some respect regarding privacy.

I don't see the public interest in seeing them (well I see the interest bit). It's not this particular incident that bothers me, but the idea that fame means it's ok to publish senstive private details for public titilation. If he was the figure-head for a government drive on sexual morality it'd be relevant, but in this case I don't see how it is.

GreenShadow Thu 23-Aug-12 22:23:32

It wasn't a long range lens though. It was a camera phone from someone else at the party.

PomBearWithAnOFRS Thu 23-Aug-12 22:24:30

I tend to disagree with daily newspapers publishing photos of anyone naked - it's so "in yer face" as they say, and all the casual nudity/page 3/tits out for the lads depresses me.
I don't care the Harry has been cavorting naked with anyone though, he's a young, rich, titled man - he must get mobbed by people simply hurling themselves at him, so it's hardly a surprise when he gets friendly grin with some of them. If he was that bothered about not being caught, he'd keep his pants on. I can see how he might be embarrassed by his father and grandparents seeing the pics, but that would apply to anyone surely?
I still haven't worked out quite why anyone's sex life is classed as news though (apart from something like the Profumo affair of course, which did actually impact on national security)

ToothbrushThief Thu 23-Aug-12 22:25:34

The people buy the Sun are the ones who obviously want it

I'd feel more disgusted with a 'so called friend' who thought it was ok to sell the pics

NewlyMintedPeasant Thu 23-Aug-12 22:27:24

I think pombears you sum it up with the 'I don't care', it's just not fucking news.

peeriebear Thu 23-Aug-12 22:28:02

I LOL'd at the Scum's reasoning that the great British public has a 'right' to see the photos. Why exactly?!

Shinyshoes1 Thu 23-Aug-12 22:28:10

I'm surprise The "Scum" haven't printed the pics already I mean they were quick to tap into the voicemail of dead children and blamed the "hooligans" for that terrible tragedy that was Hillsboro before they backtracked and realised what unreasonable and cunty "journalism " that was

I can't abide the rag and wouldn't even wipe my arse on it

hermioneweasley Thu 23-Aug-12 22:29:05

Someone in the royal family has an arse! And genitals! The nation must be kept informed!

MrsTerryPratchett Thu 23-Aug-12 22:30:49

I'd feel more disgusted with a 'so called friend' who thought it was ok to sell the pics From what I heard he picked up some random girls in a bar. Hardly friends. I don't want to see the pictures but if I was famous and playing strip pool with strangers in the age of camera phones, I would expect exactly what he got.

EarnestDullard Thu 23-Aug-12 22:32:14

I think the Sun's argument that it's "in the public interest" is bullshit. Royal family or not, why is it the public's business if someone wants to be naked, alone or with someone else, is beyond me. It's not news, it's gossip; the Sun knows it will sell copies though.

QuickLookUsainBolt Thu 23-Aug-12 22:33:50

He was in a private room on holiday. We have no right to see what he's up to.

The press killed his mother and they should leave him alone.

ravenAK Thu 23-Aug-12 22:37:01

Really, they're not very shocking photos. He's a young chap, in good shape, & he's not showing much more than he would on the beach in a pair of budgie-smugglers.

If they were photos taken surreptitiously by a gf, say, in the privacy of a hotel bedroom, that'd be different - but he was larking about (& why not?) at a party where camera phones were obviously going to be present. Not the sharpest tool in the box at the best of times, is he?

I don't want to see the photos & I won't be buying the Sun, but no big deal. He's just naked & pratting about with his mates. Hardly a constitutional crisis.

MrsTerryPratchett Thu 23-Aug-12 22:37:14

The press didn't kill his mother. The drunk, drug-impaired driver did.

NewlyMintedPeasant Thu 23-Aug-12 22:39:02

quicklook I hadn't thought of that link, but I now have more personal sympathy for him

QuickLookUsainBolt Thu 23-Aug-12 22:39:57

I'm sure her sons don't think of it like that Mrs

LadyStark Thu 23-Aug-12 22:42:46


The photos are all over the internet, have been for two days now. Any particular reason why print media should refrain from printing things that many online new outlets decide is news?

It's already in the public domain and I like the idea of certain "news" only being available to computer/twitter (injunctions, more than this) literate folks even less than I like it being published full stop.

LadyStark Thu 23-Aug-12 22:44:06

And incidentally I don't think it does his reputation any real harm, most likeable and "in touch with the people" royal we've ever had!

MrsTerryPratchett Thu 23-Aug-12 22:46:10

I'm pretty sure you don't know what her sons think, QuickLookUsainBolt I certainly don't. I hope he doesn't give a shit about this non-story although his grandmother might.

FairPhyllis Thu 23-Aug-12 22:48:42

I agree that publishing the photos is about titillation, but there is a public interest story in the fact that he had such poor judgement as to strip off in front of strangers with cameraphones and predictably end up on the internet (of course that doesn't mean you actually have to show the photos though - typical Sun). He knows he is famous and he can't trust everyone. As an army officer (not to mention member of the RF) it is part of his job not to bring the army into disrepute in his private life.

I do think the ex-editor whining on Newsnight the other night about how Leveson has shackled the press from printing these photos was spectacularly missing the point though. Phone hacking was ILLEGAL. It has always been illegal to use it as a source for stories. This is different - the photos were not obtained illegally or even by paparazzi and Harry could have prevented them from being out there by exercising a little more caution around strangers.

QuickLookUsainBolt Thu 23-Aug-12 22:49:55

I've heard them talk in interviews about their "difficult" relationship with the press because of what happened to their mother.

Of course I not know what they think, but I'm allowed an opinion.

NameChangeGalore Thu 23-Aug-12 22:52:29

I just saw the pics on the tmz website. They've put a star on his bum crack to censor it. Hahaha!

Flisspaps Thu 23-Aug-12 22:53:01

I don't agree with the Sun newspaper full stop.

However, I fail to see how it is any worse than the Sun insisting on publishing photographs of half naked women (or teenagers) on a daily basis.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Thu 23-Aug-12 22:55:16

The thing that gets me about this, is the photos have been published worldwide. Its been discussed around the world and its been discussed in this country. The pictures are all over the internet for anyone who wants to see them.

So I have to say, that I don't see why The Sun shouldn't publish them. To not publish them in this country given the circumstances, is ridiculous. If the rest of the world is discussing the actions of our Prince, then whether we like it or not, it is in the public interest for us to see them and the story be open to debate properly. The story becomes not about the contents of the photo, but about the press and the palace.

Any potential legal action seems completely pointless at this stage. The horse has long since bolted.

I feel sorry for Harry, and he has had his privacy invaded. That utterly wrong. Sadly this is going to have a negative impact on his life. But once its 'out there' there isn't much you can do.

There this phenomenon called the 'Streisand effect' - where an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicising the information even more widely. And thats the thing, the more fuss the palace make about this, in all likelihood the more of a big deal it becomes, and the more there is a demand for more scoops on Harry. I don't believe that the Palace can achieve anything by pursing it, as they have no power outside British shores and they just will end up putting a bigger price on Harry's head ultimately.

Let it blow over and say its not a big deal and the story will go away, because tbh it really is a non-story in the first place.

LaurieFairyCake Thu 23-Aug-12 22:58:22

There's no cock so honestly it doesn't matter - I can't believe anyone has any interest whatsoever in seeing his bum or his bare chest confused

I have no idea why he would get in trouble with his family for this, he's done nothing wrong.

I did that sort of fun thing lots of times,he's a private citizen, he should be left alone.

MmeLindor Thu 23-Aug-12 22:59:01

presumably the half-naked women (if you are talking of the Page 3 girls) have agreed to be photographed, and have received money for doing so.

He has the right to privacy, just like anyone else does. I feel the same way about pictures of any other public figure. I agree with this blogger that it was a complete invasion of his privacy.

Aside from anything else, the pics have been all over the internet for 2 days. Why publish them now? Nothing to do with freedom of press, it is purely to claw back some hits from the DM and sell some print newspapers.

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