Advanced search

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?

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