To think Kate Middleton should have kept her tits in

[moogster1a]

Surely she can't be unaware that she's one of the most photographed women in the world and there are paparazzi everywhere.
I know in an ideal lovely world she should be able to skinny dip in privacy, but in the real world I think she is being a bit naiive to go topless and then be so upset when the pictures are published

So all of you who think it's fine to publish would be ok with someone taking pictures of you getting undressed through your bedroom window? And putting them online?

Many people are no interested/slightly appalled but they buy the newspaper they normally would, for the sake of the rest of the contents.
Not sure I agree Jessie, if you consider the Daily Mail or the Sun, the rest of the paper is utter crap.
In fact for some of the papers, even if they have to pay damages, they are still quids in for the free publicity.

Yabvu.
I'm disgusted that these photographers are sneaking around taking photos of them in a private home. Someone should get sued for spying on them in my opinion. It's like stalking.

Valium - it is exactly the same. Same principle exactly.

The people who buy magazines with these photos in them are the source of the problem.

The skank photographer and the shite publishers are just the means by which these people get to ogle at a woman's breast without her permission.

People will buy the magazines. And defend it with an argument which is really the moral equivalent of 'she was asking for it'

The fact that women buy this fetid shite baffles me. I wonder if they make it her fault because a tiny bit of them knows it is actually their fault.

YABU. She shouldn't have to cower and live in fear, behaving like public property, especially in private. She did nothing wrong and all disapproval should be reserved for those taking and publishing these images. No woman should be treated like this, objectified and exploited for financial gain, reduced to a pair of breasts, especially without their consent.

Don't know about the Sun, but I know Daily Mail readers who buy it for the contents, and honestly aren't interested in the invasive pictures of whatever celebrity is on the front.

YABVVVU

I'm pretty cynical when it comes to all things media but this leaves a REALLY bad taste in my mouth. The poor woman was on a private holiday, in a very very private location. Why should she have to expect that her privacy be breached at any point, anywhere, no matter what? I feel awful for them. First William & Harry's mum, now W's wife.

I hope they are able to sue the pants off this magazine and (if they can find out who it is) the paparazzo that took these revolting shots and the photo agency that s/he works for. And I hope people who live in France and would be able to buy this magazine have enough decency and taste NOT to buy this magazine, so that their sales take a dip this issue.

Taking photos like a peeping tom and then publishing them for the purposes of trouser-rubbing titillation and muddying her character >> smacks of vindictive sexual exploitation to me.

yes pagwatch. She was asking for it.

She had them out so was asking to be papped.

Just like the defence of so many attackers - she was drunk/wearing a short skirt/out late at night - so she was asking for it.

Where does it end and where do people's rights to liberty begin

So to those few of you who think that it's ok for her to get photographed, do you think the following scenario is acceptable -

You are on holiday in a villa you have rented and your ex decides to sneak onto the property (tresspassing) and use a long lense to take photo's of you getting changed into a swimsuit or coming out of the shower. They then pass these photo's around all their mates then put them on the internet for all to see.

You would find that acceptable? Because no matter who they are, I beleive that on holiday, as long as you are not doing anything illegal you have the right to privacy.

I hope that, considering France have strong privacy laws, they sue the arse of the photographer and the magazine. Quite frankly any woman who buys this shit disgusts me (and no I don't buy these magazines because I quite like women in general).

If someone chose to publish photos of me semi naked in my garden I'd be mortified (my DH probably even more so on my behalf so I can't imagine how they feel as a couple).
I'm proud of my body, I'm comfortable naked (warts and all) and yet I should be able to relax that I can do this in private. This comfort should extend to everyone in this nation.
Appalling to publish.
YABU

Absolutely Pagwatch
It's all very well to say "oooooh it's really bad of the paps" but if you have ever bought a magazine/paper with "unauthorised" photos, you don't have a leg to stand on.
FWIW I don't buy any now but have very occasionally in the past.

"Photographing someone topless on private property without their permission, and then publicising the photos for money, is an assault: arguably a sexual one."

I agree it's a violation and an offence, but I'm struggling to think how you would class it as an assault. There's been no application of force or any energy to her person or a threat of such force being applied.
I hope the publication get sued and the award makes such practices prohibitively expensive for any other rag going forward.

If it was me, I would be so pissed off and worried that even in privacy there could be some low-life pap fiddling with their lens waiting for me unaware. You cannot relax ever with that in your head.

And those who 'think' like the OP should be truly ashamed of themselves.

Thinking about it a few years back a friend of mine took a photo of prince William coming out of a portaloo. I made her delete it there and then, and apologised.

mayor, I don't know the legal situation as regards assault/voyeurism, so perhaps that isn't the right term (although I would certainly feel that I'd been assaulted, because of the lack of consent).

At the very least it is a violation of a woman's privacy with a high level of sexual prurience.

I agree OP - little sympathy.

For as much as I'm prepared to Google, it's a violation of the voyeurism section of the Sexual Offences act. Of course, it was in France, not the UK.

Nancy - shame on you as well, then.

Exactly Pancakeflipper.

It would be frightening wouldn't it? To never be able to feel that you are not being watched by somebody, no matter what lengths you go to.

Can we just clarify, then.

A young British woman on holiday in France has been the victim of what, under UK law, is a sexual offence.

And some of you are saying that SHE should have been careful.

Suing the publishers isn't enough. The photographer should face criminal charges. As somebody who climbed a ladder and looked in your bedroom window presumably would.

'Actually it's the paparazzi who should keep their lenses in rather than her having to change her behaviour in private.'

Exactly. YABU