Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Kate Middleton should have kept her tits in

745 replies

moogster1a · 14/09/2012 07:34

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

OP posts:
Pagwatch · 14/09/2012 10:49

My ds2 wanto write and go into journalism. He just said stories like this make him embarrassed.
He said two things that interested me

A) he hates the fact that some journos defend it but they probably have to justify the small minded tit-fest world some of them have to operate in.and if you are happy to phone tap then perhaps you should re examine your moral compass.

And B) rather than fines why can't the recourse be that the editor and senior newspaper staff have to pose for a tits or penis photo shoot themselves.

You know, ake the punishment fit the crime and all that

TheBigJessie · 14/09/2012 10:50

So where does it stop? A young lady married a man who was born into a famous family. That young lady's sister now has the press obsessing over her. That young lady's mother has had the press snooping about when she was on holiday.

What should they all have done to prevent it?

ConferencePear · 14/09/2012 10:50

This is a disgrace. If Kate, or anyone else for that matter, can't behave naturally when just her husband is around we are heading for a sorry state.
She may be a public figure, but that doesn't mean that every corner of her life should be available for all to see.

Nancy66 · 14/09/2012 10:51

she hasn't been the victim of a sexual offence. Someone took her picture. Get a grip.

GlassofRose · 14/09/2012 10:51

If you don't want the world to see your tits, then don't make them available.

I don't topless sunbathe A) because I wouldn't want burnt thrupneys or the chance of ending up with skin cancer on them. B) because I don't want the public to see my boobs.

If I went topless in my garden any one of my neighbours would have the right to get out their camera and take a picture on the sly, it's not something I could control. Kate isn't special, she shouldn't have any special privacy rights.

Pippa Middleton was papped topless on a boat with Kate... if Kate didn't learn from that then naive is the politest word for her.

EldritchCleavage · 14/09/2012 10:52

Weirdy victim-blaming OP.

TheDogDidIt · 14/09/2012 10:53

Nancy - yes, she has. Or would have been, if it had happened in the UK. Check the Voyeurism section of the Sexual Offences act (section 67 or 68 - I don't want to Google again. That might help you "get a grip" on the facts of the matter.

Chubfuddler · 14/09/2012 10:53

They wouldn't have the right to do that actually GlassRose.

WhatYouLookingAt · 14/09/2012 10:53

How are they available in a private garden? Hmm

If I shimmy up your drainpipe and take pictures of you dressing and publish them, is that ok, because you "made them available"?

EldritchCleavage · 14/09/2012 10:53

If I went topless in my garden any one of my neighbours would have the right to get out their camera and take a picture on the sly, it's not something I could control

Doing that could be4 a civil wrong, like nuisance. And publishing such a photo would definitely be a civil wrong: misuse of private information.

Ormiriathomimus · 14/09/2012 10:54

Rubbish. She was on private land, on her hols with her husband. Of course she should if she so wished.

However the real battle will be won when something so banal as 'Royal woman has breasts!' will not be newsworthy.

Chubfuddler · 14/09/2012 10:54

I suppose you have to blame the victims of this kind of intrusion nancy, don't you, otherwise you'd be forced to accept just how sordid your kind can be.

diddl · 14/09/2012 10:55

"If you don't want the world to see your tits, then don't make them available."

She didn´t, did she?

If I sunbathe topless in my garden, the only way a neighbour could get a photo where anything could be seen would be to stand on something & take it over the fence.

And I don´t have a big garden.

So how did they get such a photo of Kate if they weren´t invited into the grounds?

theinets · 14/09/2012 10:55

I hope the pics are published in the sun, just to show even handedness with regard to publishing of Harry photos.

diddl · 14/09/2012 10:56

But Harry had invited people into his room to strip with him.

GlassofRose · 14/09/2012 10:58

Chubbfuddler -

If I was half naked in my garden I would have no idea who was looking, taking pictures... if they wanted to take them and even publish them, I would think more fool me to be honest.

If you don't want the world to see your tits, don't give the world the option. It really is simple.

GlassofRose · 14/09/2012 10:58

diddl -

Yes she did, nobody can take a topless photo if you keep your tits covered up Hmm

Mintyy · 14/09/2012 10:59

The ignorant, ill thought-out, victim blaming on this thread disgusts me, it honestly does. Ffs. And the thread title is vile.

Thank goodness the vast majority of posters on this thread disagree with op.

WhatYouLookingAt · 14/09/2012 11:00

You didn't answer my question GlassofRose.

EldritchCleavage · 14/09/2012 11:00

How available are you making your tits, exactly, if the photographer has to scale a wall, hike a couple of miles in great secrecy and then hide himself away for a good while waiting for you to come out of the house so he can get his photo, using the world's biggest telephoto lens so he can get the shot from maybe a mile away?

Same scenario as the Fergie toe-sucking photos. She got blamed for that too, as though she was doing it in the middle of Green Park. Criticise Kate for being naive all you want, but please don't say she was giving anyone an easy opportunity to photograph her. Getting pictures like this is like doing an SAS training exercise.

EverybodysDoeEyed · 14/09/2012 11:00

There was a story recently of a guy who took photos up girls skirts when behind them on an escalator. I believe he was convicted

Or was it the fault of the girls for wearing short skirts?

fluffyraggies · 14/09/2012 11:01

Posted about this much earlier and have come back and read through.

Allot of posters are saying "for all you saying its ok she was photographed ... ".

No one here has actually said it was ok for her to be photographed. We have however mulled over the possibility that she was being naive to be 'shocked', 'surprised' or 'disapionted' that it happened. That's subtlety different.

The only debate here is surely about whether or not knowing this type of thing happens should prevent a royal from relaxing as a normal person would. There's no debate about the fact that they should be allowed a private life. Of course they should.

The hard fact remains - and this is something unarguable really - that if there wasn't money to be made from sneaking about in bushes taking pics of people doing private things in private, then the sneaking would all but stop.

Yellowtip · 14/09/2012 11:02

Dog s67 wouldn't cover it. She's not the victim of a sexual offence.

Chubfuddler · 14/09/2012 11:02

The world doesn't have the option of seeing your tits if you're sunbathing in your garden unless the world decides to take a prurient and unjustifiable interest in doing so.

Victim blaming. It's foul. It's wrong. And if the little voice in your head that makes you do this is dating if you follow all these rules, don't uncover, don't walk home alone at night, don't get in a mini cab you haven't booked, then you will be ok because it's only stupid people bad things happen to - switch that little voice off. It's not true.

Chubfuddler · 14/09/2012 11:03

*saying

Swipe left for the next trending thread