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

Perhaps she should also keep her top on so as not to be too in your face with the royal minders. Manners and all that. Poor blokes.

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

No, she didn´t make them available.

She didn´t parade around in public.

She was on secluded private property.

What do you do when you're showering or getting changed? presumably no problem if neighbours climb trees or peak through windows while you do so as you're (and I'm baffled we're all now using this as an accepted phrase) making your tits available?

Perhaps not, then. As I said, I'm not an expert. The Voyeurism section looked to me as thought it would cover that. In any case, it happened in France so the law might be different.

But the argument still stands, as a moral one.

I hope that all those who talk of covering up take their showers and craps fully clothed, then. Anybody could be looking in your window. She was on private property.

Did you not know that there are two types of women

1. those who make their tits available
2. those who don't

We put the second group in their place by making sure they know that we are only interested in their tits and we will try to see them

The others we just call sluts

But hey, if you choose to make your tits available what do you expect?

Victim blaming. YABVVU.

Your bafflement is shared mayorquimby.

YABVU.She was on private property.She did nothing wrong. That said even if she was in public I still don't believe that it'd be acceptable to take photos and publish them.

The attitudes of many on this thread are disgusting,and very worrying,if not surprising.Are these the same people who blame women who have been sexually harassed because they might have worn a low cut top,or had a few drinks,and therefore were 'asking for it'?

YABVU

The laws on papparazi is far too lax inmho as they have no moral code. I think there should be at least a Europe wide law on this sort of behaviour (papparazi not Kate).

The future wife of the King of England (and the rest of the Royals) should be able to swing butt naked from the chandeliers without any intrusion of this sort.

With regard to a poster earlier up thread. Harry may well have invited people back to play 'strip pool' but he was still within his rights NOT to have any photographs taken of him in this situation as would you or I.

There desparately needs to be some control over what these morally corrupt paps and editors print, at least picture wise.

yabvu

Yellowtips, I imagine the royal minders would be discreet and give them as much space as possible without compromising their safety. Poor Catherine. I can't imagine what it must be like to have your every moment scrutinised like that. After what happened to William's mother you would have thought the paparazzi would have learned a lesson.

Poor girl.

Hideous thread title and also a hideous assertion.

"With regard to a poster earlier up thread. Harry may well have invited people back to play 'strip pool' but he was still within his rights NOT to have any photographs taken of him in this situation as would you or I."

Not sure if that's strictly true. If you invite people in to a party, then unless explicitly stated as a term of their entry, I'd say it's reasonable to expect people to take photos.
Once that has occured they own the photos and, while far from being a nice thing to do, it would not be an unforeseen expectation that they may do things you may not like with those photos.

The Daily Mail has conveniently forgotten its vow never again to use paparazzi photographs after Diana died.

All those saying this is ok - have you any idea how triggering all this could be for Prince William? Poor poor him as well.

Nancy66 are you a journalist?

Sorry if I've got that wrong, but if I'm correct it's no wonder you are trying to justifying this vile behaviour.

Why should anyone have to adapt their behaviour in their private life just in case some scummy little weasel invades their personal freedom in order to take a photograph?

Instead of criticising the subject of the photograph, any criticism should be levelled at the media that encourages this invasive behaviour.

'However, she is now a royal, therefore it is NU to expect her to do/not to do certain things that are in line with her status.'

Including expecting her to never remove her clothing whilst in private? What an absurd statement

lubey
YABU OP private holiday should not even be making news.

QuickLookBusy- we need to draw a distinction between "journalist" and "hack" for these purposes. Most real journos wouldn't touch this bollox with a bargepole, and in fact a massive "DISCLAIMER: it's nothign to do with us" has gone round Bauer media today from UK Closer magazine who are clarifying that they're practically unrelated:

"Statement on behalf of Closer magazine UK:

Closer magazine UK is published by Bauer Consumer Media. The French edition meanwhile is published under a licence by a totally different company, an Italian business called Mondadori.

Closer magazine UK would like to make it clear that the two publications make entirely independent editorial decisions. In this respect the comments made by the Editor of the French edition which have reported in the media today do not reflect the opinions of Closer magazine UK. Closer magazine UK was not offered any pictures of this nature and certainly has no intention of publishing the photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge which have been published in France this morning. Closer magazine UK takes its obligations under the PCC Code extremely seriously and would never publish topless images of a member of the Royal family on its cover or otherwise."

Yes of course you are.

She's got tits and she's entitled to have them out in the sun IN A PRIVATE PLACE without some creepy stalky git photographing them without her knowledge.

The stalker who photographed her without her knowledge or consent and the people who published the photos without her consent, should be arrested and charged with stalking offences.

She wasn't on a public beach, she was on private property.

People don't have the right to invade each other's privacy like this, however famous one of the people might be.

Yes it's not exactly Pulitzer Prize stuff is it? It's grubby and base and really there is no justification for it. Just be honest hacks, and say "this grubby tat pays the leccy bill if you don't like it". Because there's no higher purpose here.

Dog legal is different from moral. The photographer was in it for a quick buck, not sexual gratification.

As far as the whole Kate and Diana nexus goes, perhaps the press should also stop making direct comparisons between those two - that really must weird Will out (the papers have done it again today).

Btw is she having a baby or not?

I'm not justifying it - the pics must have been taken on private property and must have involved the use of a very long lens.

I dont' agree with the pictures being taken or published - i just think she was a bit stupid for being outside topless.