Is this correct, pictures published of Kate knickerless?

[MrsjREwing]

DM can't have this righ can they?

[Bonsoir]

While I feel very sorry for Kate to have pictures of her nude available to anyone on the internet, I do think she was a bit naïve to take her top and bottom off outside. I mean, she does presumably realise she is Global Paparazzi Target Numero Uno...

[THERhubarb]

What if this were you?

What if you discovered that someone had taken pictures of you topless and changing your bikini bottoms? How would you feel? How would your partner feel?

Just because she is married to Prince William does not mean that she should be subjected to humiliation and gross infringement of privacy.

I am no royalist and would quite like to see them piss orf, but she is a woman like any other and just like any other woman, she should not have to suck it up when people decide to take indecent photos of her. It's almost dehumanising her as if to say, 'well she's a royal, not a real person, so it doesn't matter, she has to expect it.'

[Machadaynu]

You can't have it all.

You can't be next in line to the throne, young, good-looking and of interest to millions of people and expect people not to take pictures if you take your clothes off where you can be seen from a public place.

I would have thought it likely she could stretch to a beach tent to get changed in.

[THERhubarb]

She was on a balcony I believe. The last time she was snapped they were holidaying in a remote villa, miles from anywhere. I fail to see what else you can do bar lock yourself indoors and close the curtains. No doubt they hoped that the injunction they got along with the potential fine for the photographer would put off any more rubberneckers.

I find it interesting that when photos like this come out, the blame is transferred to her for trying to lead a normal life and not onto the photographer. It's HER fault for being attractive. HER fault for marrying a Prince. HER fault for being young. Kinda sounds like jealousy and victim-blame.

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

She married the man she loved.

In doing so she gave up her privacy and her life to attending royal functions.

But she did not give up her right to not have intrusive men taking indecent images and publishing them for the world to see.

[ImpYCelyn]

Oh God, that poor woman. What a month she's having

What really pisses me off is that French celebs are always sunbathing topless in just a string, and are always on the cover of French mags, but never with a "topless so-and-so - look you can see her nips!" headline, just "so-and-so relaxes on holiday" (or whatever other sideline activity they were up to). But because she's British and everyone "knows" we're uptight about nudity and don't get our kit off on the beach they've made a big song and dance about it. It's got feck all to do with public interest, it's not public interest when it's Vanessa Paradis, they just want to humiliate her.

[Machadaynu]

I didn't say it was her fault.

It's society's fault for being interested - and we are - there have been many threads on here about these pictures: essentially grown adults typing words about pictures most of us haven't seen - pictures which do nothing other than confirm that a grown woman has breasts.

If we as a society weren't interested, there would be no pictures.

But then if we as a society weren't interested in the monarchy, there'd be no monarchy either.

It's not her fault it has happened, but it is an inevitable consequence of her being semi-naked where she can be seen. There are many things she could have done to prevent it - not get changed, go somewhere more private. (The villa where we went on honeymoon was more private then theirs - it was on a hillside and the pool had a wall around it, so they only way you could be seen by the pool was if someone got a very tall ladder - was pretty cheap too, so I'm sure they could have done better)

I'm tempted to say that it's so obviously a consequence that she might not actually care that much about it, but I fear that might be going too far.

[THERhubarb]

Yes, it is public humiliation and yet here you have women saying that she deserves it or brought it on herself. So just how far would that argument stretch? How about if they took a photo of her in her bedroom? Or would she be naive for leaving the curtains open in a remote holiday home?

Is this woman now fair game for naked pictures taken without her consent to be leered at by all and sundry? Have all her rights to decency simply vanished? Will she be forever blamed for a photographer with a long lens?

[THERhubarb]

x-posts but I still disagree.

You seem to imply that she should spend all her money in a virtual fortress on holiday? She changed her bikini bottoms underneath a towel. Hardly a crime is it? She's on holiday after a royal tour, she's not a prisoner. She should not have to take such extreme measures to stop these perverted snoops from photographing her. She has the same rights as every woman and therefore the law ought to protect her as it does us.

[Machadaynu]

She has got the same rights as everyone else - it's legal to take pictures of people in public. Note that I don't say that's the same as moral.

There is just a lot more interest of pictures of her because of her position. There's not so much money to be made in pictures of Angela from accounts, but I suspect if you do an image search for women on beaches or similar you will find plenty of images of women on beaches.

She doesn't need tp "spend all her money on a virtual fortress" - the villa I mentioned was £1200 for a fortnight, for two, including flights and car hire (albeit 13 years ago) There was no way anyone could have overlooked the pool without a lens so long it would have distorted time. As heir to the throne she had access to rather more money than that.

[edam]

It's not legal to take pictures of people when they are somewhere where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, actually.

[edam]

Not in the UK, anyway, and not in France where their privacy laws are even more strict - yet the penalty for ignoring them is relatively small compared with what paps can make by selling these.

[Machadaynu]

which is what I said earlier.

I would argue that, given the obvious public interest, she can't reasonably have an expectation of privacy if she is visible from a public place.

[1605]

This was a sexual offence against a young woman.

It doesn't matter who that woman is.

NO woman should have pictures of her vulva in the public domain unless she has explicitly chosen to put them there herself.

It doesn't matter who she is, and I hope the police are involved PDQ, because this is a criminal offence and not a civil one.

[1605]

I would have thought 300 metres away from a public road, behind a 6 foot perimeter wall, would satisfy anyone's standards of privacy, Macha

[1605]

WHAT is the public interest in someone else's growler, MAcha?

Naked pictures so that grubby men can jack off to a princess?

[CotherMuckingFunt]

I don't give a shit what the law is. It is utterly disgusting that someone has taken these photos and even more disgusting that another person has chosen to publish them.

They are sick bastards. As someone said upthread, I'd love to see how they'd react if it was their wife/daughter/husband/son. Sick.

[Machadaynu]

I didn't say it was in the public interest.

I said the public is interested. That isn't the same thing.

The public is interested therefore there is a market for the images therefore there would surely be an expectation on the part of the house of Windsor that they would be taken if possible?

[grimbletart]

This is the same attitude of some towards e.g. rape - "she was in a bar", "she was drunk", she had a short skirt on and was walking late at night" i.e. victim blaming/naivety etc.

It doesn't matter what you could or could not expect - the fault is with the person committing the offence -100%.

Yes, it's not unlawful to take a photograph from a public road. The bastards doing this could not have seen this unless they were aliens with special long range eyesight.

The fact that it needed exception long range camera lens means they didn't just stumble across the situation by accident. They had to a) find out where she was and b) lie in wait with long range lens for an opportunity.

Sick, money grabbing wankers.

[perfectstorm]

A guy who took photos of a couple in a ground floor flat with curtains open having sex, and showed people at the pub those pictures, was jailed for a year and put on the sex offenders register for a decade last year. He took the images from a place he had a right to be, as he was visiting someone who lived in the same building. Doesn't make it legal at all. It's a sexual crime, as the requirement to register on the SOR indicates. Though it may not matter if he is on the Register or not, as he is currently on remand for murder. He is alleged to have stabbed someone to death at a party, shortly after being released for the sexual offence. Nice chap.

Cannot fathom how or why people are blaming the victim of a sexual offence for her being treated this way. I can't see many on MN rushing to blame the victim in any other offence that could earn ten years on the register, plus a year in jail. She's a human being and deserves the same support and sympathy as anyone else. I am a republican btw.

And it sounds from the comments as if she used a towel to shield herself from staff/visitors in case someone wandered past, because she couldn't possibly know that a stalker was precisely opposite, almost a mile away. Horrible. Makes you shiver - imagine a creepy shit watching you get changed in your room in daytime when you have a big garden and assumed nobody could see - but they are using binoculars? Vile.

[Machadaynu]

I'v ejust read that paps are using teachniques I didn't know about, such as flying drones with cameras about. Obviously this means that anywhere outdoor is not 'safe'

I had thought it was still just a case of hanging about with a long lens, which I don't think is a good thing, but getting upset about it is a little like getting upset that people can be selfish.

The drones thing though is a different level.

I've never blamed her for it, I've just said that I think it's inevitable such pictures would emerge if it was possible to get them, and perhaps she should have taken more precautions. However,I hadn't realised what lengths they were going to in order to get them. if they are sending in drones then there isn't much you can do and she has my sympathies.

[SoupDragon]

Saying that she should have taken more precautions is blaming her. At least in some part.

[Machadaynu]

If something is foreseeable and you do nothing to prevent it, you are partially to blame.

For example, if I leave a cup of water in the middle of the front room it will get knocked over. It's partly the fault of the person who knocks it over, but it's also partly my fault for leaving it there - probably mainly my fault actually.

My point was I assumed the paps were still basically using a camera and a long lens as they have done for decades, thus the pictures were forseeable.

However, I've come back on the thread to change my point because I know now they use more than just a long lens, they use drones -basically a little unmanned helicopter with a camera on. That seems to make nowhere private, and things a lot less predictable, so I now have much more sympathy for her.

[SoupDragon]

So you are blaming her for it then.

[SoupDragon]

The only person to blame is the sick little wanker who took the photos.