Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Duchess Catherine photographed topless...A breach of privacy? Options · View
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:32:38 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,416
Location: My Tower, United States
Vanellus wrote:


Exactly!!!!

Especially her. She had a choice. He can arguably say he was born into it without much choice. But if she wanted to be an obscure private married woman, she could have been. Very easily.


so... she falls in love with this guy, who happens to be a prince, are you seriously advocate that she not marry him simply for that reason? sorry, but i feel in love with a girl and i'd be with her if she was royalty or if she was dirt poor. i could never just walk away because of her position in life.

as for the breach of privacy thing, so, everyone here is ok if some guy is standing on the other side of the fence, taking picture with a fancy camera of you naked and sending them to a stroke mag for publication and getting paid for them? isn't that basically the same thing? what do you say when your mom calls and asks 'why are there pictures of you in Penthouse?

food for thought.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:18:48 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,818
Here's how I see it:

1) The photographer was clearly trespassing. This is unacceptable and should absolutely be dealt with by the law.

2) Yes, their privacy was breached - but this is to be expected if you are in the public eye...which leads on to point 3...

3) She was an absolutely fool to take her top off anywhere someone might be able to see her.

4) The royal family are right to take a stand about this. They have to - it could save them a lot of hassle with the press in the future.
nazhinaz
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:47:49 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


That makes perfect sense. Stop living your life because people think they're entitled to know everything you do 24/7. There's really no excuse. She's not whining. She has her rights. All she did was marry a prince. That makes it ok to violate her?? I can't stand when people try to justify blatantly violating people's privacy just because they're famous. They're not whining, you'd be pissed off too. It's not about stats or their money. It's about her right to PRIVACY.

I fully endorse you.
Invasion of privacy is as bad or rather worse than invasion of private property.
If a person was fortunately or unfortunately born in a family of celebrities, does he lose all rights as normal human beings?
Will he lose his right to own protery tomorrow? Will he lose the right to defend himself or his family?
Absolutely not.
We should condemn all those paparazie who are invading private lives of any one.
overmykneenow
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:01:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,017
Location: United Kingdom
Technically, the article is incorrect - they aren't suing the publication but they are insisting that police start criminal proceedings

The French law on privacy is much stricter than UK or US laws and can lead to imprisonment of those responsible for taking the pictures and those who publish it (if they're based in France)



Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
swollen
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:33:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/27/2010
Posts: 1,001
overmykneenow wrote:
Technically, the article is incorrect - they aren't suing the publication but they are insisting that police start criminal proceedings

The French law on privacy is much stricter than UK or US laws and can lead to imprisonment of those responsible for taking the pictures and those who publish it (if they're based in France)



Even if they were suing the publication, the fine administered, would invariably be far less than it's additional gross sales for showing her 'pups' in the first place. Win-Win is it not?
overmykneenow
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:17:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,017
Location: United Kingdom
swollen wrote:


Even if they were suing the publication, the fine administered, would invariably be far less than it's additional gross sales for showing her 'pups' in the first place. Win-Win is it not?


Almost certainly, though it's a dangerous game with the threat of a 12 month stretch hanging over the magazine's editor and the photographer

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
Ruthie
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:47:11 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,304
Location: United States
stickyvix wrote:


Urmm, Kates husband is a Helicopter Pilot in the RAF, so easily able to support her. Her parents run their own business, she doesn't have a silver spoon.

And I think it is quite plain to see that the revenue from the royal wedding - and I mean the money people spent on having a good time over that weekend in the UK, as well as all the additional tourism and global publicity that came from that one event - more than covers the costs that these 2 have generated since that day.

Every member of the ROyal family deserve privacy, just like you or I do. SO get off your bigoted soapbox and understand what they actually do.


They actually suck off the public teat from the day they're born until the day they die. Kate's husband is a parasite just like his mother and every other member of every royal family on the planet. There is no reason to have kings and queens, dukes, earls, princes, princesses, in the 21st century. It doesn't matter if they're in the UK or Saudi Arabia or Sweden, none of them deserve anything but our contempt.

Do you suppose that Kate's husband got his commission in the RAF through merit? If he had been born in a working class family in Knowsley would he be an officer in the RAF? A perfect world would be a perfect meritocracy where the position of one's birth didn't limit their potential or insure it, but the UK isn't even a flawed meritocracy when it comes to the royal family and the aristocracy.

One in four children in the UK live in poverty. The total cost of the monarchy is £220 million a year including security. The queen is exempt from freedom of information disclosure though, so nobody knows the true cost of keeping up the royal family. She controls billions in property, and at least £10 billion in art. She is the largest landowner on earth. Did she get all this wealth by working hard for it? No. She was born to it. Her father was born to it.

Kate was photographed while staying at the French chateau of Lord Linely, the queen's cousin. How many RAF officer's wives have sunbathed topless there? How much does it cost for security to make sure that William and Harry don't come to harm when they're with their military units? It's absurd to believe that either of them just gets thrown into combat with the other troops. How many young men would the RAF sacrifice to insure that William doesn't get injured or killed?
Find some figures to prove that the amount of income derived from tourism exceeds the amount of money spent on the upkeep, security, housing, maintenance and property of the royal family that would be above the amount of tourism generated just by the properties and art works alone enough to support the royal family and justify aristocracy. Do you think tourism in the UK would suddenly cease if there ceased to be a monarchy? Wouldn't people still go to see all those old castles and works of art that are now in the Queens hands if they were owned by the people of the UK instead?

I don't think that the Royal Family should exist at all, but if they're going to exist they might as well provide some amusement.
Dani
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:06:46 AM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,614
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
Oh give it a rest already. The whole "I'm bitter and the royal family sucks" bit is getting quite aggravating.

Can anybody justify breaching someone's privacy for entertainment and monetary gain? I'll wait...



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

She
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:05:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,129
Location: Europe
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:

Can anybody justify breaching someone's privacy for entertainment and monetary gain? I'll wait...

I don't think anyone in this thread denied that their privacy was breached. Privacy, voting, breathing.. is not questionable, shouldn't be debatable and it is mandatory.

However, being a public figure, specially if you are part of royal club, you have protocols, lists of rules and obligations.. I couldn't read the whole op article, I never read interview with queen to be, so I didn't want to call her stupid in the first place, but if you are princess you should know that you are (unfortunately for her) 24/7 on the watch. It is just how it is, because of the people, like paparazzi, who are feeding people's curiosity (and I am not one of them). To me this whole thing still looks like fishing for publicity or if you want, she is stupid enough to think that in the country where her husband's mother was chased into death by paparazzi (at least I think that happened, but correct me if wrong) she can parade topless without consequences. It is simple physic rule, for every action there is reaction :)


swollen
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:09:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/27/2010
Posts: 1,001
overmykneenow wrote:


Almost certainly, though it's a dangerous game with the threat of a 12 month stretch hanging over the magazine's editor and the photographer


The French imprison their own for violating the privacy of a British Royal??!! We both know that's never going to happen.
SITTING
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:57:17 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 700
Location: Leeds, United Kingdom
I think it's RIDICULOUS. Ok, so Kate's hot and we all like hearing about her, but a bloody long-lens-snooping camera-journalist?! Shocking!

Check out my competition entry below!
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:05:40 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
swollen wrote:


The French imprison their own for violating the privacy of a British Royal??!! We both know that's never going to happen.



Agreed on that one, or at least I hope so!

I heard about the Royal family trying to stop publication of the photos through the French court system. I do think it's sad that their privacy was breached, but it's the same kind of sadness I feel about, say, hypocrisy or air pollution: things that exist, and will exist, no matter how self-righteous we choose to be about it. This is the way the paparazzi and the consumer society rolls. Everyone wants to see tits, ass, and dick, so of course there are cameras at every possible angle to capture whatever they can. No use whining about privacy, we all know that this is what happens when you disrobe within camera-shot of anyone at all.

Perhaps, as I've seen written, France simply has harsher laws on candid photos like this, but otherwise and nevertheless: take your lumps and let this be a lesson to you, Royals. I know that many of life's rules apply to everyone but you, but some inalienable right to not be subject to unscrupulous profiteering and privacy invasion isn't one of them. Don't get naked outside, and none of this happens to begin with. The rules of common decency don't stand a chance against the rules of capitalism. You ought to know that.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 9:52:28 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,818
I'm sick and tired of her complaining that she doesn't have privacy or her rights are being made fun of...DUH!! Grow UP! Bitch!! She's been a party girl since day one...why make her into an imagine of a virgin girl all of a sudden???!!! She wanted to be part of the British Royal Family..she should've behaved before hand...she wanted this life..so live with it...good..rotten..or whathaveyou!!!
deadlogger
Posted: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:08:36 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/2/2012
Posts: 18
Location: United Kingdom
Without media all celebrities are dead in the water. The media won't expose what you want exposed simply because that has very limited interest and won't boost their sales. So those who want to be known can't have it both ways.

Beware if you want to be famous you may well turn out infamous.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:55:35 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,818
She wrote:
Why is it sad?

They wanted fame, they wanted money that comes with fame, so.. I have no sympathy for their whining how they have no privacy. They have chosen their lifestyle, they are more than well paid for it, so they need to suck it up with consequences of the lifestyle they have chosen. The same goes for 'poor royalty' living off their taxpaying people's money. If you want to be a princess, living off someones money, than sweetie, suck it up and act like princess. If it's inappropriately to be topless, than she shouldn't be topless where people can see her.




I agree with She..Dutchess should not of been topless where people could see her and take pictures. She was asking for trouble.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.