Kate middle issue, royal family sues, and freedom of the press problem

[starkey]

look like 2 poached eggs hanging from nails, not impressed at all.

[Deleted]

Freedom of press won't hold a foot in this case.

It's still illegal to invade a private secluded place and take pictures without someone's consent and post it in a magazine.

---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 12:24 PM ----------

That is Harry, not the entire Royal Family. All the Queen does is sit on her fat lazy arse.


Also, the only thing Harry accomplishes by being in Afghanistan is to put his fellow men in increased danger. He's awesome but his contribution is laughable at best. Ever seen Saving Private Ryan? That's Harry....

Do you really think they gonna put royals at dangerous front lines and risk their lives?

You must be pretty naive to even believe Harry could be a hero because he won't even get a chance to be one for his own safety.

[ashblond]

I don't care whether she's royal or not, you shouldn't just be able to take naked photographs of people then sell them via your newspaper without their consent.

Unfortunately, this happens everyday, on newspaper, tv, internet etc..

If what you said is true, the majority of today's journalists should already be in prison or be shot by now.

[Deleted]

Highest possible punishment is like £10k a lawyer said.

1 year jail aswell, you do know your facts sir. /sarcasm

[Deleted]

Oh come on. She got her top off and acts surprised when somebody managed to snag a photo?

[Deleted]

Do you really think they gonna put royals at dangerous front lines and risk their lives?

You must be pretty naive to even believe Harry could be a hero because he won't even get a chance to be one for his own safety.

That's exactly my point Einstein. Harry is a waste of space in Afghanistan. All he accomplishes is to put OTHER PEOPLE in danger.

I don't see why his life is any more valuable than anyone else's.

[semaphore]

That is Harry, not the entire Royal Family.

Nice job ignoring 75%of my post. I mentioned two other non-Harry-in-Afghanistan examples.

All the Queen does is sit on her fat lazy arse.

She 86 years old.

[Kalis]

Semaphore you really are proof of the brainwashed royalist zealots that perpetuate this defunct family.
Really hope we vote YES in 2014...

There's a lot of English people that hope you vote 'yes' as well - if you do go, is there any chance of taking Liverpool with you?

[Deleted]

"Royal Family"......give me a damn break. They don't even do anything for the country anymore.

They do a lot tbh.

[Dazzy]

If she was topless in a place that could be seen easily by a camera lens without going to extremes, I see no problem with it.

By going to extremes I mean having to use a 60000x zoom lens or helicopter, something along those lines.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Nice job ignoring 75%of my post. I mentioned two other non-Harry-in-Afghanistan examples.


She 86 years old.

86 years old and still has over 500 appointments per year. That is over two a day, not including weekends. How many 86 year olds do you know that are still working 21 years after most people have retired?

---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 03:02 PM ----------

If she was topless in a place that could be seen easily by a camera lens without going to extremes, I see no problem with it.

By going to extremes I mean having to use a 60000x zoom lens or helicopter, something along those lines.

The camera in question would have had something like an 800mm focal length super-telescopic lens.

Something like the black camera in this picture:

[Deleted]

Highest possible punishment is like £10k a lawyer said.

is that 10k Per Picture ?
if so it makes me wonder how many hundreds of photo's where taken.
On top of that there are Court and lawyer cost's. You really think the royals will have some back street lawyer who charges £75 and hour ? Try having a team of Lawyers costing Several thousand an hour.

Either way it's not about the money, its about invading someones privacy. on private land I would expect privacy from anyone, never mind some "journalist / Photographer" from over half a mile away.

[PaladinBash]

Would rather look at better boobs myself.

Also this whole 'freedom' nonsense is used as an excuse so very often as to deride it. The reason so few people these days have respect for freedom of speech is because its most common usage is as a defence to being a prick.

[Hyve]

The photos were taken from their Honeymoon. They were on a privately owned Island, in a Royal Chateau. In order to get these pictures you had to be tresspassing.

Now, personally I don't care because topless pictures of a beautiful women isn't something I am going to complain about, but she was enjoying her honeymoon, and the entire world was told to leave them alone. Not to mention she is our future Queen, and I think it is a little disrespectful to release these images now of all times, considering she is on a tour of Asia to mark the Diamond Jubilee.

Addition: This whole "Freedom of Speech" card is being overused like the Racism card. You can't just cry about Racism / Freedom of speech when you're caught doing something you're not meant to be doing. If you abuse it, you'll lose it.

[Nefiasm]

Semaphore you really are proof of the brainwashed royalist zealots that perpetuate this defunct family.
Really hope we vote YES in 2014...

If Scotland goes independent I am sure the Queen will remain your head of state I think old whatshisface already said that btw they are your royal family after all not ours.

[lordjust]

Freedom of press won't hold a foot in this case.

It's still illegal to invade a private secluded place and take pictures without someone's consent and post it in a magazine...

From what one can read the photographer didn't invade the private property. He has taken the photos from a public road that is easily accessible to everyone which makes parts of the private property public. Paparazzi know the laws exactly and a lot of lawyers agree that it's perfectly fine. But it's the royal family and Kate is considered the new Diana so for a big part of the society it's a sacrilege and they want punishment even if the photographer hasn't broken a law but lawyers might be able to bend it enough to punish him.

[Kalis]

is that 10k Per Picture ?
if so it makes me wonder how many hundreds of photo's where taken.
On top of that there are Court and lawyer cost's. You really think the royals will have some back street lawyer who charges £75 and hour ? Try having a team of Lawyers costing Several thousand an hour.

Either way it's not about the money, its about invading someones privacy. on private land I would expect privacy from anyone, never mind some "journalist / Photographer" from over half a mile away.

I've read the maximum fine is 45,000 euros and a year in prison, for both the photographer and publisher, but that is not the amount that a court could award for damages - though any damages would probably be given to charity anyway.

[Deleted]

They do a lot tbh.

Newco supporter?

There's a lot of English people that hope you vote 'yes' as well - if you do go, is there any chance of taking Liverpool with you?

Good.

If Scotland goes independent I am sure the Queen will remain your head of state I think old whatshisface already said that btw they are your royal family after all not ours.

No she wont.

[semaphore]

From what one can read the photographer didn't invade the private property. He has taken the photos from a public road that is easily accessible to everyone

Which is illegal under French laws. And they were in France.

which makes parts of the private property public

No it doesn't.

Paparazzi know the laws exactly and a lot of lawyers agree that it's perfectly fine.

No, they just know they'll be paid more than the fines. And what imaginary lawyers?


Also I've posted this in another thread before, but here's the roads those photographs are taken from. This shows why the "visible from public roads" lie you fell for is outrageous. Again, you can barely see the building itself. This violates all reasonable expectations of privacy.

[Jeleh]

Given the effort the photographer went to to actually attain the shots it is quite clear this is beyond freedom of the press and actually an invasion of privacy, the guys like a mile away and shooting pics? clearly he knows he shouldn't be there.

All I can think of when I saw the pics was "Oh! pardon my tits."