Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News 2: May 2015 - May 2016

[Honeybees]

Duke of Marmalade, I respect what you have to say but do children pick their parents? Doesn't every child have a right, in an ideal world to a safe, secure, happy childhood? I also remember both Princes hiding around doors with their mother to see if they were going to be photographed and those hideous photographs, in my opinion, of the then POW running away from photographers, putting her head down in the back of a Black Cab and putting a handbag up in front of her face. I doubt either Prince has happy memories regarding the paps. The other issue is and God forbids this happens but what if, in a split second, not knowing what is happening, someone gets injured due to the use of these survilliance techniques to get photographs?

 

[Skippyboo]

Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News Part 1: May 2015

Princess Caroline actually won her paparazzi case in European court

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ine-wins-legal-ban-on-paparazzi-pictures.html

George and Charlotte aren't normal kids. Normal kids don't have armed protection officers 24/7 But they shouldn't be hunted by photographers every time they step out the door. It is not in public's interest to see a 2 year dig a hole in the sand or go down a hill. It's like hey George you are going to be head of state in 50yrs so it's okay that we stalk you from your born to you die just because of an accident of birth.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Duke of Marmalade, I respect what you have to say but do children pick their parents? Doesn't every child have a right, in an ideal world to a safe, secure, happy childhood? I also remember both Princes hiding around doors with their mother to see if they were going to be photographed and those hideous photographs, in my opinion, of the then POW running away from photographers, putting her head down in the back of a Black Cab and putting a handbag up in front of her face. I doubt either Prince has happy memories regarding the paps. The other issue is and God forbids this happens but what if, in a split second, not knowing what is happening, someone gets injured due to the use of these survilliance techniques to get photographs?

I clearly said that I do not agree with those tactics. No, children don't pick their parents but as I said, there are downsides and upsides, both to the extreme regarding the Cambridge kids. Growing up in a fishbowl but the rest is there in abundace. Other children might suffer the other way around, having privacy but suffering from hunger, poverty, violence etc.

I understand that royals or celebrities go against any action that is against the law but other than that, they need to bear it and grin.

And by the way, KP thanking the british press for 'for their policy of not publishing unauthorised photos of their children'. That's a joke because its only the result of KP's power, don't publish or else ... in the end William and Kate threaten the press with deprivation. There are lots of photos of celebrity children in the british tabloids that are not authorized but of course not Prince William's children. Talk about double standards.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I don't think we can (and should) stop photos all together. I mean, a single mobile phone on a turist is Ok I think. But where I think the legal system can step in is HOW the pictures are taken. For ex, include paparazzi in some stalking laws. And that photographs from hidden views are illegal or something. Or photographs from closer than x meters etc.

I would love to find out what, if any action were taken against some of these pap creeps. Using a child to lure a child is just heinous. That KP knows this happened means security investigated enough to know the details (including, possibly questioning that child that was used as a lure).

Beyond stalking laws - how could you prosecute any of these incidents?

I suppose here in the US, agencies could haul out our extremely strict "terrorism" prosecution laws - given that the activity potentially threatens Public figures. I doubt these charges would survive to see court action, even if one can make the case that having to watch the paps weakens/dilutes the ability of security to watch for true terrorist threats. It's a wicked world we live in.

 

[hernameispekka]

I clearly said that I do not agree with those tactics. No, children don't pick their parents but as I said, there are downsides and upsides, both to the extreme regarding the Cambridge kids. (1)Growing up in a fishbowl but the rest is there in abundace. Other children might suffer the other way around, having privacy but suffering from hunger, poverty, violence etc.

I understand that royals or celebrities go against any action that is (2)against the law but other than that, they need to bear it and grin.

(3)And by the way, KP thanking the british press for 'for their policy of not publishing unauthorised photos of their children'. That's a joke because its only the result of KP's power, don't publish or else ... in the end William and Kate threaten the press with deprivation. There are lots of photos of celebrity children in the british tabloids that are not authorized but of course not Prince William's children. (4)Talk about double standards.

1. A cage that is gilded is still a cage. You don't seem to understand the psychological effects of being closed in can have on the human mind.

2. The law is continiously changing and with the growth of media and technology there have to be laws that follow that development. And the laws won't change until someone speaks up.

3. Hadn't they thanked them it would get a thousand times worse.

4. They don't say at all that these things should only concern their kids. They make a point of showing that ALL KIDS should have the right to that privacy.

 

[Molly2101]

.

There is no law against taking a picture of a public person in a public place (I am not talking about possible tactics to take the picture). I disagree with KP's view that W&K are 'any other parents' and George and Charlotte are 'any other children'. They are not and paparazzi pictures are only the downside - the upside are the enourmous privileges those children grow up with. You can't have it all, can you.

I completely agree with this - they aren't "normal" children sadly, nor will they ever be. They are royals and it's a part of their life that they will be photographed throughout their entire life. Look at the York sisters - they are constantly photographed falling out of clubs and being considerably drunk. It doesn't look good and I imagine they don't want to be seen doing that, but they are "celebrities" and that's part of the celebrity lifestyle.

I do agree that it is wrong of the paps to chase them, follow their schedule etc. but I also don't agree with KP referring to them as "normal" people. They aren't and they need to realise that.

 

[Rudolph]

The paparazzi are using children to lure Prince George into view as they take increasingly desperate measures to capture lucrative images of the young royal, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have revealed.

The tactic is one of several "dangerous" and "distressing" methods detailed in an open letter published by the furious couple, warning that a line had been crossed.

It says that on one "disturbing but not at all uncommon" occasion, a photographer hid himself in a rented car near a children's farm play area, hanging sheets in the windows and stockpiling enough food and drink to get him through a full day of surveillance.

Police found the man lying down in the boot of the vehicle attempting to shoot photos with a long lens through a small gap in his "hide".

Royal insiders say the Duke in particular is desperate that “history should not repeat itself” and wants to protect both Prince George and Princess Charlotte from the kind of intrusion that his mother Diana, Princess of Wales was subjected to.

Read more: William and Kate issue furious warning over paparazzi pictures of their children - Telegraph

 

[Skippyboo]

The Yorks or Harry or Wills or Kate were adults who chose to go to a club and knew it would likely be photographed. George is a two year. He doesn't know he is a prince.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Jacknch]

There should be a law against hanging around children' play areas in a blacked out car, camera trained on all the youngsters in the unlikely hope that a royal MIGHT turn up. Anyone could pass themselves off as the paparazzi - anyone.

 

[hernameispekka]

There should be a law against hanging around children' play areas in a blacked out car, camera trained on all the youngsters in the unlikely hope that a royal MIGHT turn up. Anyone could pass themselves off as the paparazzi - anyone.

Exactly. I mean.. It doesn't get more clearcut stalking than that but if you say your paparazzi you get a free pass?!?! How insane is that!?

 

[carlota]

what if william and kate released frequent pictures of their children to the press, maybe requesting some donation to be made to their charities by the press? this will surely decrease the interest in george and charlotte, improve the image of W+K whilst also giving some revenue to their charities AND decreasing costs to press agencies. it would be a winner for everyone.

 

[Mirabel]

Nobody agrees with paparazzi tactics but they make money. KP succeeded in keeping the british media in place but they will fail with world wide internet/foreign publications as long as people are interested in such photos.

Very true; it's a losing battle. IF George and Charlotte are in public areas, they are fair game.
William at least should realize that his children will be in the media for the rest of their lives.

What he ought to do is create some opportunities for photos; it may help to fend off the paps (though probably not).

 

[miche]

No that wouldn't decrease the interest in George and Charlotte. We have seen more of George this past few months an official sanction events and photos and that has only increase the paparazzi shots.

 

[hernameispekka]

No that wouldn't decrease the interest in George and Charlotte. We have seen more of George this past few months an official sanction events and photos and that has only increase the paparazzi shots.

Exactly.....

 

[miche]

William doesn't have to accept the fact that his children are being stalk w/ phedophile like tactic just b/c those children are royals doesn't make that okay.

 

[Pranter]

It's one thing to be somewhere and just happen to be where someone famous is ..and use the cell to snap a pic.

It's quite another for someone who's job it is to stalk the famous, particularly a child, by using tactics that would get you arrested here if you did it to anyone else's child.

If my grandkids were out playing and I discovered someone laying in wait (hiding in a trunk) or trying to lure them ...well the police would be involved.


LaRae

 

[hernameispekka]

it's one thing to be somewhere and just happen to be where someone famous is ..and use the cell to snap a pic.

It's quite another for someone who's job it is to stalk the famous, particularly a child, by using tactics that would get you arrested here if you did it to anyone else's child.

If my grandkids were out playing and i discovered someone laying in wait (hiding in a trunk) or trying to lure them ...well the police would be involved.


Larae

exactly!!!

 

[Rudolph]

Security fears as photographer is found hiding in car boot at park.

Neil Henderson ‏@hendopolis STANDARD: Wills and Kate appeal: leave George Alone
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/632194412324503553

 

[Princess of Durham]

Most importantly this IS truly a security issue. Heaven forbid, but what if the person is not pointing a long lens but a rifle instead. With the way things are in the world today this is a scary thought. And as someone else pointed out it is also a pedophile tactic. I also agree that the paps need to be included in the laws having to do with stalking, in fact this seems to possibly be the easiest route.

 

[Skippyboo]

We saw in Australian that they would still get papped even though there was plenty of access. Just recently we saw George in early May at the hospital, early June at BP and polo, early July at Christening, but all long this time there were pap pictures with Kate at the playground, Carole at beach, various ones at the petting farm in Berkshire.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[hernameispekka]

Most importantly this IS truly a security issue. Heaven forbid, but what if the person is not pointing a long lens but a rifle instead. With the way things are in the world today this is a scary thought. And as someone else pointed out it is also a pedophile tactic. I also agree that the paps need to be included in the laws having to do with stalking, in fact this seems to possibly be the easiest route.

Precisely!

We saw in Australian that they would still get papped even though there was plenty of access. Just recently we saw George in early May at the hospital, early June at BP and polo, early July at Christening, but all long this time there were pap pictures with Kate at the playground, Carole at beach, various ones at the petting farm in Berkshire.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Exactly! I don't at all belive in the "they have themself to blame, if they put out more pictures the paparazzi will back off" argument!

 

[Osipi]

This has probably been brought up before but perhaps if certain laws were passed that the publications and websites that buy and release the non authorized pictures get slapped with a huge fine if they publish them, it would put the paps that stalk and take these pictures out of business. Their main intent is to make money and if they find there is no longer a market to sell them in, the problem might lessen.

The way to correct this problem is through their wallets. Of course there are the disreputable publications that wouldn't care about fines but they get hit hard enough, it might hurt.

 

[Rudolph]

Statement re: actions of some photographers during police protection operations

The covert actions of photographers have at times caused concerns during police protection operations when they have been considered a possible security threat.

Our role is to maintain security and there is a risk to those who choose to use covert tactics when a police operation is in place.

At a time when the national security threat level from international terrorism is at severe, all officers are at a heightened level of readiness.

Officers involved in the security of protected people are armed and have to constantly assess security risks. Photographers using covert tactics often come to the attention of armed officers who take steps to stop and verify the details of those who raise suspicions.

Photographers are potentially putting themselves at risk from armed intervention where our armed officers perceive a risk to the personal safety of their principal, the public and themselves.

When assessing potential threats armed officers have to make split second decisions regarding their use of force in order to protect their principals, the public and their colleagues.

Whilst the majority of photographers work responsibly we would ask those that choose to use covert tactics to consider their actions in light of this potential risk.

Statement re: photographers during police protection operations - Metropolitan Police

 

[Pranter]

I had that thought...what's it going to take....for one of the paparazzi to get shot because the protection officers/police think it's a kidnap attempt or attack before they will stop being so aggressive and deceptive?


LaRae

 

[hernameispekka]

This has probably been brought up before but perhaps if certain laws were passed that the publications and websites that buy and release the non authorized pictures get slapped with a huge fine if they publish them, it would put the paps that stalk and take these pictures out of business. Their main intent is to make money and if they find there is no longer a market to sell them in, the problem might lessen.

The way to correct this problem is through their wallets. Of course there are the disreputable publications that wouldn't care about fines but they get hit hard enough, it might hurt.

The thing is, the buyers are in other/multiple countries. So you can't make worldwide laws like that. But if you make laws around HOW the pictures are taken they can uphold the law on their own ground. Ok, that doesn't help them when they are out of the country, but at least it helps the day to day stalking.

I had that thought...what's it going to take....for one of the paparazzi to get shot because the protection officers/police think it's a kidnap attempt or attack before they will stop being so aggressive and deceptive?


LaRae

Then the POs will be blamed for exessive force probably...

 

[Princess of Durham]

I had that thought...what's it going to take....for one of the paparazzi to get shot because the protection officers/police think it's a kidnap attempt or attack before they will stop being so aggressive and deceptive?


LaRae

Precisely! And if it happens there will be an outcry from a few of the chattering classes about freedom of the press.

But I do wonder what would happen if the paps suddenly find themselves being "stalked" and the possible consequences of their actions.
ETA: There are all these rules that the UK has to follow prescribed by the EU, why cannot this issue fall under the international aspect. Not just regarding George and Charlotte but the population in general regarding what is clearly stalking.

 

[Skippyboo]

Especially now with a heightened terror threat. The RPO isn't going to know that the guy hiding in the car is a photographer or a suicide bomber.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Zonk]

It's a sad world that we live in when children [at the age of 2 and 3 months] are considered 'fair game' because they are children of public figures and because of their future destines as public figures themselves.

Its not like the Cambridges don't expect their children to be photographed while they are out with their parents. Nor do I think they are being unreasonable in requesting that they have a childhood without the fear of being hunted. I mean, really, hiding out in a car to take pics....befriending other children to entice George out so he is available for pics. That's disgusting.

Yeah, I am agree with Pranter. That's called stalking and it's totally unacceptable in my book.And if happened to anyone else's kids.....they would be having a conversation with the police...cause it reeks of a child molester. Just because you are selling the pics doesn't mean its okay to stalk a child.

And I gotta tell you, I am totally appalled that people thinks its okay just because George and Charlotte were born into their position and will live a life of luxury that they have no right to privacy as children. Children....we are not talking about adults here.

 

[Pranter]

As far as I am concerned if you are a pap and you use those sorts of tactics and get shot that's on your own head and no one should have anything to say to the PO/Police about it.

I get the freedom of the press but (at least here) that doesn't mean the press can just do whatever they want and then hide behind that right.

It's one thing to photo people (even children) openly in public places ...I don't think 'freedom of the press' covers sneaking around and luring children etc.


LaRae

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What the Cambridges do, is in essence the same as what the Hannovers and the Orange-Nassaus did: trying to protect a private lifesphere in a society which is 24/24 and 7/7 dominated by online news and footage, with mobile cameras all around and even drones in the air.

The Princess of Hannover sued German media, which led to groundbreaking jurisprudence by the European Court of Justice. The -then- Prince of Orange and Princess Máxima sued several media on ground of unlawful infringement of the human right on having a private life and the Dutch courts all followed the jurisprudence set by the European Court in the case of Princess Caroline.

They will almost always win: Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Right is crisp and crystalclear: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his domicily and his correspondence."

Again and again it became a clash of two principles: the freedom of press versus the right on a private life. In all cases the judges have ruled that an infringement of one's basic right (the person) with someone else's basic right (the media) can only be justified when there is "a serious public interest". Satisfying the public's hunger for pictures of a toddler is NOT what the Courts see as "a serious public interest" which justifies the complete demolition of the right on having a private lifesphere.

Co-incidentally yesterday the Amsterdam Court of Justice ruled in a case in which the (gay) Mayor of Maastricht, the Netherlands, was secretly filmed when he hooked up via Grindr with a handsome young man who was in a complot. The Mayor stated that also persons with a public function have the right on a private life and that he was trapped into a set-up and secretly filmed. The footage of the Mayor (not in a relationship at that moment) meeting a guy via Grindr was broadcast on public television. The Court of Justice blew away the justification by the broadcaster that "it was in the wider public interest" and sided with the Mayor in his view that his right on a private life was severely and unlawfully infringed. There was no serious public interest (like crimes or misdemeanours) which justified that his human right on privacy was infringed. It was all just because of feeding the curiosity of the masses about the private lives of public persons.