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

[soapstar]

I agree with your post, Zonk.

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. Can you imagine being one of the parents at the park and seeing someone sitting in a car (with sheets over the windows) taking photos of children? That's seriously creepy.

I definitely understand why William and Catherine have decided to put their foot down. Some of the tactics that have been used to photograph George, have completely crossed a line...using children at the playground, hiding in sand dunes, on private property and in the back of cars. None of that is remotely okay.

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.

Unfortunately that won't help. In the last few months, there have been a number of photos and public appearances by the family, but it hasn't decreased the amount of pap photos. In fact, it seems there are way more photos.

 

[Mirabel]

I'm not saying it's right, but all the laws in the world won't stop the paps if there's a profit to be made!

And no matter how many photos are taken, there is a demand for more.
The last time pictures of George were in the DM, for example, there were people grumbling that they'd already seen these pictures, and why wasn't there anything new?

As long as that's the attitude, the paps know they'll find a market somewhere- even if it isn't in the UK. I'm just saying...it's a losing battle.

 

[soapstar]

They may not be able to stop the paps, but they may be able to at least change the way the photos are taken. It's one thing to take photos while in complete view of the subject, and it's another thing to hide in bushes and in cars to get the photos.

Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry were able to get an anti-paparazzi law passed here in California. Maybe this plea from William and Catherine will help bring about some changes in the UK.

 

[hernameispekka]

They may not be able to stop the paps, but they may be able to at least change the way the photos are taken. It's one thing to take photos while in complete view of the subject, and it's another thing to hide in bushes and in cars to get the photos.

Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry were able to get an anti-paparazzi law passed here in California. Maybe this plea from William and Catherine will help bring about some changes in the UK.

I agree. If they see them they can choose to go away but if they always have to expect someone is lying in the bushes they get very limited in their movements.

I hope some british celebrities take this oppurtunity and join forces with the cambridges.

 

[Rudolph]

Statement re: photographers during police protection operations - Metropolitan Police

Highly unusual for police to release any kind of statement regrading its protection activities.

It's a warming. If press continue to hide in the trunks of car or lurk in the bushes like a pimp, they are putting their lives at risk.

 

[Daria_S]

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.

Exactly! What kind of parent would he be if he was perfectly fine with having his children stalked? Plus, today it's a pap, but tomorrow it could be a pedophile posing as a pap, trying to kidnap George. It's a sad world we live in, when a child of barely past the age of two has to be taught not to talk to anyone at the playground, not even other kids, because there's no telling if any of the kids are there doing the bidding of a sleazy money grabber. It makes socializing, and learning to play independently almost impossible. My heart goes out to the family. This is no way to live, whether you're Royal, a politician, or someone else with a high profile.

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

The double standard is indeed sickening. Stalking is never OK, using a child to lure another child is simply disgusting, but, because a pap is doing it, it's seen as 'perfectly fine'. Good grief! They're children. They deserve to grow up without having to be wary of anyone that comes over to say 'hello', or to initiate play. Kinda makes me understand if William, and Catherine may just start arranging a playgroup of selected children to take place at their estate. I'm sure some top-of-the-line play equipment can be installed on the grounds. This is the safety, and well-being of a child we're talking about.



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Honeybees]

I have to say Rudolph I was stunned reading that statement. I hope no one gets hurt.

 

[Daria_S]

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

Highly unusual for police to release any kind of statement regrading its protection activities.

It's a warming. If press continue to hide in the trunks of car or lurk in the bushes like a pimp, they are putting their lives at risk.

If they're desperate enough to be so sleazy, then there's no reason to take their safety into account. If I were a PPO for the Cambridgeshire, I would ask questions later, and shoot any creep with a long-range lense, hiding in a boot of a car, or in a bush on sight. It's like terrorism, because today it's a long-range lense, but tomorrow, it's a pedophile, or a killer, intending to do more than take a photograph.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[hernameispekka]

Highly unusual for police to release any kind of statement regrading its protection activities.

It's a warming. If press continue to hide in the trunks of car or lurk in the bushes like a pimp, they are putting their lives at risk.

I agree. It seemed a bit as a veiled threat. But all they write is true. They can't fast know if the dude in the back of a car is holding a camera or a rifle. So it IS a real security risk for the paparazzi.

 

[Muhler]

The more often the issue of paparazzis intruding on people's privacy, especially children, the more aware the lawmakers and the public is of the problem.
And that will over time lead to the public and at least the mainstream media stop using such pictures and the legislation being tightened.

It is increasingly difficult for media to defend the "public interest" in candid pictures of especially children. Certainly judging from the comments and general reaction from the readers. It is IMO increasingly becoming morally unacceptable for the media to use such pictures.
The only thing in this world the media-bosses fear are their readers.

So if a magazine/paper/site use paparazzi material, let them and if possible cancel your subscription. Write an E-mail. Using a template it takes less than five minutes of your lives.

I know, I know, "it doesn't make a difference because someone somewhere will always post such pics anyway and...". - That's a load of bull-dust! It's nothing but an excuse to do nothing.
It all starts with the individual reader. I.e. you and me.

If a network show films of live rabbits being skinned alive every Saturday evening at 22.00, then everybody would be up in arms!
But here it's just humans, human children being hounded... so, well, what can be done? - Someone (else) really ought to do something... - You can't stop that from happening, so why make the effort? - and many more excuses.

We here are hardcore users of royal articles, photos, clips and what not. So how about we start? Don't buy, don't click, don't look.
- We all know how George and Charlotte look like, so what could possibly be interesting in looking at a satellite photo of them on playground?

The only valid excuse for paparazzi photos, is if they document something illegal. Like a royal bull-whipping her dog.

 

[Osipi]

Although it seemed very weird to me at the time, I'm starting to realize just why Michael Jackson's kids were seen with bags over their heads.

I have to agree too that the statement released by the protection detail is making a good point. They're there to do their job and paps skulking about in bushes and car trunks do look suspicious and definitely up to no good. Its almost like saying "we'll treat you as a threat and ask questions later".

 

[carlota]

i find it interesting that now everyone finds this unethical, shameful and immoral, but whenever paparazzi pictures of george, or any other royal, are posted in this forums, i see little comments saying "i am not opening this as it's unethical", but a lot of comments about them (how cute george is, how great kate looks, etc). this means these people who know appear ethical consumed those "unethical" pictures themselves, but then bash the photographers when a press release like this one is issued.

how hypocritical.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Whilst it's nice to see photos of George and Charlotte (and I'll admit now that I've been one of the people who talk positively about the Cambridges when paparazzi photos are posted), I agree with those who have said that the tactics/methods the paparazzi use are disgusting and borderline creepy. The things some people do for money...

Unfortunately, George and Charlotte will never be able to live like Joe from across the street. They are the children of the future King and naturally, immediate royals get more press attention than the minor royals. Whilst it would suit a lot of people I doubt that getting Kensington Palace to release more photos of George and Charlotte would work, since, as others have pointed out, it seems to attract more paparazzi photos. The British press aren't like the Scandinavian press, who are happy with regular photocalls and will leave the RF (almost) alone afterwards. That being said, the Spanish press are more aggressive than the British press and I don't see many paparazzi photos of King Felipe and his family (or any other members of the SRF). I see reports that they've been out shopping, though usually there are no photos.

 

[Honeybees]

The more often the issue of paparazzis intruding on people's privacy, especially children, the more aware the lawmakers and the public is of the problem.
And that will over time lead to the public and at least the mainstream media stop using such pictures and the legislation being tightened.

It is increasingly difficult for media to defend the "public interest" in candid pictures of especially children. Certainly judging from the comments and general reaction from the readers. It is IMO increasingly becoming morally unacceptable for the media to use such pictures.
The only thing in this world the media-bosses fear are their readers.

So if a magazine/paper/site use paparazzi material, let them and if possible cancel your subscription. Write an E-mail. Using a template it takes less than five minutes of your lives.

I know, I know, "it doesn't make a difference because someone somewhere will always post such pics anyway and...". - That's a load of bull-dust! It's nothing but an excuse to do nothing.
It all starts with the individual reader. I.e. you and me.

If a network show films of live rabbits being skinned alive every Saturday evening at 22.00, then everybody would be up in arms!
But here it's just humans, human children being hounded... so, well, what can be done? - Someone (else) really ought to do something... - You can't stop that from happening, so why make the effort? - and many more excuses.

We here are hardcore users of royal articles, photos, clips and what not. So how about we start? Don't buy, don't click, don't look.
- We all know how George and Charlotte look like, so what could possibly be interesting in looking at a satellite photo of them on playground?

The only valid excuse for paparazzi photos, is if they document something illegal. Like a royal bull-whipping her dog.

. How would a reader know the source of a photograph?

 

[hernameispekka]

i find it interesting that now everyone finds this unethical, shameful and immoral, but whenever paparazzi pictures of george, or any other royal, are posted in this forums, i see little comments saying "i am not opening this as it's unethical", but a lot of comments about them (how cute george is, how great kate looks, etc). this means these people who know appear ethical consumed those "unethical" pictures themselves, but then bash the photographers when a press release like this one is issued.

how hypocritical.

I have been on the fence (leaning towards it not being ok) because people have kept saying how it's staged, that the phtograaphers have been seen, that George takes no harm. But now knowing the specifics I myself have taken a "pledge" to avoid it and seen otheers do as well.. Isn't it good that people are changing their minds?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Wow, the lengths to which some photographers will go for a picture of a child... it's honestly really appalling How would they feel if this concerned their own children? And Richard Palmer is ridiculously immature – is the man literally arguing that stalking children is alright since they're members of a royal family?

I do, however, (and I know this is a very unpopular opinion here) think it rings a bit hollow since William and Catherine don't exactly stick to their own rules. You can't allow for the staging of some pap strolls here and there when it's convenient for them and then throw hissy fits when the media think it's a free for all. You draw a line and stick to it. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't excuse the intrusiveness whatsoever but it does blur the line between what the photographers think they can and cannot do.

 

[hernameispekka]

Wow, the lengths to which some photographers will go for a picture of a child... it's honestly really appalling How would they feel if this concerned their own children? And Richard Palmer is ridiculously immature – is the man literally arguing that stalking children is alright since they're member of a royal family?

I do, however, (and I do know this is a very unpopular opinion here) think it rings a bit hollow since William and Catherine don't exactly stick to their own rules. You can't allow for the staging of some pap strolls here and there when it's convenient for them and then throw hissy fits when the media think it's a free for all. You draw a line and stick to it. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't excuse the intrusiveness whatsoever but it does blur the line between what the photographers think they can and cannot do.

I agree. Richard is appauling me.

Do we KNOW they have staged any paparazzi strolls?

The only time outside official events they have allowed pictures are at polo which follow this formula.
Event with media = expectation of pictures = consent.
Public park = expection of privacy = no consent.

 

[Muhler]

. How would a reader know the source of a photograph?

If you see a photo of Prince George from a distance on say a playground and he is not posing or seemingly aware of the photographers. Chances are that photo is candid and that he doesn't know he is being photographed and his parents has not given their approval.

It is IMO down to common sense and if in doubt here is a little test to use:
Would I like it if this picture showed me or my child in what is obviously a private situation? If the answer is no, don't look further.

 

[hernameispekka]

If you see a photo of Prince George from a distance on say a playground and he is not posing or seemingly aware of the photographers. Chances are that photo is candid and that he doesn't know he is being photographed and his parents has not given their approval.

It is IMO down to common sense and if in doubt here is a little test to use:
Would I like it if this picture showed me or my child in what is obviously a private situation? If the answer is no, don't look further.

I wonder how much traction we could get if we started one of those name lists that get sent to a government. I mean.. Is there any known celebrities in the UK that is behind this question that can help "promote" a change in the law?

 

[Rudolph]

I was just listening to the BBC and a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said "in times of raised security threats against members of the BRF" The press and photographers must be careful not to stalk or otherwise harass people in pursuit of photos.

SO14 (The Royalty Protection Branch) is at all time prepared for 'armed intervention'

 

[soapstar]

I agree. If they see them they can choose to go away but if they always have to expect someone is lying in the bushes they get very limited in their movements.

I hope some british celebrities take this oppurtunity and join forces with the cambridges.

Absolutely. This part in the official statement speaks to how unnerving it feels when they are unknowingly followed: "Every parent would understand their deep unease at only learning they had been followed and watched days later when photographs emerged".

No one (especially not a child) should have to live under that kind of survelliance. I understand that they are royals, but the paps are out of hand and someone needs to establish a line that these paps can't cross.

 

[Skippyboo]

When have they ever staged a pap stroll? William and Harry play polo to raise funds for charity. There will be regular non paparazzi there and they will posed for pictures at the awards presentation. So when they brought George to polo they know he is getting photographed.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Muhler]

I was just listening to the BBC and a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said "in times of raised security threats against members of the BRF" The press and photographers must be careful not to stalk or otherwise harass people in pursuit of photos.

SO14 (The Royalty Protection Branch) is at all time prepared for 'armed intervention'

That sure is a warning, If I've ever seen one!

It's logic. If a protection officer armed with a rifle see someone from a distance, wearing a ghillie-suit in a field or hiding in car or behind a half closed window looking through what might be a high power telescope trained at a royal - there may not be time to call in someone to investigate...

 

[hernameispekka]

When have they ever staged a pap stroll? William and Harry play polo to raise funds for charity. There will be regular non paparazzi there and they will posed for pictures at the awards presentation. So when they brought George to polo they know he is getting photographed.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Exactly. That is the equivilent of a celebrity taking their kids on the red carpet. In other words, implied consent.

 

[carlota]

other celebrity parents have their children photographed ALL the time. i am thinking of the likes of the beckhams, angelina jolie + brad pitt's children, madonna's children... and i wonder how many times they have thrown a warning like this.

my question is why is it that royals get special treatment? because they have a diplomatic passport that the beckhams don't? because may i remind everyone that they haven't achieved anything for themselves, like the beckhams or madonna, whereas celebrities have (of more or less merit, arguably). they have only been born / married to the right people. that's all.

they represent a country. the reason why people visit buckingham palace or go to shop where kate shops is not because of how many charities they support - it's because of their media presence. ask the average passer by for a charity that kate supports and then go ask them for a brand that kate wears or which magazine she is grazing the cover of this week. you'd find out that the latter is more known than the first.

i don't excuse paparazzi pictures every time george goes out. that would be excessive, and i agree they need privacy. but royals need to understand that with their status, their diplomatic passport, and all their privileges come (very few) disadvantages - lack of privacy is one of them.

I agree. Richard is appauling me.

Do we KNOW they have staged any paparazzi strolls?

The only time outside official events they have allowed pictures are at polo which follow this formula.
Event with media = expectation of pictures = consent.
Public park = expection of privacy = no consent.

you will excuse me, but i see not much difference between these two instances.

 

[Princess of Durham]

I'm not saying it's right, but all the laws in the world won't stop the paps if there's a profit to be made!

And no matter how many photos are taken, there is a demand for more.
The last time pictures of George were in the DM, for example, there were people grumbling that they'd already seen these pictures, and why wasn't there anything new?

As long as that's the attitude, the paps know they'll find a market somewhere- even if it isn't in the UK. I'm just saying...it's a losing battle.

True, however through huge fines and periods of incarceration (where one makes NO money) it may become much less profitable.

 

[hernameispekka]

other celebrity parents have their children photographed ALL the time. i am thinking of the likes of the beckhams, angelina jolie + brad pitt's children, madonna's children... and i wonder how many times they have thrown a warning like this.

my question is why is it that royals get special treatment? because they have a diplomatic passport that the beckhams don't? because may i remind everyone that they haven't achieved anything for themselves, like the beckhams or madonna, whereas celebrities have (of more or less merit, arguably). they have only been born / married to the right people. that's all.

they represent a country. the reason why people visit buckingham palace or go to shop where kate shops is not because of how many charities they support - it's because of their media presence. ask the average passer by for a charity that kate supports and then go ask them for a brand that kate wears or which magazine she is grazing the cover of this week. you'd find out that the latter is more known than the first.

i don't excuse paparazzi pictures every time george goes out. that would be excessive, and i agree they need privacy. but royals need to understand that with their status, their diplomatic passport, and all their privileges come (very few) disadvantages - lack of privacy is one of them.




you will excuse me, but i see not much difference between these two instances.

Other celebrity parents are already starting to stand up to the paparazzis. Paparazzi laws in California for example has been changed since celebrities started rallying against it.

And you must see the difference between different situations. Let's take 3 examples. This happens to you and your kid:

1. You win/buy tickets to the local premiere of the new kids movie. On the invitation it is told that it's a red carpet. If you go to this event and take your kids on the red carpet you give consent to have them photographed. This is the polo event. They knew there would be photographers there taking photos of the match, hence they knew they would be photographed going to this specific event,

2. You go to your local park and there happens to be a photographer taking pictures of the playground and childrens park for the tourist pamphlet of your town. You either choose to stay and "risk" having your kids in the picture or leave because you don't wan't your kids in the picture. This is the equivilent of a tourist snapping a photo when they happen to run into a royal.

3. You are in the local park/your garden playing with your kids. When you go online two weeks later you happen to see that someone has been hiding in the bushes and taking pictures of your kids playing. This is the equivalent of the paparazzi stalking.

You see, big difference!

 

[Jacknch]

Whilst I appreciate that celebrities' children are photographed, many publications (such as Hola! magazine) seem to blank out the child's face. In any event, it goes back to the choice of the parent - if William and Catherine wish to protect their children in this way they should be able to do so and if celebrities do not mind, again it is their choice.

 

[Muhler]

other celebrity parents have their children photographed ALL the time. i am thinking of the likes of the beckhams, angelina jolie + brad pitt's children, madonna's children... and i wonder how many times they have thrown a warning like this.

my question is why is it that royals get special treatment? because they have a diplomatic passport that the beckhams don't? because may i remind everyone that they haven't achieved anything for themselves, like the beckhams or madonna, whereas celebrities have (of more or less merit, arguably). they have only been born / married to the right people. that's all.

they represent a country. the reason why people visit buckingham palace or go to shop where kate shops is not because of how many charities they support - it's because of their media presence. ask the average passer by for a charity that kate supports and then go ask them for a brand that kate wears or which magazine she is grazing the cover of this week. you'd find out that the latter is more known than the first.

i don't excuse paparazzi pictures every time george goes out. that would be excessive, and i agree they need privacy. but royals need to understand that with their status, their diplomatic passport, and all their privileges come (very few) disadvantages - lack of privacy is one of them.

There is a considerable difference IMO.

Celebs like Angelina Jolie can for all sorts of reasons be forgotten in ten years. - Royals are on for life.
Celebs can opt out of the limelight or simply retire from their career. - That's not an option royals have.

While celebs can fall victim to the odd stalker or worse someone who wants to harm them, that is the exception rather than the rule.
For royals someone wishing to harm them is a very real threat. That includes someone stalking them for the purpose of finding the best opportunity to strike.

If Angelina Jolie's children suffer psychologically from constant exposure, that won't affect her country.
If royal children become paranoid from constant potential exposure that very well can have an effect on the way they will carry out their duty for their countries in the future.

 

[Skippyboo]

I just googled imaged Harper Beckham. The vast majority of them had David or Victoria in them or her siblings. I didn't see any of just her with the nanny or grandma. We got 20 plus shots on popsugar of George and Carole digging a hole in the beach. Even Harper isn't getting the George treatment.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community