The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 08-14-2015, 11:58 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess of Durham View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
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!
__________________

  #742  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:00 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,629
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.
__________________

__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
  #743  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
Quote:
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
  #744  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:08 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,018
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
  #745  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:11 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
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...
  #746  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:13 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
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.
  #747  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:14 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,326
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
  #748  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:16 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,328
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.
__________________
.

  #749  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:19 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,018
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
  #750  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:37 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
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.
  #751  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:40 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,294
I agree with your post, Zonk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota View Post
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.
  #752  
Old 08-14-2015, 12:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,108
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.
  #753  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:08 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,294
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.
  #754  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
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.
  #755  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
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.
  #756  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:20 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 8,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by miche View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
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
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
  #757  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:21 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 645
I have to say Rudolph I was stunned reading that statement. I hope no one gets hurt.
  #758  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:24 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 8,109
Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News Part 1: May 2015

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
  #759  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:25 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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.
  #760  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:39 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,763
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.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
duchess of cambridge, duke of cambridge, kate middleton, prince william, princess charlotte


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News Part 2: May 2016 JessRulz The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 344 11-22-2016 01:22 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit 2016 catherine middleton style countess of wessex coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dom duarte duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll felipe vi grand duchess josephine-charlotte grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf's birthday king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises