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
 
  #761  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:40 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,640
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".
__________________

__________________
“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
  #762  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:41 PM
carlota's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 7,066
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.
__________________

__________________
Sign the United Nations Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare: http://www.animalsmatter.org
YOUR DAILY CLICK HELPS ANIMALS SURVIVE!
Feed an animal in need, click for free.
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Take some time to sign the petitions @: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/animal-welfare/all
  #763  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:41 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Greater London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,660
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.
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #764  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
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?
  #765  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:44 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota View Post
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?
  #766  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:45 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,495
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.
__________________
"I am Denmark's first female Prime Minister. But you know what? I won't be the last."
— Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former Prime Minister of Denmark

  #767  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
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.
  #768  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:50 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honeybees View Post
. 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.
  #769  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:52 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
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?
  #770  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
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'
  #771  
Old 08-14-2015, 01:56 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernameispekka View Post
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.
  #772  
Old 08-14-2015, 02:04 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,332
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
  #773  
Old 08-14-2015, 02:05 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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...
  #774  
Old 08-14-2015, 02:08 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
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.
  #775  
Old 08-14-2015, 02:13 PM
carlota's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 7,066
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hernameispekka View Post
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.
__________________
Sign the United Nations Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare: http://www.animalsmatter.org
YOUR DAILY CLICK HELPS ANIMALS SURVIVE!
Feed an animal in need, click for free.
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Take some time to sign the petitions @: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/animal-welfare/all
  #776  
Old 08-14-2015, 02:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
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.
  #777  
Old 08-14-2015, 02:28 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota View Post
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!
  #778  
Old 08-14-2015, 02:32 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,930
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.
__________________
JACK
  #779  
Old 08-14-2015, 02:34 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota View Post
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.
  #780  
Old 08-14-2015, 02:34 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,332
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
__________________

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 september brunei royal family catherine middleton style christening of prince oscar coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf 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 and womens rights 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 queen rania style 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 04:05 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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