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
 
  #981  
Old 09-28-2015, 04:18 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,533
Here is the problem:

Unless somebody can point to a British statute on stalking or any other crime, it would seem that what the paps are doing is legal. Stalking is generally defined as following someone for the purpose of intimidation and/or harassment (at least here in the U.S.). The loophole is is that these kids are not being followed for purposes of intimidation or harassment - they're being followed to get the money shot. So there's not much recourse, unless they are trespassing, or trying to lure George around, etc. If so, go after them within the bounds of the law.

Otherwise, the RPO is faced with an all or nothing situation - he either is entitled to use deadly force is he believes the kids are in danger, or if he does not believe this to be so all he can do is politely ask the pap to leave. Or follow other legal recourse (if there is any)

Now if an RPO reasonably believes one of the kids is in imminent danger of bodily harm, he is justified in taking out the pap. That's clear.
__________________

__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
  #982  
Old 09-28-2015, 04:43 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Here is the problem:

Unless somebody can point to a British statute on stalking or any other crime, it would seem that what the paps are doing is legal.
I'm not sure on this. According to that buffoon Ken Wharfe, the current crew of protection officers could do a lot more to protect the royals from paparazzi. He has said they should be using more force too. Either the law is with the royals and the protection crew isn't enforcing it, or Mr. Wharfe liked to bend the rules back in his day. Neither scenario would surprise me. He's proudly shown pictures of his paparazzi confrontations, including snatching cameras, and one looked to be some sort of headlock incident. If the officers are allowed to use reasonable force on paparazzi then they should do it!
__________________

  #983  
Old 09-28-2015, 04:51 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,210
Yes, but the paps who harassed and stalked Diana and her young sons when they were out, are a bit different to a photographer taking an odd one or two pictures of a toddler and baby. I think we can all agree that the sort of madness suffered by Diana in the 1990's was very different to the atmosphere that prevails today.
  #984  
Old 09-28-2015, 05:00 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, but the paps who harassed and stalked Diana and her young sons when they were out, are a bit different to a photographer taking an odd one or two pictures of a toddler and baby. I think we can all agree that the sort of madness suffered by Diana in the 1990's was very different to the atmosphere that prevails today.
I don't agree. There's been more pap pictures of young George than there ever was of young William. And the tactics highlighted in the Kensington letter are just as dirty as anything the royals put up with in the 90's. I agree with Wharfe( I feel dirty saying this) the present protection officers are too laissez-faire.
  #985  
Old 09-28-2015, 05:39 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,404
Well British papers won't use the paparazzi pics. There is no statutory privacy law and no stand-alone cause of action for “invasion of privacy” under English law.

There is a developing body of privacy law though that incorporates the law of confidence, the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

Equally, there is no specific concept of “image rights” under English law. A person’s proprietary rights in a photograph or image of themselves under English law might be protected by some of the statutory or common law causes of action I just mentioned.

The day is coming when it will be flat-out illegal to take photos of toddlers without the permission of parents. Its just the way the law is developing.

The Cambridges haven't threatened anyone. They have asked the press to take into account how the paps obtain these sorts of photos.

And public opinion is on the side of the royals. I can't think of anyone who advocates the stalking of a toddler.
  #986  
Old 09-28-2015, 06:09 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,404
None of this is new with the royals. It was the Queen herself who really put her foot down in 2009

Quote:
The Queen has authorised a crackdown on the paparazzi amid her growing anger at intrusions into the private lives of members of the Royal family and their friends.

The new get-tough approach has the full support of the Prince of Wales, Prince William, Prince Harry and other senior members of the Royal family, who are now prepared to take legal action against what they see as the "intrusive and unacceptable behaviour" of photographers.

The Queen and Prince Charles have instructed Gerrard Tyrrell, a senior lawyer specialising in privacy and media law, to mastermind the new privacy strategy.
The Queen gets tough on paparazzi in royal privacy row - Telegraph
  #987  
Old 09-28-2015, 06:23 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
I would hate to live in a society in which it is illegal to take photographs of someone or something in a public place, or where bodyguards have the right to assault photographers and damage their equipment merely because they were taking photographs. This is, of course, subject to the proviso that photographers are not so close to the children they were harassing them. I'm betting the children didn't even know that photographer was there.

The Cambridge children are photographed because there is a market for photos of them. They are celebrities whether their father likes it or not, and they are also Royal. That toddler, George, will be King of England one day. Public interest in him and his sister and parents goes with the territory and it will increase, not abate. The whole family lives in a fish bowl. I don't envy them, but I hope the day does not come when it is illegal to take a photograph of the children or any other member of the family if they are in a public place.

I believe that no-one - Royal or ordinary celebrity or otherwise - should have to put up with being harrassed by people interfering with them going about their daily business by calling out to them to get their attention and ask questions, and thrusting microphones in their faces, and impeding their path by jumping in front of them taking photographs, especially with flashes, and I believe that laws should be put in place to prevent this sort of peskiness. However I do not believe that special laws should apply to the RF. No-one should have to put up with that sort of behaviour.

The Royals are in danger from kidnappers or people with rifles or other weapons, not from cameras. When they venture out in public they should have protection officers watching out for people who might pose a kidnapping threat, but you can't protect people from snipers when a fatal shot can be fired from well over a kilometre/half a mile away.

Do we know who took that photo of the children and Maria? It looked fairly grainy and it might have been taken from a considerable distance, and/or by an amateur photographer with a good telephoto lens.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #988  
Old 09-28-2015, 08:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 967


I realize that Charles and William will lose some countries during their reigns but it will be depressing if only England remains for George. I'm holding out for Wales and Canada to stick around, too.

Anyways, as for the rest of your post. I would love a balance too. But right now everything is in the paparazzi's favor, and nothing is being done for the royal children. George is under siege. He's had it worse than any royal child in his father's generation, his grandfather's generation, his great-grandmother's generation. He's been dehumanized into a prey animal. Some of us care, others on here think "oh well, he's rich. Why should I care that he has less human rights than other children. After all, he's wearing a cashmere sweater!".
  #989  
Old 09-28-2015, 08:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,404
And really folks, the letter from Kensington Palace is pretty mild and not at all 'menacing'. It does not single out legitimate press but paparazzi

I suggest people go back and read it. It clearly says the palace will continue to take legal action where necessary but its open to dialogue and discussion and wants to have a good working relationship with the press.

A letter from Kensington Palace
  #990  
Old 09-29-2015, 11:32 AM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,775
A number of posts have been deleted as their contents contained suggestions the moderating team feel highly inappropriate and not in the spirt of The Royal Forums.

Advocating serious physical violence towards other human beings is not, and will not, be accepted here. If such comments occur again - the moderating team strongly hopes they do not - the posters involved may find their posting privileges suspended for a period of time.

Questions are to be directed to the moderating team via PM.

JessRulz
TRF Administrator
__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
  #991  
Old 09-29-2015, 11:55 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,452
I really hope folks wouldn't look at those pictures. I know it's hard to resist the temptation, because we haven't seen the kids in a while, but let's not give the paps any motivation to continue doing what they're doing.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
  #992  
Old 09-29-2015, 12:00 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I really hope folks wouldn't look at those pictures. I know it's hard to resist the temptation, because we haven't seen the kids in a while, but let's not give the paps any motivation to continue doing what they're doing.
I've seen alot of people in the royal community avoiding them and supporting each other in not clicking or reblogging. So on that level I think their letter have worked at least.... But I don't know how much it helps or not. I myself have seen it as it showed up in my twitter feed but I've not clicked on anything related to it. Richard Palmer randomly linked to the Woman Day magazine and people called him out on it. He seems to be going off the ledge..

[edit: I looked at Richard Palmers twitter again. It looks like he has taken down the link. Maybe his magazine wasn't too happy....]
  #993  
Old 09-29-2015, 12:44 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

I didn't click on the link on here, or on my Twitter feed. Of course that means nothing, because for all of us who respect the privacy of this family, there are a couple of hundred people who will click, and share the photographs on their social media accounts. I'm all for free press, but with freedom comes a lot of responsibility, which means the paps will have to accept whatever consequences are dealt by the Duke, and Duchess, or by the RPOs, should the need arise. These are children, and if a written permission is needed to photograph a child for a school-related purpose, then same thing should apply for images of children being used by the paps. As a teacher, I have to go through endless hoops to get consent to photograph a child for a wall display, which will be hung in the hallway, outside my classroom. Maybe an endless amount of legal paperwork, and the wait for a signature will make them think twice. Well, we can only hope.


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.
  #994  
Old 09-29-2015, 01:27 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,533
I really wonder if the letter made a significant impact on the amount of clicks. I'd love to see the stats.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
  #995  
Old 09-29-2015, 01:40 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
I really wonder if the letter made a significant impact on the amount of clicks. I'd love to see the stats.
I am wondering as well. Also on the amount of complaints the paper got.
  #996  
Old 09-29-2015, 01:44 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 hernameispekka View Post
Richard Palmer randomly linked to the Woman Day magazine and people called him out on it. He seems to be going off the ledge..

[edit: I looked at Richard Palmers twitter again. It looks like he has taken down the link. Maybe his magazine wasn't too happy....]
I agree. I'm getting the vibe of vindictiveness from this action. Kudos to those who called him out. What he did was uncalled for.



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.
  #997  
Old 09-29-2015, 01:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,404
Richard Palmer's twitter is a 'personal account' and the views are his own, not his paper's.

No matter what he goes on about he knows his paper won't publish paparazzi pics of George or Charlotte.

On another note we will soon be getting holiday pics of the Cambridges and for that I'm excited and grateful.
  #998  
Old 09-29-2015, 01:57 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,343
I just saw the link on his Twitter. It isn't a direct link to the photos but to the website but he tells you there are photos there. I noticed a lot of royal watchers on Twitter didn't retweet the photos or even mention them because of the KP letter.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #999  
Old 09-29-2015, 02:22 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,452
I don't think Richard Palmer would want his paper to run the photos. He just mentioned the photos have been published.

I'm glad many people didn't retweet the pictures. Let's just respect the Cambridge's privacy and their stand on the issue.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
  #1000  
Old 09-29-2015, 04:08 PM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 5,689
Apparently, the pics were taken around the area of KP, (poosibly Kensington Gardens), as the children and their nanny were watching an helicopter land... The article says there was Princess Anne in there....
__________________

__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
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 catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia 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 marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess stephanie queen elizabeth 90 birthday queen elizabeth ii 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 satan september 2016 sheikh hamdan bin mohammed 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 11:38 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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