Prince William and Kate Middleton current events 6: August-November 2008

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Little_star

There isn't. Though imo it doesn't look like a driveway just a normal country lane, which could prove to be even more reckless in some respects.

A lot narrower than any of the lanes in the English countryside that I know, however, I am sure wherever the photo was taken, it was angled to give the worst impression.

[Incas]

Judging from the fact that the photographer was able to take at least two photos, one from the side and another right in front of her, it makes me wonder if the photographer was purposedly blocking Kate on a country lane. Particularly if she was on a one lane road without any recourse to get away. I'd risk breaking the law to call for police.

[Ella Kay]

Originally Posted by Incas

Judging from the fact that the photographer was able to take at least two photos, one from the side and another right in front of her, it makes me wonder if the photographer was purposedly blocking Kate on a country lane. Particularly if she was on a one lane road without any recourse to get away. I'd risk breaking the law to call for police.

That's an interesting point, Incas. I wonder if she only picked up her phone to call someone (the police?) after the photographers started pursuing her or even trapping her.

I suppose the only way we'd ever know for sure is if one of the paps was also using a video camera. But regardless, the whole thing is a mess. Everyone should have the right to go about their daily business without having cameras shoved in their faces.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Ella Kay

That's an interesting point, Incas. I wonder if she only picked up her phone to call someone (the police?) after the photographers started pursuing her or even trapping her.

I suppose the only way we'd ever know for sure is if one of the paps was also using a video camera. But regardless, the whole thing is a mess. Everyone should have the right to go about their daily business without having cameras shoved in their faces.

I had wondered the same, for in the pics showing her on using her phone the car does not even seem to drive more than at walking speed. Maybe she saw them, got frightend and started calling while she was slowing down in order to be stopped by them. She might have feared she was going to be targeted.

Maybe even police advised her to wait till the pics showed up in public in order to get a hint of who did that to her. In the first set of ´Belgapics she appears as if somebody had turned a strong light towards her and she had to shield her eyes. For I doubt she would try to get herself covered in such a situation - she must have been photographed often before while driving, so gotten used to it but this looks as if it was a different situation.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Incas

Judging from the fact that the photographer was able to take at least two photos, one from the side and another right in front of her, it makes me wonder if the photographer was purposely blocking Kate on a country lane. Particularly if she was on a one lane road without any recourse to get away. I'd risk breaking the law to call for police.

On more than one occasion when I have been tailgated, I have put the phone to my ear to give the impression that I had telephoned the police. There is no date stamp that we can see and no 'news' of who took the pictures, when and under what circumstance. Then again if he came forward, he might find himself in trouble for stalking!

[Little_star]

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Kate was calling for help. It just seems like wishful thinking on the part of posters.

[Ella Kay]

There's nothing to suggest that she isn't calling for help either, Little_star. It's all speculation.

[Little_star]

Except if she were then in all likelihood it would have been reported; 999 calls are recorded and frequently cited.

[Incas]

LittleStar, seems to me you have made up your mind on Kate's guilt. That's fine. Unless you were there in person, your opinion is just as valid as other posters making observations based on available photos. I don't think it's nice for you to decide whose opinion is wishful thinking.

[Little_star]

It's hardly just "photos". The print media has reported that she was driving at the time.

"Miss Middleton was pictured holding her handset to her ear as she drove her Audi A3 along a country lane near her family's Berkshire home"
Kate Middleton caught speaking on her phone while driving - Telegraph

"Prince William's girlfriend was spotted holding the handset to her right ear as she drove her sporty Audi A3 hatchback near her home in Berkshire."
Kate Middleton Caught Using Mobile Phone While Driving Near Her Berkshire Home | UK News | Sky News

Images have surfaced of Middleton with the phone clamped to her ear as she drove along a country lane near her family's Berkshire home, UK press reports said.
Will's Kate sprung driving, on mobile | NEWS.com.au

There's nothing in any of the news reports to indicate that she phoned the police or used her phone after being spotted. By all accounts it seems that she was driving and using her phone and was snapped at the same time.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Little_star

It's hardly just "photos". The print media has reported that she was driving at the time.

There's nothing in any of the news reports to indicate that she phoned the police or used her phone after being spotted. By all accounts it seems that she was driving and using her phone and was snapped at the same time.

All of the links you have supplied refer back to the same source and the one photograph they are all using. The Sky article is worded very carefully IMO. If as I said earlier, she was trying to give the stalker the impression that she was phoning the police, there wouldn't be any record.

If she was indeed driving with great care whilst on her mobile, it was rather stupid, but luckily no harm was done.

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

All of the links you have supplied refer back to the same source and the one photograph they are all using. The Sky article is worded very carefully IMO. If as I said earlier, she was trying to give the stalker the impression that she was phoning the police, there wouldn't be any record.

If she was indeed driving with great care whilst on her mobile, it was rather stupid, but luckily no harm was done.

At least I've provided sources.

Perhaps you would like to supply the sources that say she was being stalked, chased, blocked in by photographers, tricked by photographers etc. etc?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Little_star

At least I've provided sources.

Perhaps you would like to supply the sources that say she was being stalked, chased, blocked in by photographers, tricked by photographers etc. etc?

Well, we do know that despite the promises made by the press association, that the photographers would cease and desist the stalking/following of Kate, at least one of their rank has once again refused to abide by their own ruling. And the papers that piously said they would not use such photographs taken outwith public events have done a reverse turn, (probably whilst holding a mobile to their ears as they negotiate their way around Oxford Street, in the rush hour). I can't think of any valid reason for a photographer to be hiding in a hedge near to Kate's house, therefore he was stalking her!

[Incas]

LittleStar, as you well know, in this age of internet, even news sites copy/paste stories from each other. If you read the content of each of the links, the "facts" are pratically written by the the same author, with extensive editorial comments added for good measure. I for one won't quote an Australian site for something that happened anywhere outsitde of Australia. Just food for thought.

If you go back to my post, I never said Kate was phoning the police. I just mentioned what I'd have done if I got caught on a lane with photographer blocking me.

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by Incas

LittleStar, as you well know, in this age of internet, even news sites copy/paste stories from each other. If you read the content of each of the links, the "facts" are pratically written by the the same author, with extensive editorial comments added for good measure. I for one won't quote an Australian site for something that happened anywhere outsitde of Australia. Just food for thought.

If you go back to my post, I never said Kate was phoning the police. I just mentioned what I'd have done if I got caught on a lane with photographer blocking me.

Except again, there's no evidence that Kate was being blocked, chased by photograhers or anything else of that nature.

Those are all theories that appear to have been espoused by members to explain away an incredibly dangerous and reckless act by Ms Middleton.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Little_star

Except again, there's no evidence that Kate was being blocked, chased by photograhers or anything else of that nature.

You're right. There were no photographers there, never and she was not photographed while trying to protect her eyes. These pcis were clearly photoshopped, so any claim by Catherine Middleton that she was being stalked was just a PR-move from her. Probably she even photoshopped the pics herself, attention-seeking little golddigger that she is. Ah, right....

[Duke of Marmalade]

It's amazing to see what surreal theories have been brought up to find an excuse for something inexcusable. Not all posters might live in the UK but those who do, as Little Star has already pointed out, will know that there have recently been / still are major campaigns regarding road safety, and especially regarding mobile phone use whilst driving, taking even priority before drink-driving as there have been terrible accidents due to the mobile phones issue.

So, every member of the british public should be very aware, and that includes Kate Middleton. It is irrelevant whether there is a busy road or not, other cars are around or not and it is beyond me how a public figure (yes she is because of her relationship to Prince William) like Kate Middleton who is used to / has to take into account being followed by photographers whenever she leaves her home can get herself into such a situation. To claim she was being harrassed or forced into using her mobile phone by the bad bad media whilst driving is simply ludicrous.

I hope the police will use these photos for a further investigation into this matter - not because it's Kate Middleton but because a motorist did not obey to much communicated road safety rules and put herself and others in danger.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

I hope the police will use these photos for a further investigation into this matter - not because it's Kate Middleton but because a motorist did not obey to much communicated road safety rules and put herself and others in danger.

Ahh the old, I am only thinking of her safety! There is no evidence that the car was even moving, so it is unlikely the police will use these photographs to launch an investigation and it would be a waste of police time and taxpayers money to do so! As you will know, they cannot use them as evidence because there is no way to ascertain when they were taken.

[Menarue]

I hope that in all this discussion no one is saying that it is right to drive while using a cell phone, it isn´t, it is against the law, whatever reason is given for doing it. There may be mitigating circumstances but when you get down to the nitty gritty there is no escaping it, driving while phoning is against the law.
Whether Kate Middleton was driving or not we can drive ourselves to distraction with yes she was and no she wasn´t. If she is charged well then it is proven, if she isn´t well there are many conclusions to jump to and one of them just might be that she wasn´t driving.

[Isana]

Can she be charged based on paparazzi pics? Would she not need to be "caught" by the police or a surveillance camera instead?

I do not think anyone said the paps forced Kate to make a call while driving. Just that the pictures may not show what the papers claim they show or better the papers didn't tell the whole truth.
I think the pictures we have seen alone do not proof that she was driving on a public road. All one can see is a small part of dark concrete the car is "standing" on - the pic doesn't show it in motion obviously. Where that was the pictures doesn't show and the caption doesn't say it clearly either. Unless the paps have a video, I don't think this would suffice for legal proceedings especially since the paps themselves may not be regarded credible witnesses since they would be in breach of the law if they pictured her while in private property or pursued her while driving hence they may have an interest to pretend she was on a public road even though she may not have been.... even more so since they could be held responsible for libel as well (if the pictures do not show what they claim they do).