Catherine & William: 'Closer' Magazine and Breach of Privacy - September 2012


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
 
Hollie said:
Well, I don't get the "she should have known better" point of view. Even if no sensitive body parts were involved, the other pictures are still considered as a huge invasion of privacy. The main point should have been that long lens were used to take pictures from far far away.

And I don't think there is any problem with the security. The photos were taken using long lens from HALF A MILE away from where the royal couple were. They can't possibly ask their security to clear the whole area just for them whenever they are privately doing their stuff. Imagine the security cost it would take!
Click to expand...

Better a huge security cost than the cost this is going to have on the Cambridges. :sad:
 
in the economic crises we are in no one would like an increase in security cost in order for Catherine to be able to sunbath topless

Mystiblue said:
Better a huge security cost than the cost this is going to have on the Cambridges. :sad:
Click to expand...
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
I don't think this issue has anything to do with sexism or feminism; but the responses in this thread show that women are still just as cruel to other women as they've always been.
Click to expand...
This is a forum. People debate in forums. Many points of view give many perspectives. Differing opinions between females doesn't mean we are being cruel to each other. I don't think any less of a person who has expressed a different point of view to my own. We might agree on something else down the track. :neutral:
susan alicia said:
in the economic crises we are in no one would like an increase in security cost in order for Catherine to be able to sunbath topless
Click to expand...
A different way of looking at it. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really don't think anyone should be blaming Catherine for this situation. Despite the house being far from a open road, they were on private property and their privacy should've been respected. Many people sunbath in private and the royals should be able to sunbath in private too.

Harry's situation was pretty different. He was in his own private hotel room and was entitled to his privacy. When he invited a bunch of strangers to his room with camera phones, I think he pretty much invaded his own privacy. William & Catherine didn't have a bunch of strangers with camera phones in their room. They were alone and privately doing their own thing and that's how it should've remained.

William have always been upset with the paps on how they treated his late mother but now they are going after his wife and I think this situation is making his blood boil and rightfully so. I would've been too upset if my wife's privacy was invaded. I know some would think that the royal couple should ignore the situation so it can go away but if they did that, then it's like they are saying it was okay what the paps did and they should be able to do it again. It wasn't okay and I think legal action is the only way to go.

If William & Catherine was on a public beach and the Duchess decided to go topless, I would say shame on her for doing so. That's not the case here. The royals may be public figures but they are human just like everybody else and they are too entitled to some privacy. They have the right to stand up and fight for their privacy just like you and me.

I'm very impressed on how William & Catherine are handling this situation. They are carrying on with their tour as if nothing happened. They aren't allowing the printing of these pictures dampen their mood while they are on this Juiblee Tour. They are pressing on with courage and dignity. Very professional and graceful, imo.

Although, I feel bad that the Cambridges Diamond Jubilee Tour is being tainted by the foolishness of the paps and magazines.

It's a successful tour anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlota said:
these positions come with lots of advantages and certain disadvantages. this is one of them, your "freedom" will be somewhat reduced, and i'm sure they understood that well by now. this is not much different from the pictures the press takes of kate going shopping in london or around for walks with her dog.
Click to expand...

I sat struggling for several minutes how to word a response to this and I am just flabbergasted!

They were on a private estate and the pictures were taken from over a half a mile away. I would say their "Freedom" wasn't reduced, it was eliminated.

As to the pictures being the same as her shopping or walking the dog, IMHO they are not even close. When shopping and walking the dog, she has chosen to insert herself into the public domain. In these other pictures she has chosen exactly the opposite. :bang:
 
The media here is now commenting...they had a segment this morning about the situation and said 2 other mags are going to run the pics, even more pics than have already been shown, more intimate pics.

The media said that William stated the person(s) should be jailed.

I don't think this is going to go away anytime soon.


LaRae
 
I think it is disgraceful that the Duchess of Cambridge should be subjected to this intrusion of her privacy. The lass is doing a brilliant job and to degrade her in this way is downright obnoxious.
 
I imagine that one of the reasons the DOC is so angry is that he may have promised her and her parents that he would protect her from this sort of abuse when he asked her to marry him. I hate that this has happened. The photographers and editors are so mean-spirited.
 
Mystiblue said:
Better a huge security cost than the cost this is going to have on the Cambridges. :sad:
Click to expand...
The topless photos has nothing to do with security. They can not close down an entire community because a royal decides to spend some time there.

MaryL said:
I think it is disgraceful that the Duchess of Cambridge should be subjected to this intrusion of her privacy. The lass is doing a brilliant job and to degrade her in this way is downright obnoxious.
Click to expand...
For anyone concerned about privacy. Check out your own back-yard in Google Earth. You may even be in the picture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlota said:
that's not the point. you can take as many pictures as you want. i doubt you can do anything with them to be "malicious" to the other person: no magazine will buy them off you to publish them on their cover. it would be virtually no way the "violated person" would know you took those pictures and my guess is that you would delete those pictures off your digital camera after at the very most a couple of hours yourself: how weird would it be to show your holiday pictures to your friends and land to a picture of a naked stranger! (i bet that wouldn't make you very popular amongst your friends)

however, the situation with W+K is different as all magazines would want to publicise such material. so, on this basis, they should be extra careful, more so than the normal lambda citizen.

these positions come with lots of advantages and certain disadvantages. this is one of them, your "freedom" will be somewhat reduced, and i'm sure they understood that well by now. this is not much different from the pictures the press takes of kate going shopping in london or around for walks with her dog.
Click to expand...

If someone took compromising pics of you in your backyard, they could blackmail you. Wouldn't that be a violation of your privacy? Sure, naked pics of you may not end up in the papers, but in with the prevalence of social media, those pics could end up anywhere. What if someone emailed those naked pics of you to your boss, co-workers, or your family. Just because naked pics of you don't end up on the front page of some rag, doesn't mean you can't be embarrassed by them.
 
grevinnan said:
The topless photos has nothing to do with security. They can not close down an entire community because a royal decides to spend some time there.
Click to expand...

Well, the security team should have certainly 'walked the perimeters' of the property to see if there was an overlook from which a photographer- or a sniper- could take a photo-or worse- of the Cambridges. People who have security teams shouldn't have to do their own reconnaissance in order to feel safe- they rely on the security.

Someone up thread said she felt no sympathy for Kate. No sympathy for a woman who has been violated. No sympathy for a woman who will likely bear a future monarch. No sympathy for a woman whose mother-in-law was hounded and stalked- and perhaps driven to her death.

The security team failed big time. What did they think their responsibilities were?
 
ladongas said:
Well, the security team should have certainly 'walked the perimeters' of the property to see if there was an overlook from which a photographer- or a sniper- could take a photo-or worse- of the Cambridges. People who have security teams shouldn't have to do their own reconnaissance in order to feel safe- they rely on the security.

Someone up thread said she felt no sympathy for Kate. No sympathy for a woman who has been violated. No sympathy for a woman who will likely bear a future monarch. No sympathy for a woman whose mother-in-law was hounded and stalked- and perhaps driven to her death.

The security team failed big time. What did they think their responsibilities were?
Click to expand...

Do you realise how far away the photographer was? This wasn't down the road, this half a mile away.

Bringing up Diana's death, really. Cheap shot.
 
Lumutqueen said:
Do you realise how far away the photographer was? This wasn't down the road, this half a mile away.

Bringing up Diana's death, really. Cheap shot.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was half a mile away, so the Cambridges felt safe. Apparently, it wasn't far enough. I repeat, what did the security team think their duties were?

No, I didn't bring up Diana's death just to mention it. I meant it as a comment on those who would 'blame the victim' of this crime. Why would a kind-hearted person not feel that Catherine was due some sympathy, particularly in light of what had previously happened? Cold-hearted.
 
Lumutqueen said:
Do you realise how far away the photographer was? This wasn't down the road, this half a mile away.
Click to expand...

To be fair, half a mile is a 10 minute stroll - less if you pick up the pace. That's not a big effort.

I think that people who have commented about security simply mean (yes I am speaking for others) it would be expected that security check out the perimeter and brief the party on potential "issues." It could well be that they did that. We won't know.
 
Bringing up Diana's death is not a cheap shot, it is unfortunately very relevant to this situation. If paparazzi are to be allowed to pursue royals in an 'anything goes' manner, then accidents like the one which killed Diana are going to happen again.

The difficulty with the security is that there has been a long running campaign within the UK to reduce as far as is possible the cost to the public purse of securing the royals. I'd bet that many members of the royal family have likely stayed in this house over the years given its apparent remoteness (and they'd get a family discount). The fact that we've never seen any pictures of any of the royals visiting there, suggests to me that the security and the royals believed that there was almost no chance of this kind of thing happening. They may also have thought that given France's notorious privacy laws, even if they were photographed, they would not be published given that they constitute an obvious breach of their privacy.

Unfortunately for them, this was not the case.
 
Diana died because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Paparazzi didn't force her at gun point not to wear her seat belt. And by the way, when Diana died she wasn't royal she was fair game. When she was hounded by the press when married there were issues.

My response was mainly directed at the fact that I don't see why security is in anyway to blame for not scouting the area for potentially photography spots. The photographer was half a mile away with a long lens camera, what exactly could security do?

This was an invasion of privacy, but i will always be of the opinion that anyone who appears topless not in their own home is silly. It's beyond me to understand why anyone, royal or not, would do that.
 
Royals to launch criminal complaint over topless Kate photos - The Globe and Mail

They are pursuing both a civil lawsuit and criminal charges against Closer and its publisher as well as seeking an injunction against further publication of the pictures.
Personally I hope they are successful in the criminal charges. Cooling your heels in a French jail for a year should certainly make one think twice before violating someones privacy again.
 
Lumutqueen said:
...My response was mainly directed at the fact that I don't see why security is in anyway to blame for not scouting the area for potentially photography spots. The photographer was half a mile away with a long lens camera, what exactly could security do? ...
Click to expand...

What would I expect that a professional security team do? Walk -or drive- the roads and paths and check what could be seen with or without a long lens camera or scope or telescope or binoculars. "Excuse me, sir, did you know that the veranda can be seen from the road with a long lens camera?" Apparently this didn't happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that this is a bit of an overreaction on the royals part to the media when they should be examining their security issues that have become evident with Harry and now this. Also, I found comparing Diana's situation to boob photos was a bit tacky on the palace's part.
 
ladongas said:
What would I expect that a professional security team do? Walk -or drive- the roads and paths and check what could be seen with or without a long lens camera or scope or telescope or binoculars. "Excuse me, sir, did you know that the veranda can be seen from the road with a long lens camera?" Apparently this didn't happen.
Click to expand...

I don't blame security either. We actually do not know what the security team did or did not do around the premises either. 650 acres is a wide expanse of land.

Personally, I'd like to see William sue for ownership of the magazine and then close it down. That won't happen but I think the stronger conviction that is made in this incident will send a message that in the future if someone crosses the line, there'll be hell to pay. Give these sleazeballs a slap on the wrist and it'll be open season wherever Will and Kate go.
 
:previous:
Why would Prince William sue for the ownership of the magazine?
 
Al_bina said:
:previous:
How could Prince William close the magazine?
Click to expand...

It was my wishful thinking that if WIlliam sued for ownership of the magazine and won, its his to do as he pleases with it and shut it down. It'll never happen though in a million years.

Watching the litigation unfold on this will be interesting though.
 
I could not read a lot of this thread, because the judgmental attitude of so many posters is as repulsive to me as the taking of the pictures. Neither is right.

It's almost as if some of you hope that Kate will be emotionally scarred by this, but I bet she won't. She's an intelligent person.

Women should be able to take their shirts off if men do. It doesn't matter whether you're going to be the Queen of England or not. People who care that she was topless are silly, in my opinion.

The invasion of privacy started with the photos, and then continues with the excoriation of Kate by some of you for wanting to enjoy being outdoors with the sun on her skin.

I do appreciate the more sensible approaches of many of you and the compassion so many of you express.

I suspect the legal action will attempt to be low key and over with as soon as possible. The grainy pictures (some of which certainly do not look like Kate) are out there. Closer could well be sued out of existence (will be interesting to see) but it's certainly not an 'obscure' tabloid..
 
ladongas said:
What would I expect that a professional security team do? Walk -or drive- the roads and paths and check what could be seen with or without a long lens camera or scope or telescope or binoculars. "Excuse me, sir, did you know that the veranda can be seen from the road with a long lens camera?" Apparently this didn't happen.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's possible for security to check all of the areas surrounding the royals. Paps can take photos from anywhere. We now live in an age where a long lens camera can capture people from 5 miles away. That's why stronger laws against the paps and the magazines that print these types of photos, should be implemented.

Pentax Long range zoom lens C61244ST 12-1680mm with COHU 8800 camera - YouTube
 
Last edited:
soapstar said:
I don't know if it's possible for security to check all the areas surrounding the royals. We now live in an age where a long lens camera can capture people from 5 miles away. That's why stronger laws against the paps and the magazines that print these types of photos, should be implemented.
Click to expand...

Thank you! What's going to happen when technology that allows us to see and hear inside people's homes becomes widely available? I suppose at that point William and Kate will just never be able to take their clothes off or do anything they wouldn't want put on the front page of a French tabloid.
 
NGalitzine said:
Royals to launch criminal complaint over topless Kate photos - The Globe and Mail

They are pursuing both a civil lawsuit and criminal charges against Closer and its publisher as well as seeking an injunction against further publication of the pictures.
Personally I hope they are successful in the criminal charges. Cooling your heels in a French jail for a year should certainly make one think twice before violating someones privacy again.
Click to expand...

I'm glad they're taking this action. This was criminal and I hope the perpetrators spend time in prison. I don't understand why the photographer is not also being charged.
 
^It was just announced a little while ago that they are making a criminal complaint against the photographer.

camelot23ca said:
Thank you! What's going to happen when technology that allows us to see and hear inside people's homes becomes widely available? I suppose at that point William and Kate will just never be able to take their clothes off or do anything they wouldn't want put on the front page of a French tabloid.
Click to expand...
Very true.

According to a few of the royal reporters, the photographer might not have taken the pics from the road. They're now saying he/she may have been trespassing and took the photos from private land.

Victoria Arbiter ‏@victoriaarbiter
As news comes out of William + Kate's plans to file a criminal complaint it appears the photos may have been taken from private land.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Diana and Dodi (and Tony Blair)
6 7 8
Replies
213
Views
38K
Somebody
Somebody
R
  • Locked
William, Catherine and Family: Annual Holiday to Mustique (2012-2015, 2018-2019)
30 31 32
Replies
944
Views
53K
SLV
SLV
iceflower
  • Locked
The Countess of Wessex's Fashion and Style, Part 5: September 2012 - December 2013
12 13 14
Replies
416
Views
45K
iceflower
iceflower
E
  • Locked
Smear Campaign? And if so, by whom? (Re: William and Kate)
5 6 7
Replies
203
Views
44K
Myself1995
Myself1995
HMTLove23
George I (1660-1727)
2
Replies
54
Views
15K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom