I suggest that those who are bored by this discussion do the obvious - simply don't read these pages.
The UK newspapers might well have seemingly abandoned their coverage, but it's not forgotten. Ignoring the person of the victims, the issue remains one of general importance, not least because of the soon to be released report of the Leveson Inquiry into the role and behaviour of the press in the UK is imminent. Privately, individual British press attitudes to the publication of these illegal photos is one of barely suppressed anger, which remains reluctantly suppressed to not further inflame a volatile, domestic situation.
At a more critical level, if we can believe statistics, they reveal that 1 in 4 women experience sexual violence at some point in their lives and that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys suffer sexual abuse during their childhood. It is estimated that there are between 6 - 13% rapists in the general community. That's a significant target market, given that it's claimed that 5% of the population are declared LGBT which enables corporations and business to speak openly about 'the pink pound/dollar', which they actively pursue. But we hear little about another, larger group of comsumers who are knowingly targeted - sexual abusers. A significant amount of products and advertisements are overtly targeting what is commercially, if somewhat furtively, referred to as 'the rape pound/dollar'.
A not too subtle example of this was Closure's commercial imperatives in publishing those photos, knowing that large numbers of people would buy a magazine that they usually wouldn't touch, for the pleasure of participating in the sexual humiliation of an attractive, famous woman. These readers were all aware that the photos were taken without Catherine's knowledge or consent, and that she did not want them published, but that only added to the titillation and fleeting sense of power they got from looking at them. That, in short, is the power of what commercial interests call the 'rape pound/dollar', in full flight.
It is dispiriting that so many cannot, or will not see, that they are being so blantantly manipulated. Instead, we read comments castigating the Duchess for her carelessness, that she should have known that society has unwritten rules about what part of the body it's acceptable to display! I've never heard of such 'rules' myself, particulary in relation to moments of intimacy between husband and wife, and generally, when hundreds of thousands of women find it perfectly unremarkable to sunbake topless on countless beaches. To claim that photos of the Duchess were not sexually exploitative or disciminatory because if they were, one would 'just know it', is tantamount, in my mind, to the apologists who say 'I am not racist, but.....'; 'I am not anti-gay, but......' Self-deluded at best, they are.
Taking photos of someone without their knowledge or permission on private property, 1.6 kms from a road, is the photographic equivalent of breaking and entering. Despite any other considerations, using the profound principle of freedom of the press (to inform, free from political intereference) to defend such criminal behavior and commercially-inspired invasions of privacy is inappropriate. The best testament to genuine freedom of the press would be to punish those who use the camera as a weapon to destroy, to inflict pain and harm —as well as those who profit from it
A fragile ego?? William watched his mother get harassed daily by the press and has good reason to believe they contributed to her death. A fragile psyche maybe, but not ego.
