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
Its about cash, nothing else. Kate sells, and frankly, why would people have respect, at least outside the UK, where magazines dont live in fear of being cut off by the royal house on future lucrative events (the money reason again)? Who is Kate, the wife of, nothing more. She is seen by most people as celebrity. Those who take royalty seriously, let alone Kate whose achievements are non-existent at this stage, are very small-numbered on a world wide scale anyway.
 
Ok this is old 'stuff', but I say, If you are a burglar and you do not want to be caught... then, do not steal.
It doesn't matter if you are a royal or not, but, if you do not want to be seen topless... then do not go for it
Instead, if you do, royal or not, also in a private location, and you get caught... well take your responsabilities...

There are 2 distinctions in 'papparazzi',
First: those ones who are telling/writing whateverwhat=lies. And they do it for money
Second: the ones, usually the ones who takes pictures, even indescretes ones, and they do it for money too... but pictures do not tell lies
So who is going to blame the guy who took the pictures and why?
And what kind of job are you doing?
 
According to the French Court, the guy who took the pictures broke the law. So he is certainly to blame.
 
Not sure how invading someone's privacy and posting topless pics is part of the job.
 
teia said:
Ok this is old 'stuff', but I say, If you are a burglar and you do not want to be caught... then, do not steal.
It doesn't matter if you are a royal or not, but, if you do not want to be seen topless... then do not go for it
Instead, if you do, royal or not, also in a private location, and you get caught... well take your responsabilities...
Click to expand...

I must disagree. She was not in a public place at all. With current technology, photos could be taken of you in your hotel bathroom. Are you saying if you don't shower with your clothes on, it's your fault if naked photos of you are taken and published?
 
McKeen said:
I must disagree. She was not in a public place at all. With current technology, photos could be taken of you in your hotel bathroom. Are you saying if you don't shower with your clothes on, it's your fault if naked photos of you are taken and published?
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree. This invasion of privacy has the potential to affect all of us not just royalty, political figures, celebrities etc...
 
Royal Central ‏@RoyalCentral 3m
BREAKING NEWS: Two people have been charged over topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, Sky News reports.

Kate Middleton Topless Pictures: 'Two Charged'

Gordon Rayner ‏@gordonrayner 10m
Photographer and publisher of Closer magazine France are the two who have been charged. St James's Palace had asked for criminal probe
 
Last edited:
Gordon Rayner ‏@gordonrayner 5m
Photographer and publisher of Closer magazine France are the two who have been charged. St James's Palace had asked for criminal probe
 
:previous: Good. Throw the book at them.
 
Paul Harrison ‏@SkyNewsRoyal 44s
#royal reports say two were charged "this month" - photos taken while couple on holiday at french Chateau d'Autet, owned by #Queen's nephew

Peter Allen ‏@peterallenparis 3m
Royal update: Valerie Suau charged ‘in connection’ with topless Duchess of Cambridge pics, but claims she only took decent ones.
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced that the "Chi" photos are actually William and Kate. Something is not quite right, to my eye.
 
KittyAtlanta said:
I'm not convinced that the "Chi" photos are actually William and Kate. Something is not quite right, to my eye.
Click to expand...

Interesting.... could you elaborate, please?

Why did it take so long to charge these two? Did they not know who the two were.
 
GracieGiraffe said:
Why did it take so long to charge these two? Did they not know who the two were.
Click to expand...

Actually, they didn't for a long time. And when they finally did, they would have had to gather evidence before being able to charge them.
 
On a related note, Hawaii is passing the "Steven Tyler Law" which will make it illegal for paps to take photos on private ground. It came out a lawsuit filed by the Aerosmith singer after pics were take while he was on vacation.

So - in Hawaii, pics may be taken on the street or on the beach, but not inside a spa, hotel, restaurant, etc.
 
Yup, you are right. This is a new law for Hawaii and I think it is pretty good. If you are anywhere else other than your home away from home or your hotel then you are fair game. But once the doors close or you are in your backyard, you are off limits. Alot of celebrities have homes here and having this law will allow them to roam freely in the privacy of that home without having to draw the curtains or having to put up huge block walls or so many bushes you cant enjoy the view. I think it is necessary and the correct thing to do. Yes they are celebrities but they are also people, they just happen to make more money and they are more recognized. I think its great when I can go to the beach with my hubby and there under big umbrellas with sunglasses on is Jada and Will and thier son in the water trying to boogyboard. My husband actually was in the water with the boy and the bodyguard just having a good time and talking. No one bothered any of them on the beach and I think that is why they like coming here to Kauai. To us they are just normal people who are on vacation.
 
Too bad they won't release the name of the %#+* who took the photos, or isn't his just me being vindictive?
 
Unlike Diana, Kate is not dead. The Paps got away with it then and they will get away with it now.

Nothing will really change, I don't think. This is just a stage act. All bark, no bite.
 
Look, Kate is a lovely young woman. They thrive on publicity and then they shun it. If you don't want to be photographed this way, you don't do this. It is not that important. When you suck on publicity, it is like living and dying by the sword. The RF claims they don't, but if they didn't, they would live in seclusion. They need the media, otherwise they would become irrelevant.
 
COUNTESS said:
Look, Kate is a lovely young woman. They thrive on publicity and then they shun it. If you don't want to be photographed this way, you don't do this. It is not that important. When you suck on publicity, it is like living and dying by the sword. The RF claims they don't, but if they didn't, they would live in seclusion. They need the media, otherwise they would become irrelevant.
Click to expand...

What you are saying would be condoning a crime in some countries. It is an infringement of their privacy.

They are entitled to private time.

But this is a loop cos you and I have said this all before.
 
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