zembla
Courtier
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 875
- City
- Camden
- Country
- United States
The photos are everywhere now...and are way more full-on than I expected. She must be horrified.
grevinnan said:For them to think that they will not be hounded when outside of the royals very personal space and security was naive. It does not make the photos right but the reality does not always follow right or wrong.
miche said:"They should not feel safe around their personal surrounding" How sad is that and how sad that people think this is okay
susan alicia said:she definitely should have kept her top on, they both created an opportunity for the paperazzi which does not make them victims but just plain stupid.
By following that logic, no one would ever be convicted of a crime of opportunity because the victims could never take enough precautions.
Exactly
CBS is reporting that the road and the chateau was .5 miles away. Not close at all.
Here is a photo
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2xTKNYCMAAKRgH.jpg
They couldn't, ever. The paps have these huge lenses that take insanely good pictures from great distances. Then how would she even know there were pics being taken? She wouldn't. Apparently there were also pics of her smoking.OMG, this pic is shocking. How could William and Kate ever spot the camera from that distance!
It wasn't a public place. The Duke and Duchess were on a private estate owned by her husbands cousin. The photographer would have had to trespass (which is illegal) on private property and then use long lense to take the pictures. Invasions of privacy, even of public persons, is still illegal in France. There is a reasonable expectation of the right to privacy on private property.
I am rather amazed at the "blame the victim" mentality of some posters.
She wasn't in a public place.
as far as i know, it is a public place: the chateau is a hotel for other people such as visitors or other public, even if owned by her husband's cousin.
Chateau D'Autet
as far as i know, it is a public place: the chateau is a hotel for other people such as visitors or other public, even if owned by her husband's cousin.
Chateau D'Autet
so yes, if you don't want compromising pictures circulating, then don't engage in compromising situations. it's simple, even normal people do so when not exposing themselves to pictures when in certain situations. it's just common sense.
Al_bina said:Spletnik.ru --- The scandal in the British royal family
I have never understood a desire to voluntarily bake oneself.
They were a mile away. She didn't even see them and she didn't have a chance to go inside or put her top back on.I'm pretty much of two minds. On one hand I feel terribly for Kate - you should be able to expect a reasonable amount of privacy on a private estate, but on the other hand she knows/should know that she is unfortunately a target for the paparazzi and they will not respect her privacy - if they can get a picture of her, they will.
Thanks to the french law regarding the invasion of privacy, Will and Kate's case will be presented before the judge probably on monday. It's already expected that Closer will lose and of course pay a lot...
Kate Middleton seins nus dans "Closer" : le magazine le paiera cher au procès - le Plus
Disgusting. Their case should be easy to win.Exactly
CBS is reporting that the road and the chateau was .5 miles away. Not close at all.
Here is a photo
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2xTKNYCMAAKRgH.jpg
We get to share their joys and sorrows and all of their triumphs, do we have to share in their bodyparts as well?? Catherine is a human being not an object. This breach of privacy is a lack of respect, which stems from the dehumanization of all of these lovely women. They're objects.
Two things I'd be interested in knowing:
Does the judge who will hear this case have any discretion in the amount the magazine is fined, (assuming William and Catherine win)?
And, is it possible to sue the individual photographer who took the pictures, in addition to the magazine that published them?
I have an aversion to tan and sun bathing. As I have stated previously in other threads, tan equals plebeian. Sunscreens are artificial compounds that might be ineffective to protect long sun exposure. The data related to the sunscreen efficiency is contradictory. I am for long-sleeved clothes, hats, and parasols.... [snipped]
Aren't they putting on sunscreen? I don't know if I consider that baking themselves.