Fitness Kate topless

[Chilly]

Its not about blocking them, it's about making sure no cunt tries it again.

 

[rynnor]

Its not about blocking them, it's about making sure no cunt tries it again.

Depends on the risk/benefit - can't see a French court convicting the bloke if they can identify him.

 

[Chilly]

Do you know anything about the relevant french laws? I bet the lawyers Will&Kate asked do. They wouldn't have gone so far if they had no chance.

 

[old.user4556]

Excuse my relative lack of give-a-fuck, but if the Royals get away with preventing stalker photos, surely the same applies to the rest of us?

 

[dysfunction]

If you have their money then yes...

 

[throdgrain]

Excuse my relative lack of give-a-fuck, but if the Royals get away with preventing stalker photos, surely the same applies to the rest of us?

In France mate

 

[Scouse]

Frankly, if they want to live as actual kings, taking a salary out of my taxes on top of their altogether richer-than-you-can-imagine lifestyle, then the least they can do is get their fucking tits out for my pleasure.

I'm paying for those tits. I want to see them.

 

[DaGaffer]

The Royals just need to shrug this one off - its a little like King Canute trying to hold back the tide* trying to block these pictures in the Internet age?

* Yes I know about what Canute really did

So basically if you're in the public eye you should have no right to privacy? At all? Because that's the logic of what you're saying. I love the fuckwit editor of the Irish Daily Star claiming its OK to publish the pictures because "she could be seen from the road". She could also been seen from space with the right equipment, that doesn't make it any more ethically acceptable.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Agreeing with Gaffy here, i don't know why peeping toms are a criminal offense, yet paparazzi are a-ok 'cause people get their perverse spying fix.

 

[rynnor]

So basically if you're in the public eye you should have no right to privacy? At all? Because that's the logic of what you're saying. I love the fuckwit editor of the Irish Daily Star claiming its OK to publish the pictures because "she could be seen from the road". She could also been seen from space with the right equipment, that doesn't make it any more ethically acceptable.

Hmm nothing to do with the point I was making tbh which was about injunctions in the internet age.

In reality in the UK if someone takes a picture from the public road of you in the nude on your balcony then no crime has been comitted. You can talk about morality but we are talking about journalists here - and tbh the public show their taste is for the unethical so its hard to blame them completely.

I dont know the facts of this case but if it really was taken from a public road thats probably not illegal even in France?

 

[Gumbo]

People have been sent to prison in the UK for filming naked women without their knowledge. I suppose it might come down to definitions. Does there have to be muff for it to be an offense? I have no idea about the law in France.

The problem is the people who buy the damn magazines. Now if all the stupid fucking bints in this country didn't buy UK closer for a few weeks, they'd soon remove the license for French Closer who would have to rename and build their brand again. It could be a career ending mistake for the editor. Of course in public they'll profess their indignity at their licensee using the Closer name to publish these photos, but in private they'll be laughing as they couldn't buy that kind of publicity for the magazine in the UK.

I bet their sales are up this week without even having to publish some grainy pictures of boobs.

 

[rynnor]

People have been sent to prison in the UK for filming naked women without their knowledge.

On private property - thats the difference between a photographer and a peeping Tom.

 

[Gumbo]

On private property - thats the difference between a photographer and a peeping Tom.

Well one was sent to prison for filming women in the showers at a swimming pool, so that is property open to the public. Again, it's confused by no knowledge of the French law, but Kate was staying at the private house of a relative when they filmed her. What if the shots had been taken through the window as she walked from her bedroom to the bathroom for a shower, would the fact that the photographer was on the road have made it any less voyeuristic?

She wasn't in a public place. You needed some pretty fancy equipment to even get the grainy shots they got. If she'd been on a beach in the med with her tits out, fair game. She was on a secluded balcony, on the roof of a family members home, deep within private grounds. I think she had a fair expectation of privacy.

 

[opticle]

These photos are a complete disappointment.

Also, this is a great example of scumbag journalism and, call me old fashioned, but I think this sort of thing cropping up and being "big news" is really eroding society and making it a generally shittier, shallower place - hope the journalists get shafted for it.

 

[rynnor]

Well one was sent to prison for filming women in the showers at a swimming pool, so that is property open to the public.

If you cant walk into it whenever you want and without paying its not public.

I have no facts about the situation with these pictures - the royals are certainly presenting it as being in the middle of nowhere but thats to build their case.

 

[Gumbo]

You can't walk into Viscount Linleys house in France whether you pay or not. It's private. The photos were taken from over a mile away.

Ok. My garden is entirely enclosed and not overlooked by neighbours. There is a public footpath a couple of hundred yards away with the odd tree lining it. If my missus was sunbathing topless in my garden, people walking by on the footpath wouldn't be able to see or photograph her. If someone climbed up the tree and had a long lens, they could photograph her.

Could I consider that illegal voyeurism and expect the police to be interested? Would I be entitled to be a bit miffed?

 

[cHodAX]

These photos are a complete disappointment.

Also, this is a great example of scumbag journalism and, call me old fashioned, but I think this sort of thing cropping up and being "big news" is really eroding society and making it a generally shittier, shallower place - hope the journalists get shafted for it.

Well said.

 

[rynnor]

Could I consider that illegal voyeurism and expect the police to be interested? Would I be entitled to be a bit miffed?

No and Yes.

 

[Gumbo]

No? You mean someone going to extreme lengths to photograph my wifes norks without her consent, whilst she is in a private place wouldn't be considered illegal?

Yes I am aware of the irony of my avatar in this thread.

 

[rynnor]

No? You mean someone going to extreme lengths to photograph my wifes norks without her consent, whilst she is in a private place wouldn't be considered illegal?

I dont think so - not unless they made a habit of it - they could just be an un-suspecting birdwatcher

 

[rynnor]

Oh and in France theres absolute protection of sources so not even the court can order the magazine to reveal who took the photo which leaves the criminal investigation nowhere.

 

[dysfunction]

Pff. The Americans have satellites in space that can read the print on your newspaper. Thats a zoom lens.

Not just the American's!!
http://www.urthecast.com/

 

[Cadelin]

I dont think so - not unless they made a habit of it - they could just be an un-suspecting birdwatcher

WTF are you on? Of course it's illegal.

Lets take a nice obvious example; google street view. All those photo's are taken from public roads, yet why do Google Blur peoples faces out? Why was there a restriction on the height of the cameras? Why do they have to give people the ability to opt out of bits? Its an invasion of privacy and that's something which is protected under the human rights act.

Also in just about any news article on the topic it clearly states that under French law what the magazine has done is clearly breaking the law. It might not be straight forward to track down the photographer but there is no doubt that they are guilty of invasion of privacy too.

 

[Scouse]

google street view

Image, is the reason google lets you opt-out. Google's image.

They could easily tell you to go fuck a duck - but google wants to come across all touchy-feely whilst in the background they carry on with their stated aim of "abolishing privacy"...

 

[Wij]

No? You mean someone going to extreme lengths to photograph my wifes norks without her consent, whilst she is in a private place wouldn't be considered illegal?

I can't really judge without a picture to be honest. Do the decent thing thanks.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Say what you will, atleast i don't argue this much about tits

 

[Job]

I don;t really want to see grainy shots with her unprepared, I want full close up,
stripping out of a riding outfit and rubbing ice on the nipples.
Porn had tainted me.

 

[rynnor]

Lets take a nice obvious example; google street view. All those photo's are taken from public roads, yet why do Google Blur peoples faces out? Why was there a restriction on the height of the cameras? Why do they have to give people the ability to opt out of bits? Its an invasion of privacy and that's something which is protected under the human rights act.

Good luck getting someone nicked under the human rights act

After years in the legal system at massive expense you might get compensation but if said watcher was poor you have just wasted thousands.

 

[soze]

After thinking about this I still think the Magazine the Editor and the Wank Stain that took the picture are all scum. Lets hope they get sued so bad that any money made from the sale of the magazine is negated. The Royals should also ban that magazine and any other publications in that companies umbrella from any event involving the royals.

But on the other hand Kate has grown up seeing how Royal get hounded even seeing her Husbands mother killed. She married into that family knowing this and still decided to marry him. Therefore she has no expectation of privacy, that's not right but it is the reality and she knew that. So she needs some of the blame here she did not need to get her tits out and if she is happy with having her tits out then she should just come out and say she is happy with how she looks, they are perfectly natural bla bla bla and show she does not give a shit.

As a bloke it is easy for me to say so but she could also just get the girls out for that Breast Cancer book then at least a charity is getting the benefit of all the sad sacks paying to see them.

 

[Aoami]

I bet prince william doesnt give a fuck but hasnt heard the end of it from kate so hes had to put his weight behind the court case