PDA

View Full Version : French Mag Publishes topless pics of Duchess of Cambridge


Talula
Sep 14th, 2012, 05:45 AM
Poor soul can't now even sunbathe in private. Paparazzi with telephoto lenses pass on topless pics to the French magazine Closer, who have published.

So much for French privacy laws!

Whatever you think of the Royal Family, should a magazine be able to publish pics of anyone in such circumstances, or should we all now have to accept that photos of us doing anything at anytime can be splashed across magazines, Internet etc? What does that lead to?

Didn't Angela Merkel suffer a similar indignity when on a holiday?

Is no one in the public eye ever off duty?

I can see an argument for publishing pics of people up to no good, breaking the law etc, but surely there is a right to some privacy for everyone?

Mary Cherry.
Sep 14th, 2012, 10:06 AM
I think anyone who's in the public eye even half as much as her should be a bit more careful, unless of course they want these sort of photos to be published.

Not sure on the time frame of when they were taken, surely not after the Harry scandal?

Sgt.Timmykinz
Sep 14th, 2012, 12:02 PM
You'll probably have seen bigger wasp stings than what she's got to offer.

Is anyone really that interested in seeing a 10 year old boy with enlarged nipples?

KournikovaFan91
Sep 14th, 2012, 12:25 PM
Poor soul can't now even sunbathe in private. Paparazzi with telephoto lenses pass on topless pics to the French magazine Closer, who have published.

So much for French privacy laws!

Whatever you think of the Royal Family, should a magazine be able to publish pics of anyone in such circumstances, or should we all now have to accept that photos of us doing anything at anytime can be splashed across magazines, Internet etc? What does that lead to?

Didn't Angela Merkel suffer a similar indignity when on a holiday?

Is no one in the public eye ever off duty?

I can see an argument for publishing pics of people up to no good, breaking the law etc, but surely there is a right to some privacy for everyone?


Since she was in a private place then I think it probably is wrong however if on a public beach or yacht at sea then no, you have to deal with it anyone can take a photo of anything they want in a public area.

JN
Sep 14th, 2012, 12:26 PM
I expected they'd be perkier, but I guess they'll do. This kinda matches the inexplicable hoopla over her sister's pancake ass.

Super Dave
Sep 14th, 2012, 12:45 PM
I expected they'd be perkier, but I guess they'll do. This kinda matches the inexplicable hoopla over her sister's pancake ass.

They're about what I expected... :yawn:

Sammo
Sep 14th, 2012, 01:10 PM
Didn't Angela Merkel suffer a similar indignity when on a holiday?


Ew...

tennisboi
Sep 14th, 2012, 11:40 PM
Didn't Angela Merkel suffer a similar indignity when on a holiday?



http://i.imgur.com/QgSHP.gif (http://imgur.com/QgSHP)

Volcana
Sep 14th, 2012, 11:46 PM
Poor soul can't now even sunbathe in private. Paparazzi with telephoto lenses pass on topless pics to the French magazine Closer, who have published.Whatever you think of the Royal Family, the current Queen's ability to withstand this level of scrutiny for half a century is why she's cool.
Whatever you think of the Royal Family, should a magazine be able to publish pics of anyone in such circumstances, or should we all now have to accept that photos of us doing anything at anytime can be splashed across magazines, Internet etc? Yes, the Royals should have to suffer this, and so should the rest of us.
What does that lead to?Eventually, a more mature society.
Is no one in the public eye ever off duty?No.
I can see an argument for publishing pics of people up to no good, breaking the law etc, but surely there is a right to some privacy for everyone?Legally, in the USA anyway, no. Once you're a 'public figure', your life can basically be made a living hell.

pov
Sep 15th, 2012, 12:29 AM
This kinda matches the inexplicable hoopla over her sister's pancake ass.
Hey just because you think huge = shapely is no reason to expect everyone to share your tastes.

Nicolás89
Sep 15th, 2012, 01:01 AM
I think anyone who's in the public eye even half as much as her should be a bit more careful, unless of course they want these sort of photos to be published.

Not sure on the time frame of when they were taken, surely not after the Harry scandal?

Not really.

Halardfan
Sep 15th, 2012, 02:11 AM
Whatever you think of the Royal Family, the current Queen's ability to withstand this level of scrutiny for half a century is why she's cool.
Yes, the Royals should have to suffer this, and so should the rest of us.
Eventually, a more mature society.
No.
Legally, in the USA anyway, no. Once you're a 'public figure', your life can basically be made a living hell.

British law is somewhat different I think...as far as I understand it, if the photos are taken of a private location, where those involved can have reasonable expectation of privacy, they have a case when that privacy isn't respected. I also heard the French laws on privacy are pretty stricts and the Royals would likely win any legal case.

gentenaire
Sep 15th, 2012, 07:46 AM
I love how the British tabloids are all pretending they have more class for not publishing the pics. They're attacking the French magazine for doing what they would have done as well if it wasn't for the fear of being prosecuted.

swissmr
Sep 15th, 2012, 09:24 AM
I don't understand why all the fuss just because she's a royal - topless pics of 'regular' celebs get printed all the time? :shrug:

Chrissie-fan
Sep 15th, 2012, 09:51 AM
Well, same story as with Diana, ain't it? People will pretend to be outraged by this, throw mudpies at tabloid journalism, and then go to the shop and buy the magazine. Closer will probably have to pay a fine, but it will be nowhere near as big as the profit they will make out of publishing the photos, so what do they care?

Hiding in the bushes in the hope of taking a 'got ya' picture of a celeb is a pitiful way to make a living, but it's even sadder that we reward them by buying this junk. And if five or ten years from now we'd have a new Diana drama on our hands we'll all get angry at the media and say, "never again." But never again would last only a couple of weeks after which everything would get back to business as usual as it always has and as it always will.

JN
Sep 15th, 2012, 11:41 AM
Hey just because you think huge = shapely is no reason to expect everyone to share your tastes.

Where'd you get that idea? It couldn't possibly be from my admiration of Maria's, here:

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Maria+Sharapova+Internazionali+BNL+Italia+z2FqIhTV 2xJl.jpgOW!! :drool: Whoot! Whoot!

...unless you consider that "huge." :tape:

Sam L
Sep 15th, 2012, 11:44 AM
Sorry but if you're going to have a nation stop for your wedding and attract all that attention to yourself, then surely you must be wise enough to know that you will get that attention elsewhere also. I hope the magazine doesn't lose the case. If you don't want this attention, step down from your privileges. Live in private like everyone else.

matthias
Sep 15th, 2012, 12:02 PM
Angela merkel topless?
No one won't to see it

Sgt.Timmykinz
Sep 15th, 2012, 12:17 PM
Sorry but if you're going to have a nation stop for your wedding and attract all that attention to yourself, then surely you must be wise enough to know that you will get that attention elsewhere also. I hope the magazine doesn't lose the case. If you don't want this attention, step down from your privileges. Live in private like everyone else.

Its not like she did it on a balcony overlooking a busy street in the centre of Paris:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2202895-15046777000005DC-546_634x460.jpg

tennisboi
Sep 15th, 2012, 12:34 PM
Its not like she did it on a balcony overlooking a busy street in the centre of Paris:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2202895-15046777000005DC-546_634x460.jpg

Harry was acting like a tool in Vegas but Kate was in private with her husband that pic is scary there is no privacy anymore:tape:

jameshazza
Sep 15th, 2012, 01:46 PM
Honestly, there's no way I can tell if the photos are genuinely of Kate and William. Has the palace released a statement?
EDIT: So it is them. There've been worse Royal scandals tbh. This will blow over.

Bismarck.
Sep 15th, 2012, 01:50 PM
Honestly, when compared with Charles saying he wanted to be Camilla's tampon, this is nothing. :tape:

Wigglytuff
Sep 15th, 2012, 01:51 PM
Its not like she did it on a balcony overlooking a busy street in the centre of Paris:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2202895-15046777000005DC-546_634x460.jpg

Dude. That's super wrong. I think she had a right to expect privacy.

Ok where are these tatas everyone is fussing about. I never got the sense that she had anything more than a small b cup.

dsanders06
Sep 15th, 2012, 02:25 PM
Why is the French magazine being sued? Surely it should be the PHOTOGRAPHER being sued for an invasion of privacy? But you can't really blame the magazine just for printing pics that they were offered if they weren't involved in actually taking them...

Chris 84
Sep 15th, 2012, 02:34 PM
So much for French privacy laws!

what does this even mean? anybody can publish any picture they want, or write anything that they want. the law will then be used afterwards. i believe kate has indicated that she will sue them, so then we'll see what frecnh prvacy laws are like.

the exception would be if kate knew that the pictures were going to be published and then she could have tried to take out an injunction to prevent their publication. however, there is no indication that this happened, so french privacy laws haven't been tested yet, one way or the other.

Sean.
Sep 15th, 2012, 04:07 PM
I always thought Kate & Harry would see each other naked, just not like that! :oh:

wild.river
Sep 15th, 2012, 04:52 PM
Its not like she did it on a balcony overlooking a busy street in the centre of Paris:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2202895-15046777000005DC-546_634x460.jpg

serious? :eek::eek: that doesn't seem possible

tennisboi
Sep 15th, 2012, 05:07 PM
serious? :eek::eek: that doesn't seem possible

Have you seen the pics of Obama's inauguration where you can see peoples face clearly that are miles away in the back round. Creepy:scared:

Mary Cherry.
Sep 15th, 2012, 05:39 PM
Not really.

Depends if she wants her tits plastered all over the front page or not.

Mary Cherry.
Sep 15th, 2012, 05:42 PM
Its not like she did it on a balcony overlooking a busy street in the centre of Paris:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2202895-15046777000005DC-546_634x460.jpg

That must be one awesome camera lens.

Nicolás89
Sep 15th, 2012, 07:00 PM
Depends if she wants her tits plastered all over the front page or not.

That must be one awesome camera lens.

Well you just saw how private & far away the place was, it is not like she had it coming.

Wigglytuff
Sep 15th, 2012, 07:07 PM
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/attachments/georgia/87838d1334008562-lake-harding-this_thread_is_worthless_without_pictures.jpg

:fiery: :fiery:

brickhousesupporter
Sep 15th, 2012, 07:10 PM
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/attachments/georgia/87838d1334008562-lake-harding-this_thread_is_worthless_without_pictures.jpg

:fiery: :fiery:
This....where are the pics

Mary Cherry.
Sep 15th, 2012, 07:16 PM
Well you just saw how private & far away the place was, it is not like she had it coming.

Obviously not private enough. Either way it's very naive of her to think "Oh I'll stand out on the balcony with my tits out, nobody will see."

Nicolás89
Sep 15th, 2012, 07:29 PM
Obviously not private enough. Either way it's very naive of her to think "Oh I'll stand out on the balcony with my tits out, nobody will see."

The place was desert, not even a (even more) paranoid George Clooney could have known a paparazzi was near by with an incredibly high tech camera.

Mary Cherry.
Sep 15th, 2012, 07:38 PM
The place was desert, not even a (even more) paranoid George Clooney could have known a paparazzi was near by with an incredibly high tech camera.

Obviously not if the photographer was on a road leading up to the place.

I'm surprised it's not constantly in the back of every celebrity's mind, paparazzi hide in the bushes and everything.

KeysisGOAT
Sep 15th, 2012, 07:44 PM
Obviously not private enough. Either way it's very naive of her to think "Oh I'll stand out on the balcony with my tits out, nobody will see."

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2202895-15046777000005DC-546_634x460.jpg

Yes. She should totally anticipated someone standing half a mile away to be watching her just on the off chance that she'd do something worth photographing. I mean it's totally unreasonable not to expect someone with a telescopic lens to be watching your private house in the middle of fucking nowhere in order to make a fast buck.

Why is the French magazine being sued? Surely it should be the PHOTOGRAPHER being sued for an invasion of privacy? But you can't really blame the magazine just for printing pics that they were offered if they weren't involved in actually taking them...

Two reasons:

1) Magazines have more money than photographers.
2) The Magazine could have turned down the photos (leaving one creepy photographer with photos nobody'll publish and no money). By choosing to publish them they're opening themselves up to getting sued. Fuck 'em.

Moveyourfeet
Sep 15th, 2012, 07:45 PM
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/attachments/georgia/87838d1334008562-lake-harding-this_thread_is_worthless_without_pictures.jpg

:fiery: :fiery:

Google image Kate Middleton topless.
There were more results yesterday than today so they are probably being removed.

Mary Cherry.
Sep 15th, 2012, 08:01 PM
Yes. She should totally anticipated someone standing half a mile away to be watching her just on the off chance that she'd do something worth photographing. I mean it's totally unreasonable not to expect someone with a telescopic lens to be watching your private house in the middle of fucking nowhere in order to make a fast buck.

Look at all those trees around, some much closer to the property itself. There could've been some dude with a camera anywhere.

Besides, the press/paparazzi aren't reasonable. It's not exactly shocking they'd go out of their way to get photos of her on holiday or whatever she was doing.

Bismarck.
Sep 15th, 2012, 08:40 PM
I wonder who tipped the pap off about their whereabouts.

KeysisGOAT
Sep 15th, 2012, 09:39 PM
Look at all those trees around, some much closer to the property itself. There could've been some dude with a camera anywhere.

Besides, the press/paparazzi aren't reasonable. It's not exactly shocking they'd go out of their way to get photos of her on holiday or whatever she was doing.

They wouldn't have been able to get a good shot if they were closer to the property.

King Halep
Sep 16th, 2012, 12:19 AM
Hey just because you think huge = shapely is no reason to expect everyone to share your tastes.

:hysteric:

JN
Sep 16th, 2012, 08:02 PM
Pov! Cat got your tongue? It's time you start backing up your claims instead of clamming up when you're called on 'em.

Wigglytuff
Sep 18th, 2012, 02:26 PM
all this drama over these bee stings?

Wigglytuff
Sep 18th, 2012, 02:27 PM
Pov! Cat got your tongue? It's time you start backing up your claims instead of clamming up when you're called on 'em.

thats all she ever does

Raiden
Sep 30th, 2012, 12:23 PM
Poor soul can't now even sunbathe in private. She signed up for princesshood voluntarily.

It's Kate's fault cuz part of her job description is to be regal AND smart enough to make it physically impossible for any PERSON (with the obvious exception of her boo & gyno) to see her "royal box".

That means no sunbathing unless you're in an enclosure that cannot be directly viewed by someone standing on a ground outside. This is not difficult to achieve (if you are lying around nude from where you can see a ground in the horizon, then you're already asking for trouble).