Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
If you buy into the worst kind of paparazzi antics, you are throwing away your own privacy too.
Tags: royal family Kate Middleton
i just want to see her tits
Steve, are you seriously arguing that it's okay to violate someone if they're drunk or 'having fun'? You're regurgitating the exact same language used by rape apologists in this article, as indeed is the first comment is.
Who you are, what status you have in life, and how drunk you happen to be do not have any bearing on whether or not it is acceptable for magazines and newspapers to print pictures of naked people in private places without their consent. It isn't, and the moment you start deciding that only some people can have rights, some of the time, you may as well scrap them altogether.
Kate and William were not drunk. They knew what they were doing adn they must have known there was the possibility they could be photographed in France. I seem to remember Kate had no qualms abotu wearing a see through dress to bag William. I do not think this marriage will last!!
"Who you are, what status you have in life, and how drunk you happen to be do not have any bearing on whether or not it is acceptable for magazines and newspapers to print pictures of naked people in private places without their consent."
Of course it does.
Only slightly different to the affair of the royal todger from a few weeks ago. Surely if the royal nipples could have been seen by a rodent with a long lens camera, then they could have been seen by a maniac with a sniper's rifle.
All it really does is demonstrate how flimsy the 'pubic inteerst' in the royal todger really was. You'd almost have thought that was more about Murdoch putting two fingers up to Leveson.
'... because they're just people. Massively wealthy, privileged people, but people.'
No they're not. They're symbols of everything that is corrupt and unequal in this society. Wasn't there a time when an NS writer would be able to see that?
Bollocks. As the NS's Peter Wilby wisely said the other day, 'I support the decision to print photos of Prince Harry cavorting nude in Las Vegas. Those who demand privacy for royalty make a category error, like demanding human rights for cats. Members of the royal family have no role beyond providing public entertainment; apart from a certain facility with horses, they have no talents or skills to admire.'
"apart from a certain facility with horses, they have no talents or skills to admire.'"
really? i thought it was quite hard to pilot those modern helicopters with all their weapon systems etc etc. i most certainly am impressed as it shows a great level of both skill, intelligence and bravery. several members of the Royal family serve(d) in the armed forces, earned their keep to boot.
you must be really talented Herbert not to be impressed, so go on then, what are you got at, or for..?
Are you serious? The only reason why the royals go into the army si for the free ride. Learning to pilot a helicopter is not that difficult. Both William and Harry are not particularly academic. Harry cheated on his A levels. The army was the only option for both of them . To argue that the royals earn their keep is absolutely ridiculous. They all take far more out than they put in. SHocking sroungers the lot of them. Did you know the Prince Charles has ten staff attending to his personal needs, including squeezing his tootpaste. The Queen mum had fifty servants to attned her at CLarence House. Seven palaces!! I could go on.
"Learning to pilot a helicopter is not that difficult."
bet you tell people you're a jet pilot or an astronaut don't you?
Bravery? questionable considering he would have been very far from the frontline, and im sure they are only fighting guys with archaic weapons, and nothing like billion dollar planes and remote control death birds!! but i do like the royals and that is purely to give this country somethign other than binge drinking and weekend racism and fights as an identity.
yes dear, bravery. you appear to be as confused as Herbert in what capacity some of the Royals have acted during conflicts.
now i happen to abhor the conflicts they participated in, but that does not allow people like you and Herbert to claim they are good for nothing. for all the wrongs of having a Monarchy we can review the Republics around the globe and see that the families tend to use their position to avoid serving their country.
so tell me Mrs Azaad, in what capacity have you engaged with the enemies of this nation? only then can your comments have any bearing beyond carping from the sidelines.
I thought brave men from the middle east flew rich planes into where civilians worked in New York.
Next week how to write English, of course it will prevent you from further study when you are binge drinking/fighting for the AFL at weekends.
Go and mark a few shop labels for MSN!
"Next week how to write English"
do tell, who will provide these lessons?
What about Prince Andrew, a helicopter pilot during the Falklands war, the Argentinians wern't fighting with Archaic weapons. Prince Phillip was in the Royal Navy during WW2
What about Prince Andrew, a helicopter pilot during the Falklands war, the Argentinians wern't fighting with Archaic weapons.
So now the Royal Family think they have the right to control the media in other countries as well? Leveson is just another nail in the coffin. There should be a big sign at Heathrow saying "Welcome to Airstrip One".
No, but they have a right to expect France to uphold it's privacy laws. This isn't restriction of the press, its about a right to privacy, which does extend to everyone (coming from a proud Republican).
Oh, and can we have a new rule where any fool who uses concepts from 1984 to support their spurious argument get's the same rejection as Godwin's Law? It's really tiresome to find people who think an argument against showing Princess' tits equates to throwing the country to Big Brother. 'But I really wanna see those boobs, why won't anyone think of my right to see shoddy boob pictures of a girl I'll never meet - it's facism I tell you not letting mne see those norks.'
But 'showing' themselves is what royalty does. It's all they're for.
So where do you draw the line? Scatological pictures taken in the bathroom, gynecological exam photos, up-skirt photos, hacking the camera on their computer? After all, once you say that all they are all about is "showing" themselves and so justify invading any reasonable expectation of privacy, EVERYTHING must be fair game, right? Nothing can be off limits because they are royalty, and so they asked for it, right?
Or is your argument actually more like this - "I don't like X", therefore doing something to X that I would find repugnant if done to me or people I like is OK because it makes me happy to see X squirm and perhaps that will enable me to be rid of X sooner. I would point out that a slight problem is my "X" is possibly different (maybe a religion I don't like, an ethnic group, perhaps, or maybe just the aged, they seem to be parasites not earning their living, I pay my taxes, so I own them, so it's fine to show the depravity of their secret lives in nursing homes, isn't it?). This is what people mean when, although not Monarchists, they say that privacy has to be for ALL with no exceptions.
Allow me to guess that, because this is not a convenient concept when applied to this case, you will not recognize the principle as valid. It's interesting how oppression of others' rights is so much easier if you can demonize as not deserving of any first, isn't it? Seem to have heard that happened before somewhere...
Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media