Prince Will wants the gendarmes to arrest the photographer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z26v7kdSNj

A couple of exerpts (that I agree with):-

Any sympathy I may have had for William went out of the window when he resorted to the criminal law. Attempting to put professional photographers in prison for taking pictures of a woman whose job is to have her photo taken is outrageous.

It doesn’t matter how inconvenient or intrusive those photos may have been. They were taken with a long-distance lens from a public road.

By demanding a criminal prosecution, William has demonstrated that he is a child of immense privilege from a family with an inflated, inbred sense of entitlement, which protects its own position with mafioso ruthlessness.

He would have been better advised to laugh off the incident, while at the same time reminding his wife of her responsibilities as a royal consort.

Sorry, I think I missed the requirement in the job application for Princess that states "You will no longer have ANY privacy, please note that at all times you will be photographed".

What if she was taking a s41t in the bathroom and a photographer clicked a picture of her through the window with a long-distance lens?

Where do you draw the line?

If she is IN public then sure, fire away. When she isn't "working" then f*@k off and leave them (royalty, singers, movie stars etc) alone. That is an invasion of privacy.

I think that supporting the exploitation of women is a pretty disgusting position in this day and age. It isn't the 1950's anymore.

I think calling the perverts who are praying on unsuspecting women on private property professionals or photographers is a massive stretch of both terms.

If your wife was sunbathing in your yard and someone with a telephoto lens was taking pictures from a vantage point that was on public property to post online I highly doubt you would just laugh it off.

If they just laugh it off and let it die down it is just going to show other grease balls with cameras that it is acceptable to do the same.

I'm not arguing that the taking of these photos is wrong, it is. However, I think celebrities in general put themselves in these positions, why would any celebrity have her top off outside at all, ever...I'm sure there are change rooms in the yacht they were on, I would hope so anyway, so why remove your top outside (BTW, I have seen a couple of the pics lol)?

Her Royal Highness, Elizabeth II should by rights have her nude photos in the tabloids before her grandson's wife.

Not fair at all.

The photographers shouldn't be prosecuted - just outed for the little-richard-pulling little twisted pervs they are. Their behaviour is little different than what would make normal people be ashamed of doing.

They do it for money. The pics are sold to the magazines. There are those among us who will pay to see it.

Ed

Sheesh - really?

Look Ed - if you want to pay to see nude photos then float your boat. There are however 1000's of free sites if you like to look a blurry chests.

It was a huge invasion of privacy - and as stated if your wife was sunbathing topless on your patio - and someone took pics and posted them you would have a fit.

Wait - what's your address again?

Phil

They'd get to see 'more' than they would on Kate's pics.

Ed

Perhaps you should show your wife this thread and see if you get to see them again.

Phil

People should be ashamed of that behaviour.

WTF, I'm just a fire and brimstone preaching, Bible thumping Catholic. I can't see the trading, wanting and taking these photos as anything but voyeurism and that's a bad thing.

Shouldn't it seem odd to those who disagree with my view that peeping-toms are criminal and twisted, but this is natural and legit?

I don't think anyone here is saying that the practice is admirable.

However, the genie is out of the box - cameras exist and human nature is imperfect.

There would have been less publicity if the Royals had ignored the incident and moved on - somewhat wiser.

I agree with Nugget:-

Ed

I agree with you up to the point where you agree with nugget. So she's on a private estate with her top off. Now all of a sudden it is the morally upright duty for a creep to take a long-distance photo and spread it around the world? That this is different than the sexual deviant peeping tom?

Just in for Ed....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ead_module

Now you got both ends.

Phil

Some of you who go read the story may notice this little tidbit...



So what we have here - is an opportunistic ass hole - the lowest of the lowest paparazzi - somebody who deliberately goes out of their way to intrude on people's lives.

You can say what ever you like - but if this had happened to any woman in my life - then the least of the worries this ass hat would face is the courts.

Phil

The best thing we can do, as individuals, is to make the conscious choice not to looks at such photos.

It's a difficult thing to do, not to look at them, not to seek them out "just to see what the fuss is all about". But it's the best thing we can do.

Make the choice not to look at them. That's the first, and biggest, choice that we can make.

I agree that anyone on a private estate should not be subject to someone peeping and taking pics. My point in my previous statement is this, if I were a celebrity, regardless of how private I felt, I would not put myself in the position where my private areas are exposed in the open air. If I were changing, or removing any clothing that would expose myself, I would go somewhere more private than the back of a yacht (the pics on a google search show her sitting on the back of the yacht with no top on, and none in sight). I am sure a multi-million dollar yacht would have a cutty or some sort of room to change in.

On another note though, I do agree that the paparazzi are scum, but lets face it, they have been around for years and their antics and tricks have not changed, they are always going to be around, so keep your naught bits covered.

Why are breasts - naughty bits?

I fail to see why a rag in France would even bother to publish the photos - given the number of topless beaches in the country and surrounding countries.

From the male perspective - if you need to see tits so badly - go see your doc and get him to give you some drugs to help you grow your own.

No need to ever get off the couch again.

Phil

I suppose that what it is coming down to is that if you are famous you must become cloistered like a nun and go the extra mile or Marathon to hide yourself.

Hell, I can walk nekkid in my living room with the curtains drawn, bottle in one hand, wife in the udder: no paparazzi. Kate: not so much.

Y'all are right, they know that they no longer have a normal life and it's the paparazzi's fault (by way of us) - not theirs. Sure the onus of decency is not on the "royal" family but if you know what people are like you gotta work around that.

So

Having said that, the paparazzi knows what the Royal Family is like. If they get into spreading the next queen's legs then they too should know what to expect. Just sayin'.