Kate's Baps

[Si Hunt]

Wills and Kate are sueing "Closer" in France for publishing photos of the Dutchess' titties obtained using a long lens while she was on holiday.

Opinion seems divided on this - gross invasion of privacy, a line overstepped, lack of decency etc. etc. OR C'mon, what's the Dutchess doing airing her norks ANYWHERE? If you get 'em out, they are bound to be papped. And so they were.

Where do PSers stand on this issue? Was she stupid? Or should we be coming down hard on the press for this.

And is it any different to Harry's arse, which all the British papers were happy to print? Just because that was at a private party?

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Newly wed young woman takes top off whilst sunbathing with her husband on a rooftop in a remote location in France. What a shock I don't think.
Surely they deserve some privacy especially as William isn't even next-in-line to the throne yet and probably won't be for another 20 years or so.

[Si Hunt]

I really can't work if this is humiliating or whether she should make a statement and say "Get over it, I have tits! If you want to see them, go on the internet, there are plenty of sites. JEEZ!"

Si.

[Nyder]

I've already made my feelings known over on FB. But to repeat here succinctly,

Royal baps = inevitable paps.

I can't believe she's been so naive.

[Jason Thompson]

Does that make it acceptable though?

I find it a disturbing thought that we are ever increasingly living in a society that accepts criminal behaviour (and in French law at least this is criminal, as they were on private property at the time) and shrugs its collective shoulders whenever it happens.

Fame and royalty means you inevitably lead a large portion of your life in the public eye. It is not, and never should be, an open invitation to invasion of privacy, however. If she had been on a public beach at the time then maybe we could wonder what the fuss is about. She wasn't: she was in a private residence in a remote region, with the nearest road some distance away. Perhaps it is inevitable that if she decided to go topless anywhere then someone somewhere would take pictures and sell them to newspapers and magazines. I don't think that makes it right, and I don't think they forfeit any right to be angry and to launch legal proceedings against that person or organisation, any more than someone who has their wallet stolen should be expected to take the blame for having it nicked in a 'if you hadn't had it on you it wouldn't have been nicked' way, and just shrug and go "oh well, I'll just cancel my cards, write off the £27.73 cash and get a new wallet.".

So, is it inevitable that famous people will suffer invasion of privacy? Yes. Does that inevitability make it acceptable? No.

[Jon Masters]

Everyone has the right to privacy - being a public figure doesn't remove that right.

Maybe they should set up a paper that publishes photos of random members of the general public and what they get up to in the privacy of their own homes. Or maybe we should just start with all newspaper and magazine editors and photographers.

[MinaHarker]

Everyone has the right to privacy - being a public figure doesn't remove that right.

Maybe they should set up a paper that publishes photos of random members of the general public and what they get up to in the privacy of their own homes. Or maybe we should just start with all newspaper and magazine editors and photographers.

Start with Paul Dacre.

Neither the pictures of Prince Harry nor Kate should have been published. At least Harry was larking about with a group of strangers, which made it more amusing and eye-rolling.

Kate, however, was on private property alone with her husband and the photos were taken from half a mile away. To hear some of her critics, you'd be forgiven for thinking they believe she should bathe with her clothes on.

Furthermore, Jason is correct in pointing out that taking such pictures is illegal in France.

One thing that I have only seen one other person commenting on it the security angle. If a photographer was able to get a shot without being seen, so could a sniper.

[Jason Thompson]

Neither the pictures of Prince Harry nor Kate should have been published.

And did you spot the great steaming pile of hypocrisy from the Sun, who said no responsible editor would touch the pictures of Kate with a barge pole, mere weeks after insisting it was 'in the public interest' to show the pics of Prince Harry....

Apparently the editor of closer is going to argue that the property is not 'inaccessible from public view'. Well, no, if you include the use of zoom lenses, telescopes, or the possibility of walking off the road up to the boundary wall. But then if you include those criteria nothing is inaccessible to public view! What's next, paparazzi in helicopters?!