Royal privacy

Lord Soley

I’m pleased Buckingham Palace is going for the Photographer as well as the magazine. This is nothing to do with a right to publish. It is everything to do with a couple on holiday with a friend having the right to privacy.
Perhaps the real answer is to get the name and address of the photographer and editor out there in the public domain so that we can all go and take secret photographs of them.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! Maybe they will understand then how important it is that every human being is entitles to some privacy

11 comments for “Royal privacy

  1. maude elwes
    18/09/2012 at 7:50 am

    What exactly is Royal privacy supposed to mean? I’m a royal celebrity seeker only when I feel like it?

    We are back in the land of nod with this latest conflagration. We see the Diana story repeating itself and it is a conflict of interests for everyone involved. You must keep in mind, William and Harry were raised in the strange world of love me – hate me. And this taunting the media, whilst berating them in the same breath is reminiscent of 1930 movie stars. Garbo was always giving the ‘I want to be alone’ guff.

    Without the press and their psychotic interests in ‘celebrity,’ royals would be extinct. The same way Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton exposed the dilemma of not wanting media interest until the morning they no longer stood outside. And when that day arrived for them, they knew they no longer existed as the draw of the day.

    This couple thrive on notoriety and want it desperately. To complain of camera and excitement being illegal or criminal when you were conceived in the limelight by wearing a see through dress offering sexual satisfaction in order to snare your prey and once you have it in place, complain that you are now a respectable family member and off bounds is not playing with a full deck.

    Harry, recently had pictures taken of him naked by his ‘friends’ in a hotel room. And the pictures are clearly posed for. If one is caught with pants down for pics, you are not cupping your parts and turning you face in order for the photographer to get a good shot.

    Likewise, these photos of the newly promoted royal and her husband, were taken from the public highway. The posers knew full well how they are a big money draw for intimate pics sold on the open market. They stripped naked and performed. With their money and the tax payers funding their security at enormous cost, why are they now shooting the messenger? It’s their security men who, like with the Harry scenario, are at fault. They were not doing their job. Or, were they?

    And as far as saying it’s the French press not ours. Now the British press would not for a moment show naked pics of the Monaco royals when they are naked on private beaches in thongs would they. You know those pics that show the thong doesn’t even touch their special regions. Or, is that fact we mustn’t mention?

  2. MilesJSD
    18/09/2012 at 7:54 am

    If Private-Domains,
    here fireworks-bubbly exemplified by not merely the Royal Establishment but by numbers of other “For-Profit” multiple-human-living consumer-and-destroyer Communities-of-millions,
    (including The Media and Individual Reporters/Photographers/Commenters who are also grossly over-consuming, extincting and destroying Earth’s as well as Humankind’s precious and finite Common Life-Resources)

    have become so blindly selfish, greedy, anti-life, and reactionarily-belligerent as to go-to-war simply because
    one of their number, being an exemplar of individual healthiness (at least visualLy) has been snapshotted in the Public interest to encourage billions of lesser-advataged and lesser body-guarded human-individuals worldwide (remember, English is a world-standard) to become as healthy,
    and as “free” to sunbathe (regardless of course of how much anti-ultra-violet skin-cream was being expended)
    are seriously and insidiously-pandemicly insane.

    Individually and personally, I don’t wish to see such snapshots,
    only if properly publicised under sober and considered educative commentary;

    but I’d “bet” that the woman featured,
    future Queen or future Quaker,
    look-alike-stand-in,
    cosmetically or photographically touched-up or not
    – regardless,

    is shown by that photograph to be not simply a “healthy-specimen” but a regular beauty to be maturely admired if not spiritually-revered !
    ———–
    And I would have expected the Royalty-ASC’d British Public to have not simply admired her but to have needed her healthy-image, at least as a health morale booster for “every human being”.

    Footnote: ASCs are Altered States of Consciousness;
    and they come in all sorts of colours, invisibilities and subtle-attitudes;
    and those enveloped by any are often insidiously un-conscious of being thus possessed or “carried-away”.

  3. Lord Blagger
    18/09/2012 at 9:18 am

    It’s all about the elite have protections that you won’t give to others.

    Lets take one example, the law that says council officials can sign off interception of communications. No doubt there are huge numbers of false positives.

    Do the victims of council errors get told that they have been spied on? Had their phones tape, emails intercepted? Nope. No change of any restitution from a dictatorial state.

    What about our emails? You’re snooping on all of them. Telephone calls? Yep the same.

    Privacy? You are having a laugh. It’s privacy for politicians like you, none for the rest of us.

    The tables should be turned. We should have privacy, you should have none whilst you accept tax payers money.

    I suspect that as Corporal Jones says, You won’t like it up ’em.

  4. Lawrence van Rijn
    19/09/2012 at 12:06 am

    This goes beyond decency. This is not about royals. This is about the clear right of any person to have their privacy. The PRESS have abused “the people have a right to know” as well as the “freedom of the Press” to such an extent that is becomes debatable whether the continued freedom of the press should come into question. We give way to freedoms, but what happens when certain people keep on abusing them? There was no noble intent here. It is all about the money. It is time for THAT to change. In a time and age when peoples lives can be ruined with a simple send to social media, let us look into ways of holding these people accountable. Not just with a mere fine! And this view is not just because his royal higness was photographed against his wll, but the fact that this happens to thousands, and it must stop. The big brother stalking need by too many people needs to be stopped and the press is too willing to fuel that fire for mere revenue. Change has become essential.

    • maude elwes
      19/09/2012 at 5:34 pm

      @Lawrence van Rijn:

      We live in a modern world of defiance and winner takes all. The knock on effect of this, we are told daily by our government and by those in high places, is, ‘what matters is making a living’ not the emotional outbursts of those who are exploited as a result of this Capitalist greed we live with. That, they say, is the major source of life.

      Yes, money is at the root of much evil, and where there is plenty of it, you will find most depravity. However, those who want to be in the seat of power and by so doing, take the trappings of position in untold wealth from the people they milk, have always been prepared to put up with public intrusion, for they have found the perks too vast to walk away from. I think it was once referred to as in high circles as ‘noblesse oblige.’

      The general public should not have to forgo a free press to enable celebrity seekers who like to play footsie with them one day and give me my space the next. The game is fought between the two players, the seekers of fame and the press who fulfil the audience for their patronage.

      Your thinking is retro. Public money means giving your life to receive it. Just like those at the bottom must. Royals, it appears, are similar to benefit claimants, except they don’t have to be means tested.

      If you go out of your way to make sure your faces are on the front page of every press release possible. You cannot expect to turn off the flame at will. PR is big business with monarchy. However, they, unlike the those on the bottom rung, do have the option to walk away should it become all too much for them.

      • Lord Blagger
        20/09/2012 at 11:13 am

        result of this Capitalist greed we live with.

        ==============

        You’re deluded Maude.

        Look at who owes you money.

        State pension? The state. The cost is 140K. Now if you had been allowed to invest your NI in the FTSE, (and you earned 26K a year), you would have a fund 5 times bigger. Close to 650,000 pounds. The state has ripped off over half a million quid’s worth of pension from someone of 26K.

        There’s a relevant joke.

        Yuppie has a major crash, wakes up in hospital.

        Oh, my Porsche, Oh my poor poor Porsche!” The medic says, “Pal, forget about your car, look at your arm.” The yuppie looks down where his arm used to be and says, “My rolex, where’s my rolex”

        Just like the yuppie, you’re worrying over the trivia whilst the real theft is going on.

        Not only are politicians in cahoots when it comes to cronies, but they are looting your assets.

        So when you complain about ‘corporates’, you’ve fallen for the oldest con in the books. A distraction scam. Whilst you’re complaining about whether or not a petrol station is making 2p on a litre in profits, you ignore the huge sums the government is taking without any risk.

        So which corporates are to blame for the state pension default that just happened? 80K lost for that 26K a year Mr Median?

        Capitalist Greed? You’ve been scammed. It’s Governments that do the damage

      • lawrencevanrijn
        20/09/2012 at 3:05 pm

        @Maude,
        I am unable to agree. “what matters is making a living’ not the emotional outbursts of those who are exploited as a result of this Capitalist greed” sounds that we could return to the Police act of 1829. Things like ‘police brutality’ would no longer be a factor. Then there is the “Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002”, sections 57,58 and 59 of the “Sexual Offences Act 2003” and not to forget the “Employment Rights Act 1996”. This is not about people playing footsie one day and demanding space the next. This is about a group of exploiters disregarding the right of privacy. This blatant disregard for an individuals rights to privacy. This does not stop with the royal family. This has been going on for a long time. All for the publishers profits. And they will relish the the moment in court as this means even more publicity.
        So what if we do something about this freedom of the press? It seems to scare everyone. I personally do believe in freedom of the press, but I also believe in accountability, and the glossy mags have trampled it way too often. So why not a “Publications Act 2013”? It might not be the worst idea to hand some of these publishers and editors some ground rules in decency.
        The second problem is the issue of punishment. It seems that this keeps on fueling their revenue, so what if with such transgressions for 2-3 releases 35% of the advertisement space gets confiscated and filled with public announcements (especially to groups who could never afford glossy magazine visibility. For example Red cross, Unicef, Oxfam, Environmental groups. Give them that space, and it will hurt the publishing house at the same time.
        Just a thought.

        • Lord Blagger
          20/09/2012 at 5:39 pm

          his is about a group of exploiters disregarding the right of privacy.

          =======

          Ah yes. The local councils who don’t need a warrant to intercept all your communications. Tap your phone, intercept your email, put you under CCTV survielance.

          Oh, I see. If they do it, its not a problem. If private companies or individuals do it, then tut tut, its all wrong.

        • maude elwes
          21/09/2012 at 1:42 pm

          @Lawrence van Rijn:

          You are absolutely right when you say fear at removing freedom of the press is widespread. When people feel they are exploited by their obsession for celebrity and notoriety, the answer is not to remove freedom from the people. They have nothing to do with the problem. We are a democracy not the Saudi State.

          What we must worry about is the infringement on ordinary people who are exploited and have no voice. Just as Blagger was highlighting. This is not the matter here. The voice may be too big and loud altogether. Again, I put it, where was their very expensive to the tax payer, security people? They should have been fully aware of what can be obtained by cameras from the street and made sure this did not happen.

          And keeping that in mind, why strip in the first place? Surely there must have been staff all over the place. Gardeners, flunkies, body guards. Did that not bother the naked people? Especially when you are well versed in the possibility of snappers being around.

          Why blame the blameless. That is what children do. People must use their head and not rely on playing a card not available to others. Celebrity does not give rights that others do not have in a free and ‘equal’ society.

          This episode should send a message loud and clear, that a need for strangers affection is bazaar and not healthy. You cannot get a rampant need for notoriety met without that need creating a sense of familiarity in those who are needed. And as we all know, what familiarity does.

          • Lord Blagger
            22/09/2012 at 8:12 pm

            Democracy means we get to say what happens.

            Currently we don’t get that. We have an elected dictatorship.

            e.g. Vote Lib Dems because they promise to vote against tuition fees. Once elected the liars do the opposite.

  5. Gareth Howell
    19/09/2012 at 8:38 am

    <What exactly is Royal privacy supposed to mean? I’m a royal celebrity seeker only when I feel like it?

    We are back in the land of nod

    The Dark ages. the topless ploy is an attempt to replicate, like all royal media campaigns,the times when the masses wanted to be present when the king or queen was getting up in the morning or going to the lavatory; every detail of their lives were suppoed to be like a perfomance at the theatre.

    It WAS a primitive form of theatre which many people enjoyed.

    The “disgusting, abhorrent” ploy is a mere ploy. Suing for damages is silly when you compare it with such 17thC theatre.

    If you want monarchy then you must put up with such daft fake anti-press campaigns.

Comments are closed.