Duchess has been treated shamefully
It is hard to imagine a more blatant invasion of privacy than the publication of topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge in a French magazine. This is not the same as the recent controversy over pictures of Prince Harry naked.
The argument that publishing those photographs was in the public interest might have been weak but it was at least debatable, and he was, to an extent, the architect of his own misfortune.
In the case of the Duchess of Cambridge there is not the remotest justification for publishing pictures of her topless.
She was engaged in the harmless activity of sunbathing with her husband William in the entirely private setting of a French chateau and the photographs must have been taken using a long lens.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
The magazine's editor says the royal couple were on the terrace of a mansion and were visible from the street.
Even if that was the case it does not add up to an open invitation to take and publish photographs of the Duchess.
Just because it was possible does not make it right. Everybody, whatever their status, is entitled to privacy in such circumstances without having to check every potential line of sight in case there is a photographer lurking nearby.
There is not the slightest chance of the British press publishing these pictures.
The law and the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct could hardly be clearer that doing so would represent an appalling breach of privacy.
And newspaper editors will also share their readers' anger and revulsion that the Duchess has been treated in such a shameful way.
The Leveson inquiry has put the behaviour of the press under intense scrutiny and has undoubtedly changed the climate in which newspapers operate.
However, one doubts that any newspaper would have printed these pictures even before Leveson, certainly not in recent years.
The breach of privacy is so outrageous that there is no conceivable argument in favour of publication and it is a shame the editor of the French magazine in question thinks otherwise.
Comments
by avi123
Monday, September 17 2012, 6:08PM
“Chill. It's just a storm in an A-cup.”
by MusicalK
Monday, September 17 2012, 4:33PM
“Knowing that long-distance lenses, aeroplanes and helicopters exist, is it a bit naive to assume that you can have guaranteed privacy when in the open air?”
by mivoice1
Monday, September 17 2012, 2:36PM
“First there was harry's pic,s, now Kates....who's next Camilla?”
by Tel0861
Monday, September 17 2012, 12:58PM
“I thought that this generation of royals might bring a breath of fresh air. However, it seems that they are becoming a bunch of XFactor Divas at our expense. If roaming the world getting my baps tanned was my job. I'd gladly be photographed.”
by karinfall1955
Monday, September 17 2012, 10:34AM
“I can't believe no-one has yet done it so here goes... "storm in a B cup".”
by JayBe11
Monday, September 17 2012, 9:18AM
“The media's argument in favour of publishing the Harry photos was worse than weak and entirely self-serving. Let's imagine for a moment the same story (photographed playing billiards while drunk in Vegas) but without the nudity. The same security risks apply but somehow I can't envisage the same rush to publish.”
by Graham_LE8
Monday, September 17 2012, 8:24AM
“@ karinfall1955; I'm sure discretion is one of the criteria required when gaining a position in VIP & royal protection duties (but I bet there's some eyebrow raising stories to be told from their point of view, were they inclined to do so)...”
by karinfall1955
Sunday, September 16 2012, 6:22PM
“@GrahamLE8. Take your point, however, still think restrictions should apply to future monarchs in as much as modesty should prevail. What if private detectives had espied the royal breast? Better safe than sorry.”
by Graham_LE8
Sunday, September 16 2012, 5:19PM
“@ karinfall1955; "Why should Jessica Ennis or Victoria Pendleton's 'assets' be afforded less privacy than the commoner Kate?"...
That's exactly my point Karin, each of the aforementioned women should be able to expect respite - yet all of our local tabloids are suddenly overcome with some kind of virtuous self restraint and declaring how this is 'out of order', when we all know had the subject not been Kate, but some other kind of current celebrity, we'd have heard the public interest/freedom of the press/we can self regulate where necessary speech, and here's the pics to boost our circulation and prove it stuff. Their pious sudden grasp of ethics is so false it's laughable, like I said before, it's to their total discredit they've not shown restraint in the past.
As far as Kate removing her clothing in a private, unguarded moment, in a location considered to be remote and sheltered, I'd think we'd all understand that for what it was, exactly that. A public beach or an overlooked mooring for a boat would be different, but this wasn't the case here.
If, in an enclosed private location a photographer were to take pictures of my wife or daughters relaxing, by clandestine means using a telephoto lens it would not only be seen as unseemly, the photographer would be deemed some kind of perv or peeping tom, and been dealt with in that context - the fact that he's a professional snapper and the subject is married to our future King doesn't alter the situation one iota.
Consequently I don't see Kates' actions at all inappropriate, and agree that the journo's behaviour is shameful, but the subsequent publication is totally unjustified in any sense whatsoever...”
by karinfall1955
Sunday, September 16 2012, 4:20PM
“@GrahamLE8. Why should Jessica Ennis or Victoria Pendleton's 'assets' be afforded less privacy than the commoner Kate?
For the future Queen to take her top off was more than a little naive even though the photographer has acted shamefully.”