'Saddened' UK royals consider legal action over topless pictures of Catherine

[Dallsux]

The British Royal Family are a fairly dreadful bunch. They routinely get drunk in public, dress as Nazis, solicit bribes, make deeply offensive racially remarks, do drugs, have affairs, make obscene phone calls, etc.

You mean, like everyone else in the world, they're actually human? Who knew? :whoknows:

I think it's fair to say that pretty much the majority of humanity is a dreadful bunch.

That doesn't give people the right to take pictures from a mile away of them unbeknownst to them. Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about them.

[Corcaigh]

You mean, like everyone else in the world, they're actually human? Who knew? :whoknows:

I think it's fair to say that pretty much the majority of humanity is a dreadful bunch.

That doesn't give people the right to take pictures from a mile away of them unbeknownst to them. Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about them.

I agree that the British Royal Family doesn't deserve special treatment. They are like the Kardashians, except less tanned, and the good looks come from outside the family.

[Est.1974]

Seems like they are going to sue. Just confirmed. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Will do wonders for the English / French relations..

[Special K]

Seems like they are going to sue. Just confirmed. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Yep, they filed suit in France. As they should. I'd sue the hell out of that magazine and put it out of business if it were me, just to send a message. Regardless of the outcome, I'm very glad they are standing up and fighting this.

[Stadium-Armory]

Not until depraved consumers stops voting for this behavior with their dollars, will it ever stop.

That sun tan lotion on the butt cheek shot is awesome.

[Corcaigh]

Not until depraved consumers stops voting for this behavior with their dollars, will it ever stop.

That sun tan lotion on the butt cheek shot is awesome.

Well played.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Glad to read the Duke and Duchess are suing this rag.

I hope they take them for all they can and make them think twice about invading somebody else's private life next time out.

Hail.

[JMS]

Anyone defending this type of behavior on the part of the paparazzi is sick.

physically I'm feeling quite well thank you.

Based on many of the reponses in this thread, I guess Princess Diana should have known when she became princess dying in a high speed car chase with paparazzi in a Parisian tunnel "comes with the territory."

Well certainly getting in a car with a driver who has been drinking and trying to flee from paparazzi driving a few multiples of the speed limit, seems like behavior lending itself to fatal accidents. Was it the Paparazzi's fault? If that driver had not indulged the spoken or unspoken desire to loose the paparazzi Princess Dianna is alive today.

Give me a break. These paparazzi are scum. People buying these photos and magazines are scum. And people who think a hefty paycheck supercedes morality and common decency are scum.

I think you just described like 90% of the population of Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. And hell no they aren't sicko's. If a lady wears a nice dress and somebody notices are they sicko's? If she wears no dress in public is the person who notices a sicko? If you walk around in public dressed or not, the press can snap pictures. If you are undressed I'm there is going to be more interest in the photo's. It's common sense, no need for name calling.

This is ridiculous.

What's next, using a freaking orbiting satellite to Google Earth a naked celebrity? "They should have known better..." When you are on a private estate, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Unreal for people to think this is acceptable.

What is ridiculous is somebody who who has unrealistic privacy expectations even when fully clothed, given they are walking around naked.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If that driver had not indulged the spoken or unspoken desire to loose the paparazzi Princess Dianna is alive today.

You can't say that without over indulging in rampant speculation, none of us knows what happened in that tunnel.

[JMS]

I hope they take them for all they can and make them think twice about invading somebody else's private life next time out.

Hail.

Yes that is reasonable. Attempting to teach the Paparazzi lessons in respecting someone's private life when they are in public.. Dude you do know this is exactly what the Paparazzi does. This is the niche in society they fill. If what they did was against the law their entire industry would be against the law, and I get you think it should be... only it's not.

[greenspandan]

who gives a crap? it's just a boob. instead of legal action and righteous indignation, i'd rather see society freaking get over it's own shame at the human anatomy already.

also this isn't about their "private life". it's about boobs. it wouldn't be a story if the invasion were photos of them eating a private dinner or having a private chat.

[JMS]

You can't say that without over indulging in rampant speculation, none of us knows what happened in that tunnel.

We know Princess Diana's driver was drinking shortly before he got behind the wheel.

We know the car Princess Diana was riding in was speeding, multiples of the speed limit shortly before the accident.

We know the Paparazzi were following them.

I think it's fair to conclude if the Paparazzi weren't there the speeding and accident don't occur. Only the Paparazzi have every right to be there. The speeding wasn't their fault, rather the actions of the person driving Diana.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes that is reasonable. Attempting to teach the Paparazzi lessons in respecting someone's private life when they are in public.. Dude you do know this is exactly what the Paparazzi does. This is the niche in society they fill. If what they did was against the law their entire industry would be against the law, and I get you think it should be... only it's not.

Yes, stalking people with huge telephoto lenses that would give Hubble an inferiority complex to satisfy the voyueristic fetishes of a low brow niche market is "reasonable".

---------- Post added September-17th-2012 at 11:23 AM ----------

We know Princess Diana's driver was drinking shortly before he got behind the wheel.

We know the car Princess Diana was riding in was speeding, multiples of the speed limit shortly before the accident.

We know the Paparazzi were following them.

I think it's fair to conclude if the Paparazzi weren't there the speeding and accident don't occur. Only the Paparazzi have every right to be there. The speeding wasn't their fault, rather the actions of the person driving Diana.

I hope you or your family members never stalked, by people who have a "legal right" to chase them through every moment of their lives.

[JMS]

Yep, they filed suit in France. As they should. I'd sue the hell out of that magazine and put it out of business if it were me, just to send a message. Regardless of the outcome, I'm very glad they are standing up and fighting this.

If it were you in the shot, I'd sue too.. who wants to see that... Coarse if they were putting photo's of you, or me on the cover of their magazine; they'd probable be out of business so we wouldn't have to sue.. Well you, maybe not me, I have been told I have a spark.

Coarse I wouldn't win either, but I'd sue too.

[renaissance]

Are twa and JMS the same person?

[JMS]

Yes, stalking people with huge telephoto lenses that would give Hubble an inferiority complex to satisfy the voyeuristic fetishes of a low brow niche market is "reasonable".

More than reasonable, it's legal. Why? because if you allow a bare breasted royal the legal benefit of the doubt when she walks around naked IN PUBLIC, who's to say which fully clothed person can't claim the same right! The cops who beat up Rodney King. Congressmen acting boorish at a public gathering.

Your neighbor when he decides to vandalize your property.

The US , Great Britain, and I'm guessing France; have made a decision that it is in the public interest to allow the press to take photographs of folks in public. That interest doesn't change because this lady decided to take her shirt off. Sorry. Was it a violation of her privacy.. No, it wasn't. She lost any right to her privacy when she went outside naked in view of a public street.

I hope you or your family members never stalked, by people who have a "legal right" to chase them through every moment of their lives.

I hope if they were, my family member would be wise enough to surround themselves by folks who were mature and didn't make the situation worse by a sophomoric need to try to exert control over something in which society has decided they should have no control. The driver was worst case showing off, while tipsy. Best case he was showing extremely poor judgment. Unfortunately Princess Diana paid the price. If he had drove the speed limit, and put up with the paparazzi; the accident wouldn't have occurred.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This isn't the press...these are stalkers for hire. If you can't see the difference then hat fault lies in your yard.

[JMS]

Are twa and JMS the same person?

Certainly not, I've been told I look much better naked than TWA. I'm not bragging or anything, I'm just saying; if we were the same person that wouldn't be possible. So I'm mentioning it.

---------- Post added September-17th-2012 at 11:48 AM ----------

This isn't the press...these are stalkers for hire. If you can't see the difference then hat fault lies in your yard.

:doh: The National Enquirer was nominated for the prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2010 given to the most outstanding investigative reporting story in the nation that year? The fact the first amendment to the constitution doesn't and shouldn't protect just folks who everybody agrees is doing serious journalism. It should protect all journalists including the paparazzi. If we filter it by who somebody thinks is respectable, how soon is it before the Washington Post is called disreputable for printing stories about a break in at the Democratic National Party's office and trying to tie it to a sitting President. That happened. There is no black and white line between legitimate press and paparazzi; nor should their be.

Hell we even consider blogger's press today for legal purposes. Good for us.

[twa]

Certainly not, I've been told I look much better naked than TWA. .

Balderdash ....or Poppy****.

no accounting for tastes

[AsburySkinsFan]

:doh: The National Enquirer was nominated for the prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2010 given to the most outstanding investigative reporting story in the nation that year?

I bet the story they received the award for didn't have anything to do with a riyal's breast. Let's also not make the mistake in thinking that because ONE story recieved an award then that must legitimize all the rest of the smut they've published.

The fact the first amendment to the constitution doesn't and shouldn't protect just folks who everybody agrees is doing serious journalism. It should protect all journalists including the paparazzi. If we filter it by who somebody thinks is respectable, how soon is it before the Washington Post is called disreputable for printing stories about a break in at the Democratic National Party's office and trying to tie it to a sitting President. That happened. There is no black and white line between legitimate press and paparazzi; nor should their be.

Hell we even consider blogger's press today for legal purposes. Good for us.

You call the paparazzi "press" if you choose but stalking a young couple in the hopes of catching on film a nipple slip should not be confused with legitimate journalism. What's more is that if these smut dealers didn't have a "press" protection then they'd be treated like any other stalker and rightly so, you want to pretend that the fact that they sell the results of their stalking to be published in print makes them legitimate. But, if your daughter was stalked by an ex-boyfriend who took pictures of her in her window and sold them on the internet I doubt ou'd call that journalism. I know I wouldn't.

[Special K]

Well certainly getting in a car with a driver who has been drinking and trying to flee from paparazzi driving a few multiples of the speed limit, seems like behavior lending itself to fatal accidents. Was it the Paparazzi's fault? If that driver had not indulged the spoken or unspoken desire to loose the paparazzi Princess Dianna is alive today.

I think you just described like 90% of the population of Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. And hell no they aren't sicko's. If a lady wears a nice dress and somebody notices are they sicko's? If she wears no dress in public is the person who notices a sicko? If you walk around in public dressed or not, the press can snap pictures. If you are undressed I'm there is going to be more interest in the photo's. It's common sense, no need for name calling.

What is ridiculous is somebody who who has unrealistic privacy expectations even when fully clothed, given they are walking around naked.

Typical JMS post: factually incorrect with profuse arrogance interjected.

1. There is a difference between taking a picture of someone clothed and someone naked. If you cannot discern a difference, that lies with your comprehension issues, not mine.

2. She was not in public. She was on a private estate. You keep saying she was in public. She was NOT IN PUBLIC, nor on a nude beach, nor at a public "adult" pool.

3. You cannot say for certain what caused Princess Diana's crash. There were many factors including alcohol consumption, reckless behavior by the driver AND the paparazzi, unfortunately no seatbelt being worn by the princess, and high speeds. To place the blame squarely on the driver and not admit there was a paparazzi factor involved in the crash shows your closed-mindedness.

4. Looking at naked pictures of someone who was not posing for naked pictures makes you a sicko/pervert/creep. Absolutely. It is no different than a creeper staring through your window as you get dressed. It's an invasion of privacy and you're a sicko if you think that is acceptable. This is why there are "peeping Tom" laws.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

6:00 AM EST is the time the court rules in Paris tomorrow on the injunction in the civil case. They will also decide whether a criminal case is applicable.

Good luck to the Duke and Duchess. Give these creeps Hell!

Hail.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's an invasion of privacy and you're a sicko if you think that is acceptable. This is why there are "peeping Tom" laws.

Impossible to agree more. If I used my camera to take pictures of me neighbors to post on the internet I would deserve what I'd receive. But, for some reason people think it is legitimate if someone sells those same pictures. IMO that's twisted in the head.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Injunction to pull the pics won. Now for criminal action hopefully.

Fantastic news for the decent minded of us out there. Oh yeah, on that, just look at the BBC jorno's view of where the pics were taken from and tell me again that's not a gross invasion of privacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631591

Hail.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Injunction to pull the pics won. Now for criminal action hopefully.

Fantastic news for the decent minded of us out there. Oh yeah, on that, just look at the BBC jorno's view of where the pics were taken from and tell me again that's not a gross invasion of privacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631591

Hail.

Yay!!!!! Decency wins!!!!

Here's a nice image that shows just how far away the stalker-for-hire was when he invaded the young couple's privacy. 1/2 a mile away...yeah that's legitimate journalism! bah!!