Sorry, Kate you need to take responsibility for your actions

Duke and Duchess saddened by ‘grotesque’ breach of privacy

This is precisely what many of us have been on about for a very long time – people taking responsibility for their own actions and not blaming others or society or how horrible that wolf was in taking those shots.    Exactly the same as women who go out at night by themselves and get hurt. Exactly the same as people getting fat – it’s not a “fat gene”, it’s your lack of self-control.

That Lara Logan who went into Egypt thinking she had some miraculous pass to safety when no one else did – that’s the sort of thing we have here. Yes, terribly, terribly  sorry she was nearly raped [and I mean that] but what did she expect?

Look Kate, the definition of “private” in this happy-snaps situation is inside your own home.   You weren’t inside your own home and not even inside these people’s home but in a garden which was not yours, by a pool, with a hill overlooking it and that’s fair game for a photographer of that kind. And please don’t say it was “private” because if he was in a position where he could get those shots, then ipso facto, it was not private.

And what were you doing topless anyway outside? If that’s the kinda girl you are, then pics get taken and men salivate over you. If that’s not the type of girl you are – as in the cries of “grotesque” – then the solution is to keep your gear on outside.

All I can say is my mother would never have gone for a swim in a pool unclothed, for the very reason that there was once a thing called personal decency.   I appreciate that other people are far more bohemian than my family was and good luck to them.

And seriously – there’s this naivety again.    Harry should have known with all those street chicks with phonecameras.    Wills should have known too and advised you that the paparazzi are always within range.

The worst part though is not the morality and the “Caesar’s wife beyond reproach” – it’s that you’ll never live this down.

These are photos, not something which will disappear next year. Long after the photographer and the magazine have been prosecuted and it’s all died down, those shots of your bare mammary glands will still be on old men’s computers, just like Carla Bruni’s but in her case, she wanted it so.

And one day your children are going to see them too. This is what the world saw of mummy. Sobering.

By the way, thought one of the comments was good:

I wonder if the naked rambler is linked to Royalty.

19 comments for “Sorry, Kate you need to take responsibility for your actions

  1. Judd
    September 14, 2012 at 18:23

    I more puzzled by exactly what standard of personal bodyguards the royal couple have, the zoom lens used here might just as easily have been a telescopic sight.

  2. September 14, 2012 at 20:20

    Don’t think they’d be in the Obama bodyguard league where they really do need to protect him.

  3. September 14, 2012 at 22:06

    “And seriously – there’s this naivety again. Harry should have known with all those street chicks with phonecameras. Wills should have known too and advised you that the paparazzi are always within range.”

    Exactly – it’s not difficult to work out the possible consequences. It comes across as naivety to me too and that’s not good news.

  4. September 14, 2012 at 23:51

    I fail to understand why the fuss. 50% of the population have these appendages while the other 50% have a very good idea of what they look like. We are surely past the stage of regarding royalty as something other than ordinary humans, so what’s the problem in knowing she is actually built as one would expect an attractive woman to be built?
    Now if it showed her a a shape changing lizard as per Mr Icke’s ideas THAT would be a problem!

  5. September 15, 2012 at 00:14

    In the case of Kate I think it is the press that won’t live it down. A line was crossed. Snooping is seedy, but it makes easy money if there is a willing publisher with no morals or standards.

    In the case of Harry, his security should have been looking after him rather than perhaps enjoying the party…

  6. Amfortas
    September 15, 2012 at 02:38

    Granted, the ‘its their fault’ line is not a great excuse, but neither is snooping and neither is publishing the pictures.

    Decency can cross a line into prudery quite easily and if a person wants to skinny dip in a personal space such as a private swimming pool they should not be criticised, especially by gawpers who have no business being ‘peeping Toms and Petulas.

    The issue here is less about a young woman going bare-breasted or a chap striding about a room sans strides, and more about the public propensity to gawp.

    Similarly, prudery by the public can become indecent. Let us consider our beams more and other’s motes less.

  7. Rossa
    September 15, 2012 at 07:10

    James, the photographer was half a mile away using a telephoto lens. How can anyone be private under those circumstances whether it’s in a garden or even in a house?

    Clearly someone knew they were visiting Viscount Linley’s place and tipped the magazine off. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. If she was at a hotel or other public place that’s one thing, this was not, which is why it was a private trip before the public trip to the Far East. Either a private house and garden is just that or it’s open season on everyone. Surely we have enough surveillance and snooping without encouraging even more.

  8. JD
    September 15, 2012 at 08:06

    a peeping tom is a decidedly unpleasant creature but if he has a camera and sells his photographs he becomes a noble defender of ‘freedom of the press’
    I notice Max Clifford was on TV this morning condemning the paparazzi, presumably because he was excluded from this particular money making deal.

  9. September 15, 2012 at 08:37

    Who cares?

    Maybe the “media” should concentrate on what is happening in broken Blighty rather than the norks of an air head who should have known that getting her bits out might be subject to long range snappers.

    Maybe the overprivilidged, inbred “royals” should realise that we have finally entered the twentyfirst century and that they sell newspapers.

  10. September 15, 2012 at 13:52

    I agree, she’s got a responsibility – queen/princess/peasant, whatever. Private property or not. You should know – as a ‘celebrity’ – you will always be the target – so why was she ‘unprepared’. She should know where it is ‘safe’ and where not. Lack of ‘training’ I would say. If that’s what she does, she needs to be prepared for what’s ‘coming’ – so why taking action if that was her ‘fault’. No sympathy from me, sorry Kate, it IS your fault. Full stop.

  11. Seaside Sourpuss
    September 15, 2012 at 13:56

    Steady on James. Your Mother could have run through the village stark bollock naked and no one, in the wider world would have been any the wiser. The press didn’t care for her, and they most certainly didn’t haunt the village, or your mother, armed with nothing more than a deadline and a super zoom lense with which to meet it. Being the future Queen of England, and whipping off your bikini top, 15 miles from the nearest possible camera is not, in any way the same as going out in your underwear, getting fucked off your face and then crying rape the next morning. To say so says more about your attitude to women in general than it does about the women you comment on, so very bloody often. I don’t actually think the future Queen of England had much say, if any at all, in how this story was dealt with. I think it might have been left to those who really believe they know best how to deal with this kind of situation. Namely the men.

  12. Amfortas
    September 15, 2012 at 16:13

    A long lense from a vantage point which saw her sitting on the loo would be OK, James? Or in the shower? Just because she is a ‘celeb’.

    That apart, I see the photos were spread all over a French ‘womyn’s’ magazine, which is where most of these outrageous intrusions go. Female Editors just love this sort of thing.

    There was a similar ‘scandal’ last year in Oz where another (non-princess) woman of notoriety who was ‘hookin’ wiv a footy ‘star’ had her naked form captured on said dork’s phone camera coming out of the shower at his ‘pad’. He showed it to a few of his mates – yob that he was and gawping clods that they were. She found out and the newspapers had a field day condemning the footy hero and much talk for days about privacy and the propensity of ‘MEN’ !!! ™ to gawp like the women-hating misogynists that do that sort of gawping. No-one else had seen the photos but that did not stop all the hullabaloo. Then a Woman ™ who edited a women’s magazine pubished the photos so that 20 million of her fellow and fellowesse – especially the fellowesses – could all gawp. She even had the gall to do TV interviews condemning the man who took the snaps and all men in general. Not condemning herself of course. It is always a man’s fault.

    If anyone needs to take responsibility for all this papparazzi crap and invasions of people’s privacy, it is Women’s Magazine Editors.

  13. September 15, 2012 at 18:37

    A long lense from a vantage point which saw her sitting on the loo would be OK, James? Or in the shower?

    No it wouldn’t because that would be inside, in private. 😉

  14. Amfortas
    September 16, 2012 at 02:47

    James, outside IN someone’s private, personally owned, gazetted and itemised on a friggin’ planning document garden, half a friggin’ mile from a road is PRIVATE. Just what do you not get about that?

  15. ubermouth
    September 16, 2012 at 04:53

    I agree with James. In your house with the curtains drawn is guaranteed privacy,outside in the open air regardless of who owns the land is just that outside in the open air. No guarantee of privacy there, so it best one keeps their clothes on. A half a mile from a road is nothing with the technology of today.

    One expects a future Queen to behave more appropriately than Toe sucking Fergie,even if on a remote island a million miles from the closest road.

    We have never see breast pictures of Diana or the Queen[or James]. 🙂

  16. September 16, 2012 at 18:58

    To say so says more about your attitude to women in general than it does about the women you comment on

    What an amazingly silly statement – pure feminazi bollox. No one until this [quoted] comment was bringing anything into it other than it was a royal/paprazzi thing and to do with privacy or not. There was no gender issue whatever apart from the boobs being shown but it would have been the same if Wills was swinging his goolies.

    How on earth does a feminazi leap from that to my attitude to women in general? The logic is seriously lacking.

  17. Jim
    September 16, 2012 at 21:12

    No. Just No. You are wrong. She was entirely in private. The cameraman had to actively seek to get the shot he wanted, from extreme distance, using high technology to achieve it. It is not a case of ‘Man walks down the street, glances over hedge, sees topless woman’. Its a case of an active conspiracy to invade someone else’s privacy, for financial gain. Not for some matter of true ‘public interest’, just a prurient shot of a young woman who happens to be in the public eye, doing nothing other than that which millions of other women do every day all over the world.

    Privacy is not the pure exclusion of sight via walls and blinds. It extends further than that. Where the dividing line lies is hard to call – topless bathing 10 yards from a public road is at one end of the spectrum, and doing the same a mile or more from the nearest public vantage point is at the other. My call would be the distance at which technology is required to see what the naked eye cannot is the boundary between natural viewing rights, and invasion of privacy. This case crossed that boundary and left it so far behind you’d need a telephoto lens to see it behind you.

    If you are that interested in womens tits, just have a look on the internet. There’s plenty on there to look at, and they have all consented to showing them to the world.

  18. September 16, 2012 at 21:27

    The cameraman had to actively seek to get the shot he wanted, from extreme distance, using high technology to achieve it.

    He was on a public roadside.

    However, leaving that aside, I’ve not said he was right to do it – quite the opposite and we’re getting bogged down in this private/no private thing.

    That’s not the issue – the issue is that she should have known better on a few levels and her security people let her down. The magazine[s] and the photographer will be punished, both will be richer and all that will die away but the shots will not.

    All that could have been avoided by her keeping at least two bits of her costume on.

  19. ubermouth
    September 16, 2012 at 22:25

    Well said James. On one’s private land one is not allowed to photograph them[ I had this happen to me,covertly],but as James pointed out, the issue wasn’t the law so much as her “expectation” of guaranteed privacy. In her position, the only way she can be sure such infringements won’t happen is to keep her clothes on.

    I mean seriously did she think photogs wouldn’t be lurking behind every bush? Was she unaware that she could be photographed from half a mile away? I doubt it. Maybe she WANTED her breasts to end up on the magazine covers to up her profile when she saw the attention Harry received?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.