Crosswords1 min ago
Topless Kate Pics: Are We Being 'Denied'?
I will declare immediately that I do not buy so called raunchy magazines etc of naked young ladies, even if I do find the sight very attractive.
Let's face it, there is an absolute frenzy throughout the world, including many in the UK, for tittilating (no pun) snaps of beautiful female celebrities.
Sexist? Maybe. True? Yes. There's normally very few rules - if any - and magazines are virtually given carte blanche to flout any laws of decency in order to satisfy the demand. I include the UK in this from what I've seen.
So why don't our editors just employ the old press mantra, i.e. "Publish and be damned!" just because Kate has married an heir to the throne? Does she not merely come into "celebrity" catalogue, and is therefore 'fair game'?
Or is she suddenly transformed into an 'untouchable' for having married into royalty? Let's face it, had it been Anne or Camilla, apart from any photographer being unhinged in the first place, no one would have batted an eyelid (or opened it) would they?
***PS: Yes, I'm well aware of the 'privacy' / 'intrusion' / 'royal' arguments***
Let's face it, there is an absolute frenzy throughout the world, including many in the UK, for tittilating (no pun) snaps of beautiful female celebrities.
Sexist? Maybe. True? Yes. There's normally very few rules - if any - and magazines are virtually given carte blanche to flout any laws of decency in order to satisfy the demand. I include the UK in this from what I've seen.
So why don't our editors just employ the old press mantra, i.e. "Publish and be damned!" just because Kate has married an heir to the throne? Does she not merely come into "celebrity" catalogue, and is therefore 'fair game'?
Or is she suddenly transformed into an 'untouchable' for having married into royalty? Let's face it, had it been Anne or Camilla, apart from any photographer being unhinged in the first place, no one would have batted an eyelid (or opened it) would they?
***PS: Yes, I'm well aware of the 'privacy' / 'intrusion' / 'royal' arguments***
Answers
William and Kate should be thankful that he's not the heir to the throne of Swaziland. The king there, and one of his many wives, have to perform a very private act in the full glare of the public gaze in order to ensure the harvest.
08:56 Mon 17th Sep 2012
Kerosene, William and Kate are famous – they can’t avoid being famous - but this intrusive ‘frenzy’ is generated, not by them, but by people who take some sort of twisted delight in trashy publications revealing all. As I indicated, I’ve no doubt those same people find the Jeremy Kyle Show fascinating.
naomi,
I, for one, don't watch the JK show, yes it appears as if the dregs of society are on there, no doubt paid a few bob to bare their souls and anything else to the nation?
I'm of course not trying to compare that rabble to Wills and Kate, but the most obvious difference is that whereas the JK mob are having their '15 minutes of fame', W+K, whether they like it or not, are quite probably top of every cameraman's pops, not just the dreaded paparazzi.
So it's incumbent on them to be on their guard at all times, that is a basic requirement, and if they are far too naive to realise that, they have a massive entourage at their disposal who should be ramming down their throats, because they're not just 'anybody', they are potential goldmine material to the unscrupulous snappers.
No one, least of all I, is trying to claim that the vultures deserve to feast on their prey, but if that prey leaves themselves wide open, down they will swoop!
I, for one, don't watch the JK show, yes it appears as if the dregs of society are on there, no doubt paid a few bob to bare their souls and anything else to the nation?
I'm of course not trying to compare that rabble to Wills and Kate, but the most obvious difference is that whereas the JK mob are having their '15 minutes of fame', W+K, whether they like it or not, are quite probably top of every cameraman's pops, not just the dreaded paparazzi.
So it's incumbent on them to be on their guard at all times, that is a basic requirement, and if they are far too naive to realise that, they have a massive entourage at their disposal who should be ramming down their throats, because they're not just 'anybody', they are potential goldmine material to the unscrupulous snappers.
No one, least of all I, is trying to claim that the vultures deserve to feast on their prey, but if that prey leaves themselves wide open, down they will swoop!
BOO,
"In that vein" Which 'vein'? You mean, because I subscribe to the view that a lot of this is brought on themselves? If so, I'm not saying I agree with what happened - as I keep saying?
It's neither here nor there what I think, I just give opinions on here like anyone else, but when you literally live your life in a goldfish bowl, there are always some sharks around - fact.
Anyway, was Kate merely blinded by the allure of royalty when Wills proposed? Did she not even consider for one second, in light of what happened to his mother, that she and he might just be vaguely subjected to the same treatment?
Were the many pitfalls not pointed out to her? How old is she - 30? It's a bit late now to start calling 'foul' - innit?
"In that vein" Which 'vein'? You mean, because I subscribe to the view that a lot of this is brought on themselves? If so, I'm not saying I agree with what happened - as I keep saying?
It's neither here nor there what I think, I just give opinions on here like anyone else, but when you literally live your life in a goldfish bowl, there are always some sharks around - fact.
Anyway, was Kate merely blinded by the allure of royalty when Wills proposed? Did she not even consider for one second, in light of what happened to his mother, that she and he might just be vaguely subjected to the same treatment?
Were the many pitfalls not pointed out to her? How old is she - 30? It's a bit late now to start calling 'foul' - innit?
"You mean, because I subscribe to the view that a lot of this is brought on themselves? If so, I'm not saying I agree with what happened - as I keep saying? "
Well you obviously do agree, as you've said they've brought this on themselves.
"Anyway, was Kate merely blinded by the allure of royalty when Wills proposed? Did she not even consider for one second, in light of what happened to his mother, that she and he might just be vaguely subjected to the same treatment?"
So again, you're cementing that she in your opinion was pretty much asking for it, and she's fair game then. You also say
"but when you literally live your life in a goldfish bowl, there are always some sharks around - fact." So again, your point seems to be "you're famous, we'll (the press) do what we like- deal with it"- are you not?
Personally, I do think she was terribly naive in this instance, however it doesn't mean in anyway that she deserves this horrible invasion of privacy.
Well you obviously do agree, as you've said they've brought this on themselves.
"Anyway, was Kate merely blinded by the allure of royalty when Wills proposed? Did she not even consider for one second, in light of what happened to his mother, that she and he might just be vaguely subjected to the same treatment?"
So again, you're cementing that she in your opinion was pretty much asking for it, and she's fair game then. You also say
"but when you literally live your life in a goldfish bowl, there are always some sharks around - fact." So again, your point seems to be "you're famous, we'll (the press) do what we like- deal with it"- are you not?
Personally, I do think she was terribly naive in this instance, however it doesn't mean in anyway that she deserves this horrible invasion of privacy.
The issue surely is the sense of invasion of privacy.
My view is that they're entitled not to have sneaky pictures taken of them and published, whether or not there's been a cover-up in the pectoral (or indeed any other) department - no matter who they are.
However I also think that they are only compounding the issue by pursuing it.
And that the papers (which are having a whale of a time preaching from the moral high ground) are exceptionally hypocritical in covering the story to the degree that they are. Once again it's profit masquerading as that old chestnut "public interest". Whether or not they are publishing royal nipples ...
My view is that they're entitled not to have sneaky pictures taken of them and published, whether or not there's been a cover-up in the pectoral (or indeed any other) department - no matter who they are.
However I also think that they are only compounding the issue by pursuing it.
And that the papers (which are having a whale of a time preaching from the moral high ground) are exceptionally hypocritical in covering the story to the degree that they are. Once again it's profit masquerading as that old chestnut "public interest". Whether or not they are publishing royal nipples ...
1) They didn't tell anyone where they were going on holiday so they must have been snooped on to discover that
2) The "nearby road" was several hundred yards away and an extremely powerful and expensive telephoto lens was used. She was not "in public".
3) The "sniper" argument is irrelevant. They are in the public eye most of the time and, in any case, if the photographer's intent was to prove that a sniper could hit them he didn't have to sell the pictures to the highest bidders!
4) Whether or not she's a "celebrity" is also irrelevant. In the internet age, the same principles apply to us all. How would you feel if somebody took pictures of you in a private place, without your knowledge, then published them for all the world to see? If you tolerate this, you and more particularly your children and grandchilren will be next. It's about deciding what kind of a world we want to live in.
~~~
Maybe one day they will be shot by a sniper, or blown up on a Royal tour, or some other disaster will befall them as it did William's mother. Don't you think, until that day, they deserve a chance to lead a private life now and again? Like all of us ...
2) The "nearby road" was several hundred yards away and an extremely powerful and expensive telephoto lens was used. She was not "in public".
3) The "sniper" argument is irrelevant. They are in the public eye most of the time and, in any case, if the photographer's intent was to prove that a sniper could hit them he didn't have to sell the pictures to the highest bidders!
4) Whether or not she's a "celebrity" is also irrelevant. In the internet age, the same principles apply to us all. How would you feel if somebody took pictures of you in a private place, without your knowledge, then published them for all the world to see? If you tolerate this, you and more particularly your children and grandchilren will be next. It's about deciding what kind of a world we want to live in.
~~~
Maybe one day they will be shot by a sniper, or blown up on a Royal tour, or some other disaster will befall them as it did William's mother. Don't you think, until that day, they deserve a chance to lead a private life now and again? Like all of us ...
BOO,
Watch my lips(metaphorically speaking):
1: It is not a question of 'deserving' or 'not deserving'. The laws of the jungle apply because of who they are - Fact.
2: Personally I would never do that to any individual - but I have more regard for fellow human beings. Fact.
3: Scum who do this do not have that regard but have not just suddenly come onto the scene - they've been around for donkeys years. Fact.
4: Life can be a b!tch and sh*t happens, whether deserved or not. Fact.
Now have I made my position clear? I'm a realist, not a dreamer who longs for that utopian society we will never have. That's why we're human - we all have failings of one sort or another. Fact.
4: The only way to thwart them is to NOT give them an opportunity - Fact.
Watch my lips(metaphorically speaking):
1: It is not a question of 'deserving' or 'not deserving'. The laws of the jungle apply because of who they are - Fact.
2: Personally I would never do that to any individual - but I have more regard for fellow human beings. Fact.
3: Scum who do this do not have that regard but have not just suddenly come onto the scene - they've been around for donkeys years. Fact.
4: Life can be a b!tch and sh*t happens, whether deserved or not. Fact.
Now have I made my position clear? I'm a realist, not a dreamer who longs for that utopian society we will never have. That's why we're human - we all have failings of one sort or another. Fact.
4: The only way to thwart them is to NOT give them an opportunity - Fact.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Animals & Nature7 mins ago
My Kind Of Battle Cruiser.....
News11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.