News2 mins ago
Lip-Reading
Employing 'lip-readers' & reporting what they think has been said in the press seems to be in vogue at the moment. Is this not an intrusion of privacy on a par with phone-hacking? in fact is this not worse, because with a voice recording you have the evidence of what was said, with lip-reading you may have only what they think was said & it is impossible to corroborate?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think what Khandro is complaining about, quite rightly I think, is that the press are hiring lip-readers to find out what people were saying in private to each other; it's on a par with phone-tapping. They were publishing what (they thought) the king said to the queen and is son at the coronation.
I've just been reading snatches of what was said between Harry and either Beatrice or Eugenie's husband in the abbey. Not the whole conversation, just enough to encourage people to make their own ideas of what it was about. I think it's dreadful that the royals can't move or speak at the moment without some 'expert' spouting.
The educated English upper classes usually spoke to one another on private matters in French when in front of servants & children.
I don't know which languages Queen Camilla speaks (probably French) but King Charles is said to speak French and German - even some Welsh, I believe.
It's a sorry state of affairs, but if this odious practice isn't outlawed perhaps that's what he should do in future.
I don't know which languages Queen Camilla speaks (probably French) but King Charles is said to speak French and German - even some Welsh, I believe.
It's a sorry state of affairs, but if this odious practice isn't outlawed perhaps that's what he should do in future.
// Reporting what's said could be outlawed ... //
I don't think it could be -- the conversation may well be intended to be private, but if it's happening in public view then it can hardly be made illegal to report what was said, or at the very least to speculate.
I don't wish to defend the practice from a moral viewpoint, but it's presumably not that dissimilar to a "hot mic" situation, and I don't think I'd agree with Khandro's comparison to phone-hacking.
I don't think it could be -- the conversation may well be intended to be private, but if it's happening in public view then it can hardly be made illegal to report what was said, or at the very least to speculate.
I don't wish to defend the practice from a moral viewpoint, but it's presumably not that dissimilar to a "hot mic" situation, and I don't think I'd agree with Khandro's comparison to phone-hacking.
If it's happening in a public place, the people concerned can't have any expectation of privacy. The onus is on them to make sure what they're saying remains private.
If it's not public, e.g they're in a private residence and someone's spying on them with binoculars, it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If it's not public, e.g they're in a private residence and someone's spying on them with binoculars, it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
