Royal boobs

[Flay]

ah, the Most Excellent the Duchess of Alba de Tormes, Doña María del Rosario Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart y Silva, Grandee of Spain...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayetan...uchess_of_Alba

Vinny, Caliban is currently absent. On his behalf, I wish to say

[Gosh, looking at her CV on wiki, she's a busy lady. I'm glad I don't have a Christmas card list like hers.... ]

[Flay]

Could I add that I believe these photos, and their publication, to be a violation of privacy.

However recent events in the press (including Harry) indicate a naïvety, and the young royals really should know better. In this age of immediate communications, once the cat is out of the bag it cannot be put back in there. It is a sad fact that they need to assume that there is no privacy outside their own residency, and behave accordingly.

[Pianorak]

Vinny, Caliban is currently absent. On his behalf, I wish to say

Amateur51 appears to be absent as well. On his behalf I wish to say

[vinteuil]

Vinny, Caliban is currently absent. On his behalf, I wish to say

I thank you - you are most kind...

Tho' I think old Calipash* wd have added quite a few . . -
and possibly some . . - and certainly many a . .

* www.wordnik.com/words/calipash

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

not hers this time

nowt as queer as folk eh ........

[Ferretfancy]

Well, nobody forced her to marry into the Royals and she must have known that this kind of thing is likely to happen. (Come to think of it, anyone who marries into that family must be totally balmy.)

johnb

You mean soothing and emollient ?

[MrGongGong]

I think that the Duchess of Cambridge's entitled like any of us to privacey, so why not the Royals?

So who is getting steamed up about the everyday invasions of OUR privacy ?

[teamsaint]

So who is getting steamed up about the everyday invasions of OUR privacy ?

quite. They live and breathe publicity...of the "right " sort.
You or I complain about intrusions on our privacy, and you might as well try to convince fergie(the manager not the jettisoned royal) that the game is over after 90 minutes.

[aeolium]

So who is getting steamed up about the everyday invasions of OUR privacy ?

Er...these people, to mention one group.

There was also an inquiry which went on for much of last year and this.

[MrGongGong]

Er...these people, to mention one group.

There was also an inquiry which went on for much of last year and this.

and how many CCTV cameras have been taken down ?

there seems to be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing
who really cares about these over paid folks ?

why are we all supposed to be "outraged" or even "disgusted" on their behalf ? zzzzzzzzzzzz

[aeolium]

As I recall, the Leveson inquiry dealt with quite a few victims who were not "overpaid folks", not least the parents of Milly Dowler.

Still, if you feel so strongly about invasions of privacy, you're presumably taking action on the matter yourself - or was your question rhetorical sound and fury?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

who really cares about these over paid folks ?

why are we all supposed to be "outraged" or even "disgusted" on their behalf ? zzzzzzzzzzzz

We care care because we recognise them as human beings who are being treated shoddily by a group of morinic photographers and magazine editors who do not care about anyone but themselves. The fact that they are perceived as overpaid by some people does not detract from this. That is quite a separate issue.

[MrGongGong]

And exactly WHAT action can we all take against those who have decided to photograph us without our consent ?
not that i'm particularly bothered myself but I find it a bit odd that we are supposed to be outraged about someone photographing the rich without permission yet its somehow fine to film the rest of us ..............is it something to do with their lizard skin reacting to the camera lens ?

[aeolium]

And exactly WHAT action can we all take against those who have decided to photograph us without our consent ?

One action could be to campaign for stronger legislative protection against invasions of privacy, yet allowing for a proper public interest defence which could justify the intrusion. That is exactly one of the issues, possibly the main issue, which is being considered by Leveson. The Hacked Off group is simply one organisation - not incidentally made up exclusively of "rich overpaid" people - which is campaigning for better legal or regulatory protection.

The reason it matters is that laws do not just apply to "rich overpaid" people but apply to everyone so that the protection which a law would provide would cover everyone, at least in this country.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

How do you mean: "supposed to be outraged"? I am outraged because it's an unnecessary violation of someone's privacy for reasons of commercial titillation.