Quizzes & Puzzles1 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.
07:56 Mon 17th Sep 2012
Perhaps a better analogy for this case was the "Diana Gym Photos" of 1993, less than 20 years ago ...
http://
You may recall that the gym owner set up a two way mirror with cameras on the other side. A direct intrusion of privacy, even though it was in a public place - his gym.
Bear in mind that less than four years later, Diana died while being chased by photographers ... some of whose first reaction to the accident was to take pictures of her dying/dead body. In France. Is it any wonder her son William is seething?
http://
You may recall that the gym owner set up a two way mirror with cameras on the other side. A direct intrusion of privacy, even though it was in a public place - his gym.
Bear in mind that less than four years later, Diana died while being chased by photographers ... some of whose first reaction to the accident was to take pictures of her dying/dead body. In France. Is it any wonder her son William is seething?
sorry, I couldn't resist the jibe! Yes you are right lcg, but then they thought that they had privacy and it sounds like the cameraperson went to some lengths to get the shots - beyond the call of normal duty, so to speak.......and there have been, apparently, some "intimate" shots, whatever that term means
Check out the photo at the bottom of this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
It shows the view from the road.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
It shows the view from the road.
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.