The naked princess...

[Trius]

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with discussing sex and attractiveness. It doesn't "objectify" women any more or less than discussing their IQ, personality, or anything else. It is simply one characteristic amongst many that can be evaluated by others. People judge other people all the time.

I don't need a politically correct commissar to tell me what the boundaries of my perceptions are, or whether my opinions are "good or bad things".

You totally misread what I wrote.

 

[Trius]

I'm afraid it's human nature...... And let's face it, these photos are only taken because there is a huge market for them.... mainly womens magazines.

I would say it's "human habit", not necessarily human nature.

But obviously it's not uncommon, and the common view is that, indeed, "it's human nature". I don't think it's unreasonable to work for improvement, though. 😀

 

[I Love Film]

You totally misread what I wrote.

I don't believe that I did.

 

[Messsucherkamera]

If a long lens can fix onto the Duchess then so could a telephoto gun sight. So much for security.

You would think that Buckingham Palace would be more concerned about that issue (the obvious lapse in security) moreso than a little embarrassment for "The Crown."

This is a harsh lesson in reality for Kate - hope she learns from it.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the only way to avoid being caught in the buff is not to wander around in the buff. Whether the photos were taken from a boat, a headland or from the beach, if a long lens can see you, you're fair game.

In my opinion, the royal family (or any celebrity or so-called dignitary) has no more right to privacy than anyone else. Laws are meant to be fair and equitable and no-one should be beyond them. Consequently, if the photographer has broken the law, he/she should suffer the consequences. If not, then the royal family should learn a lesson from this episode and move on.

Frankly, this pathetic little side-show pales into utter insignificance when compared to the tragedies and disasters that are happening all over the world on a daily basis. Have they nothing more important with which to occupy their time....?

 

[Sparrow]

There's no problem (in my experience) outside what the French call the Anglo-Saxon world. Certainly, in the countries I listed, no-one blinked at my carrying a camera.

I used to love swimmimg, but as I say, I daren't nowadays. I've just finished 3 weeks of ear-drops and antibiotics for the last ear infection, acquired without swimming.

Taking pictures is about the only way to pass the time, therefore.

Cheers,

R.

That's my experience too, well except for the ear drops

 

[dslater]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the only way to avoid being caught in the buff is not to wander around in the buff. Whether the photos were taken from a boat, a headland or from the beach, if a long lens can see you, you're fair game.

In my opinion, the royal family (or any celebrity or so-called dignitary) has no more right to privacy than anyone else. Laws are meant to be fair and equitable and no-one should be beyond them. Consequently, if the photographer has broken the law, he/she should suffer the consequences. If not, then the royal family should learn a lesson from this episode and move on.

Frankly, this pathetic little side-show pales into utter insignificance when compared to the tragedies and disasters that are happening all over the world on a daily basis. Have they nothing more important with which to occupy their time....?

If you're walking around in a public place in the buff, then you're fair game, or if you're on your own property but have made no reasonable effort to protect your privacy, then again you're fair game.
On the other hand, if you're walking around on your own fenced in private property so that you are not casually visible and someone has to use a super-telephoto lens from almost 2 miles away to see you, then you are not fair game at that point. At that point you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. IMO, the guy who shot those photos is not a photographer - he's a peeping tom and should be prosecuted as such.