Topless Kate

Kate is a high profile person subsidised by the Government with money stolen from the people (tax) so she has no privacy.

Her sister (Pippa) has no issues with flaunting her body.

So you have no issues with people invading your private life, raiding your bins for personal information and wading through intimate parts of your life?

No matter what the circumstances or who funds the Royal Family wasnt the purpose of the thread i was raising an ethical issue of the paparazzi and if Kate was right to go topless in the first place

Hello Clive,

I don't put personal information in my bins (I use a very good shredder).

I have no intimate parts to my private/public life that are going to embarrass me.

I give very little personal information to anybody.

But you are basically saying no-one deserves to have a private life if they are "publically" funded.

Everyone needs an element of privacy no matter what their circumstances.


How would you feel if someone did find out about your personal details or used a long range lens to get this info and then you woke up to find them splashed across the internet or some crappy tabloid newspaper that doesnt care whether they have the correct full details

Is it not a reflection of our society that these newspapers keep printing the rubbish about celebrities including their latest snaps of them topless? If we thought it was rubbish then people would not buy the papers and the papers would have to find an alternative form of news.

I think if you don't want to run the risk, you simply don't take it.

Private is only private if you are sure it is in fact private. If there were gaps in the trees in my holiday home and I was famous, I wouldn't take the risk.

Private to me means a secure private area, such as like in a walled, locked area, not just a private holiday home that, because it's isolated must mean nobody's around. As a normal person I would think about if I want the potential to be seen. If I think there's a remote chance, as future king's wife, I would cover up.

I think if you want to have your privacy like a.n.other normal citizen has a right to, you also expose yourself to anything that can happen to a.n.other normal citizen, especially a celeb one. It's part of the role.

I do agree a person should expect privacy however, being unbiased about it, I also think that as a publicly funded royal, there comes with it a few rules of expectation of how one conducts oneself.

For example, if you work for say, London Met Police, and you are top dog commissioner, female, and got caught topless, what view would their employer take? Employees are sacked for bringing their company into disrepute, take her from The Apprentice, rolling in the corn with a married man, and got sacked I believe. Probably on own time as well, but there you go. It happens. Just another view.

Personally though, I couldn't care less what she does to a degree. I don't think a line was crossed at all by her, but I do believe they should live with an action they take.

I agree, but at the same time I disagree. People are responsible for their actions and if they live a high profile kind of life, then they need to be careful and realize that its a lot easier than they think for people to get to them and take pics of them doing what they don't want others to know they are doing.

Where I disagree, and probably where thoughts of boiling tar and feathers are coming from is that the paparazzi can be like vultures, not worried about the person, and just going after either the money, or the fame the scandal brings them. I seriously couldn't be bothered by what famous people get up to. Besides the fact that they are famous, they are still normal people and they put their jeans on one leg at a time, just like all of us. Just because they're famous, paparazzi think that they can make a fortune out of showing people what most of us do any way. Its stupid (IMHO)

Yes that's true, I didn't comment on the pap's side of things, but somehow they seem to get paid for photographing the most normal things simply because it's a celeb. Walking on a beach, shopping in Waitrose, you name it.

Seems though that people want to buy these magazines that are crammed with these type of photos, hardly any editorial. If the mags didn't sell, they wouldn't get paid for taking them. It is all back to greed/money.

The media in general makes it money from other people's lives, good or bad, preferably bad.

That's the thing. If you think about it, its kinda wrong in a sense. The person becomes famous, either because they are royalty, or are either a gorgeous musician or actor. people become obsessed with knowing about what these people do and the paparazzi thrives on it. The worse the scandal, the better it is for them, the more money they make. And there are no lengths they will go to either. I have read about paparazzi suing celebs for hitting them, or destroying their equipment, so even if their pics don't make it to the magazine, at least they get a few million here and there for being a pain in the rear.