Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police raid headquarters of French magazine in hunt for photographer of topless Duchess pictures
Telegraph - UK ^ | September 19, 2012 | Peter Allen

Posted on 09/19/2012 5:44:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Officers arrived at the Closer building in Paris at 10am, with detectives confirming they were looking for information ‘which might lead to the identity’ of the paparazzi responsible.

The investigation was launched by prosecutors in the French capital on Monday, with William and Kate later winning an injunction preventing further distribution of the images.

But Christophe Bigot , a barrister who specialises in media law, immediately questioned the legality of the raid – suggesting that it had solely been authoritised because members of the Royal Family were involved.

Journalistic sources – who include photographers – are strictly protected by French law which was tightened up as recently as two years ago.

"A law of January 2, 2010 protects the confidentiality of sources, as do numerous decisions of the European Court of Human Rights," said Mr Bigot, in an interview with Le Figaro. "In the case of William and Kate, I do not see how a prosecutor could justify a search of Closer."

On Tuesday, judges ordered Closer to hand over all files containing the images to representatives of the couple within 24 hours, but there was no order to name the photographer.

Referring to today’s raid, a police source said : "The aim is to seize any information which might lead to the identity of the photographer."

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: katesboobpics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 09/19/2012 5:45:01 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

One would hope the French are looking for terrorists with such zeal.

This is much ado about very little, bless her heart.


2 posted on 09/19/2012 5:47:33 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

Right!


3 posted on 09/19/2012 5:48:53 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Why are the French dancing to the tune called by British royalty? What would Joan d’Arc say?


4 posted on 09/19/2012 5:48:53 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Man - this is a lot of hoopla over a set of mediocre cans.


5 posted on 09/19/2012 5:49:45 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

“The publisher of the Irish Daily Star on Monday evening suspended its editor Michael O’Kane with immediate effect, pending an investigation into the tabloid newspaper’s decision to re-publish photographs from the French magazine Closer............”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3aa5ab4-00d4-11e2-9dfc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26v3ynUZJ


6 posted on 09/19/2012 5:50:26 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Why are the French dancing to the tune called by British royalty?

Royal vacations on the Riviera will soon be their only source of hard currency income.


7 posted on 09/19/2012 5:50:32 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

good points but the whole thing is disgusting. Just like everyone else she deserves some privacy.


8 posted on 09/19/2012 5:51:06 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

Maybe that’s why the royals are pissed. The secret’s out. Just when I was maybe, sort of hinking the French had grown a pair with the Mohammed cartoons they once again prove their true nature.


9 posted on 09/19/2012 5:54:38 AM PDT by meatloaf (Support Senate S 1863 & House Bill 1380 to eliminate oil slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

You don’t have to raid a magazine to get them Just Google it.

Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has gone.


10 posted on 09/19/2012 5:55:03 AM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

at that distance I would have thought I was alone. they should fine the heck out of them


11 posted on 09/19/2012 5:55:33 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

TTIWWP.


12 posted on 09/19/2012 5:56:13 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

Really. If only terrorists were hunted like this.

I have a novel approach to this: The Duchess should remain clothed in public like any other decent woman. Hope this doesn’t sound too prudish.


13 posted on 09/19/2012 5:58:48 AM PDT by Mrs. P (Figures can lie, and liars can figure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

With Harry, then Prince Phillip, then Kate, we have seen a lot more of the British Royalty lately than we have ever seen before.


14 posted on 09/19/2012 5:59:24 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

This lady better have some big giant titties to justify all this mess.


15 posted on 09/19/2012 6:00:35 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

Wonder how this coincides with Charlie Hebdu or whatever French mag published the latest “insult” to Islam....


16 posted on 09/19/2012 6:00:49 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

” hard currency”

Oh...STOP!


17 posted on 09/19/2012 6:01:55 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

“This lady better have some big giant titties to justify all this mess.”

Haven’t seen the photos yet?

They’re nothing to write home (or here) about.


18 posted on 09/19/2012 6:02:13 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Privacy?
If you are out of doors and you want to parade around
naked, how can you expect "privacy"?
Isn't that a contradiction?
Especially celebrities who KNOW all eyes are on them?

If they want to get naked, stay indoors,
or come outside and flaunt it,
but don't be aghast when somebody snaps your picture.

19 posted on 09/19/2012 6:02:51 AM PDT by trickyricky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

Beat me to it.


20 posted on 09/19/2012 6:03:16 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

Yup. Much ado about nothing.

Never found her particularly attractive anyway. Princess Diana and Fergie were a lot hotter.

But I guess that is why the Duchess fits in better with the “court” of that withered old prune, Elizabeth II.
(What a failed contrast with her namesake. Elizabeth I kept out the Spaniards and the Inquisition. This witch opened the gates to every Islamic maniac in the world.)


21 posted on 09/19/2012 6:04:07 AM PDT by ZULU (See video: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-siege-of-vienna.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Coming to a formerly free democratic republic near you soon


22 posted on 09/19/2012 6:04:19 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Hopey changey Low emission unicorns and a crap sandwich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; PJ-Comix

For PJ: ALERT! Near trade-mark infringement.

PJ is the poster of the Twitter notes feature “Great Big Bouncy Twitties”


23 posted on 09/19/2012 6:05:33 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. P

I agree with you.

>>>Dublin said on Monday it would review its privacy laws to prevent newspapers “flagrantly violating” an individual’s right to privacy.>>>

If you take your clothes off in public, you have no right to privacy.


24 posted on 09/19/2012 6:07:09 AM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: trickyricky

If you are on your own private property and someone has to peek through the hedges, then yes they deserve privacy. Its not like she was on a public beach.


25 posted on 09/19/2012 6:08:01 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Some privacy, yes. Whenever I’m jude outside, which as a male is merely to heed nature’s call, I work off the assumption that I can be seen. No doubt the Riviera has different laws, but in a world of telephoto lenses and HD cameras one never is private outdoors. Why not err with caution, especially if you’re royalty and fir whatever reason people look up to you?


26 posted on 09/19/2012 6:09:23 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kitkat

She wasn’t in public.


27 posted on 09/19/2012 6:10:03 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
This lady better have some big giant titties to justify all this mess.

That's no lady, that's the prince's wife. bada-bing!

28 posted on 09/19/2012 6:11:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

They were on a remote property. Not sure I understand why so many people here are defending someone who used a telephoto lens to take pictures of someone a mile away, through the hedges no less.

In my neck of the woods that would get you shot if they caught you.


29 posted on 09/19/2012 6:12:51 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

You confuse Liz the Second with someone who has actual power. Her job is basically to play the queen on tv.


30 posted on 09/19/2012 6:13:18 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Coming to a formerly free democratic republic near you soon

No doubt.

It's over the top (bikini/hedge) to conduct a raid, for the purpose of getting information on the identity of the photographer.

31 posted on 09/19/2012 6:14:42 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: trickyricky
"Privacy? If you are out of doors and you want to parade around naked, how can you expect "privacy"? Isn't that a contradiction? Especially celebrities who KNOW all eyes are on them? If they want to get naked, stay indoors, or come outside and flaunt it, but don't be aghast when somebody snaps your picture."

I work for a national private investigative and security company, and a fair portion of our business is surveillance, particularly for insurance defense. While it's generally accepted that what a person does in the public eye is fair game, there's a lot of gray area. Because we are not a government entity, strictly speaking, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to us, and yet, in civil proceedings our work is generally weighed against the same expectation of privacy standards.

For example if a person has their bay window open to the street one could argue that what that person does in their living room is fair game based on it's visibility to the public. Yet there are many civil juries that would consider video of a person in their own living room to be an invasion of privacy, and would consider an insurance company's video evidence of those activities to be obtained in bad faith...particularly if a zoom lens was used to peer into the interior of the residence...even if the person admittedly had their blinds and shades wide open.

A classic example used in training is the privacy fence with a missing board. Even if somebody's activities are visible through the gap in the fence from a public sidewalk, the existence of the fence will generally be adequate to establish that the person had an expectation of privacy therein.

I haven't followed this story very closely, so I don't know if the photog trespassed or committed anyother like violations. Similarly, I agree that public figures should be a bit more guarded when in public, but at the same time, just because they're outdoors on private property doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to expect any privacy.

32 posted on 09/19/2012 6:20:38 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

If you truly don’t understand, let me try and explain:

1. Okay, it was illegal, but why should the authorities care so much? Why all the judges and injunctions and raids? Especially since the cat’s out of the bag. Aren’t there murderers to catch?

2. We hold her to a higher standard, as she should know they’re out to get her. I assume people tell them what to eat and wear and when to go to the bathroom. Can’t they remember the part about keeping her knockers out of the world’s face?

Or, okay, they screw up and it’s they’re out there. Can’t they leave it at that? Whoops, she has boons and now we all know it. But no, again it’s SWAT teams and legal briefs. And that’s why we have no sympathy.


33 posted on 09/19/2012 6:22:52 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Why are the French dancing to the tune called by British royalty?

Because there is a French law prohibiting this. It wasn't just bad taste, it was against the law.

34 posted on 09/19/2012 6:23:50 AM PDT by BubbaBasher ("Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals" - Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Ahh so you are just enjoying the thrill of seeing her hooters.


35 posted on 09/19/2012 6:24:39 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
” hard currency”

Oh...STOP!


are thouse Pounds Sterling in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?


36 posted on 09/19/2012 6:27:53 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Many Twelve year old girls are bigger.


37 posted on 09/19/2012 6:28:43 AM PDT by golfisnr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

How the heck did you get that from what I posted? And no, I haven’t seen them.

It so happens there was a demand for them, which she and her handlers had to know. Which doesn’t mean I’m blaming the victim, but it makes me not care. Especially in the face of a futile legal overreach.


38 posted on 09/19/2012 6:29:37 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher

“Because there is a French law prohibiting it”

There are laws prohibiting many things Frenchmen do, but not a national manhunt to track down every perpetrator. If you can’t see they’re getting special attention for being royals, you’re blind. And if they don’t see it’s in vain since the bell can’t be unrung, they’re plain dumb.


39 posted on 09/19/2012 6:32:46 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"...with William and Kate later winning an injunction preventing further distribution of the images..."

Too late, already on the Internet. Thank you Google Images.

40 posted on 09/19/2012 6:46:10 AM PDT by mikey_hates_everything
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

We can cross off the Tower of London on the tour. We’ve seen all the crown jewels!


41 posted on 09/19/2012 6:55:50 AM PDT by Dr. Ursus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Ursus

:)


42 posted on 09/19/2012 6:59:53 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1

Barney Frank is bigger.


43 posted on 09/19/2012 7:08:02 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

IBTC?

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
It was a tale of two titties.”
Charles you Dickens you


44 posted on 09/19/2012 7:13:40 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

She is a member of the IBTC.


45 posted on 09/19/2012 7:19:36 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I suspect Kate and William were working on producing an heir when they were photographed. Imagine if those pictures came out.


46 posted on 09/19/2012 7:20:08 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; Revolting cat!; Slings and Arrows

Apparently his actions have gotten him in dutch.


47 posted on 09/19/2012 7:24:44 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1

I guess thats of interest to some


48 posted on 09/19/2012 7:26:05 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: central_va
She is a member of the IBTC.

LOL. Been a while since I've seen that.

49 posted on 09/19/2012 7:32:53 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 ("It's better to vote for a Republican you don't know than wind up with a dim you don't like".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: central_va
She is a member of the IBTC.

!!!!!!!

Trending prematurely towards flapjacks, too. I see implants in her future.

50 posted on 09/19/2012 7:35:56 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson