Posted on 09/19/2012 5:44:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
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.)
Coming to a formerly free democratic republic near you soon
For PJ: ALERT! Near trade-mark infringement.
PJ is the poster of the Twitter notes feature “Great Big Bouncy Twitties”
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.
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.
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?
She wasn’t in public.
That's no lady, that's the prince's wife. bada-bing!
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.
You confuse Liz the Second with someone who has actual power. Her job is basically to play the queen on tv.
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.
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.
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.
Because there is a French law prohibiting this. It wasn't just bad taste, it was against the law.
Ahh so you are just enjoying the thrill of seeing her hooters.
Many Twelve year old girls are bigger.
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.
“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.
Too late, already on the Internet. Thank you Google Images.
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.