Irish Daily Star to close

[MrsMcGahan]

Hang on a minute, she was topless on a balcony visible from a public place and had her picture taken from a public place.

There is nothing illegal in the taking of that picture, she should know better. In most countries there is also no issues with publishing them but perhaps there is in France.

If you publish a picture of someone without their permission in France then you could be commiting a crime IF that person takes you to court and proves that the pictures diminish or damage that person and that a conviction against the publishers woul not contravene a right to free press under EU law.

Now I'm not in favour of the papps but I would be very surprised if Kate(it has to be her takes the case and not the palace) could get a conviction just for topless photo's. The French attitude to this will be "they're just tits" and the only thing that may go in her favoiur is that they may wish to be seen to clamp down on the papps treatment of the royals after their role in Diana'a death

So by that logic, if you were out at 2:00AM shagging a sheep in public (but half way up a remote mountainside) on a moonless night and......I, your neighbour, got my mate in the CIA to point a high resolution infra red spy plane camera at your activity, getting close up pictures of you and your sheep friend groaning and gasping and.......I put the resultant images, poster style up on all the lamp posts in your neighbourhood.
That would be OK?
You were in public, the spyplane was in a public place, you should be aware of these all seeing cameras........

[Grandpasimpson]

This episode just re-inforces my view that society just does not gain one iota for the presence of tabloids on the shelves of newsagents. Are we really better off from having these bottom feeding rags? If somebody wants to bathe topless in a remote pivate house they should be able to do so without having some sleaze ball papp shooting pics of her from a thousand yards and making them public.

[joeriddick]

This "she's public property" idea is fu¢king repellent. She's nobodies property except her own and just because some sad act photographer can pap her on a balcony doesn't mean he should be able to sell his shoddy wares to the lowest highest bidder.

If some scumbag tried to get an upskirt shot of your wife/girlfriend and put it online I've a feeling a lot of the hacktastical "it's all part of the game" machismo would evaporate fairly lively.

[nuke]

So by that logic, if you were out at 2:00AM shagging a sheep in public (but half way up a remote mountainside) on a moonless night and......I, your neighbour, got my mate in the CIA to point a high resolution infra red spy plane camera at your activity, getting close up pictures of you and your sheep friend groaning and gasping and.......I put the resultant images, poster style up on all the lamp posts in your neighbourhood.
That would be OK?
You were in public, the spyplane was in a public place, you should be aware of these all seeing cameras........

Actually no, aerial photography is treated differently in most countries as is the use of restricted technology but other than those two elements you are bang on.

Oz, what's your take on this, being French and talking candids over there ?

[nuke]

This "she's public property" idea is fu¢king repellent. She's nobodies property except her own and just because some sad act photographer can pap her on a balcony doesn't mean he should be able to sell his shoddy wares to the lowest highest bidder.

If some scumbag tried to get an upskirt shot of your wife/girlfriend and put it online I've a feeling a lot of the hacktastical "it's all part of the game" machismo would evaporate fairly lively.

If there was no one to buy the paper because of this then it wouldn't be published and the photo would never have been taken.

I don't agree with papparazzi in general as they specifically target people in the worst possible sense but changes to the law to restrict them would unduly restrict all photography. It's public attitudes nee to change making the pap's redundant.

I haven't seen the pics and probably won't as I don't read the star but I cant imagine they are too shocking

[munsterforever]

they use the media to pump a DAILY diet of propoganda down their subjects throats in case they start asking difficult questions like "would we be better off as a republic"....or "how much do they really cost us" or how does charlie get all that money from cornwall" anything...from absailing down a building to opening a thai restaurant in chichester. its utter bollix. the harry thing must have been pre-organised as there was no complaint from the palace and herself and MI6 man would never allow such stuff... in their twisted minds they probably thought that was good man PR for "one of the lads" harry. then someone takes a foto of her tiny tits without their express say so and a paper has to close and people lose their jobs because of it? hypocrisy? they are the hypocrites. shes not entitled to any privacy or decency imo. theres not a sniff of decency in the lot of em

[Evil Omer]

This "she's public property" idea is fu¢king repellent. She's nobodies property except her own and just because some sad act photographer can pap her on a balcony doesn't mean he should be able to sell his shoddy wares to the lowest highest bidder.

If some scumbag tried to get an upskirt shot of your wife/girlfriend and put it online I've a feeling a lot of the hacktastical "it's all part of the game" machismo would evaporate fairly lively.

sorry but she is public property in the UK, she is in effect a form of public servant in the formal role she fulfils so it's not quite the same as your next door neighbour. Now personally if someone tried to get a photo up her skirt I'd hope they'd get a visit and a trip to court because that's way beyond. I also think papps are scum and this one was acting like scum. However, I do honestly believe she really should know better than to be in the open air like that. Her role means she will receive this attention and she should know that. Like I said, there's a difference between the theory of what privacy you should have and living in the real world. I also think they have been unbelievably stupid with the way they've handled it.

[joeriddick]

If there was no one to buy the paper because of this then it wouldn't be published and the photo would never have been taken.

I don't agree with papparazzi in general as they specifically target people in the worst possible sense but changes to the law to restrict them would unduly restrict all photography. It's public attitudes nee to change making the pap's redundant.

I haven't seen the pics and probably won't as I don't read the star but I cant imagine they are too shocking

Attitudes do need to change but just because a gorilla eats it's own sh!t doesn't mean society should start serving up sh!te sandwiches down the pub. This kind of gutter "journalism" is damaging to society as a whole (and, while we're at it, REAL journalism) and should stay in the pubescent scribblings of 14 year olds and out of public consumption.

[Stringer9]

I thought this was a piss take when I heard it first, but the fact that it could happen is ridiculous, so many people are now looking at losing their jobs over one persons actions. Fire him, not shut down the paper over something so stupid.

I don't praticularly care about her or any of the Royal family, she seems like a nice woman, and she's lovely looking and all that, but while she's in the paper a lot, I imagine that Ireland as a whole aren't too bothered over it.
It's not news really. She's had her privacy invaded badly, and has resulted in unfortunate pictures.

I'd say something if all this fuss was something more worthwhile, but it's over something that we couldn't give a monkey's about.

Complete stupidity.

[joeriddick]

sorry but she is public property in the UK, she is in effect a form of public servant in the formal role she fulfils so it's not quite the same as your next door neighbour. Now personally if someone tried to get a photo up her skirt I'd hope they'd get a visit and a trip to court because that's way beyond. I also think papps are scum and this one was acting like scum. However, I do honestly believe she really should know better than to be in the open air like that. Her role means she will receive this attention and she should know that. Like I said, there's a difference between the theory of what privacy you should have and living in the real world. I also think they have been unbelievably stupid with the way they've handled it.

Not buying it. As far as her private body is concerned she very much is the same as my next door neighbour in my mind. Her role as a public servant doesn't extend to people having the right to see her naked body just because some scumbag photographer and scumbag publications see fit to invade her privacy. I hate this "in the real world" idea - we make laws to shape our society and in cases like this where an innocent woman has her privacy invaded so sad acts can get their rocks off is a sad reflection on our society and I hope all involved get taken to the cleaners. "In the real world" if someone tried to take a shot like that of me or mine, they'd get taken to the cleaners one way or the other by me and the same goes for most people on here. There's no valid public interest in her body outside of the neckbeard fap brigade.

People that think that she's a royal so she deserves it (or whatever other black helicopter tinfoil hat wearing bullsh!t they can think of) would want to be careful what they wish for here because as circulation goes down and the public's decency threshold gets lower and lower I don't think we'll like where the tabloids will go to stay afloat. It's Kate Midleton today, but it might be someone you give a **** about tomorrow.

[Evil Omer]

Not buying it. As far as her private body is concerned she very much is the same as my next door neighbour in my mind. Her role as a public servant doesn't extend to people having the right to see her naked body just because some scumbag photographer and scumbag publications see fit to invade her privacy. I hate this "in the real world" idea - we make laws to shape our society and in cases like this where an innocent woman has her privacy invaded so sad acts can get their rocks off is a sad reflection on our society and I hope all involved get taken to the cleaners. "In the real world" if someone tried to take a shot like that of me or mine, they'd get taken to the cleaners one way or the other by me and the same goes for most people on here. There's no valid public interest in her body outside of the neckbeard fap brigade.

People that think that she's a royal so she deserves it (or whatever other black helicopter tinfoil hat wearing bullsh!t they can think of) would want to be careful what they wish for here because as circulation goes down and the public's decency threshold gets lower and lower I don't think we'll like where the tabloids will go to stay afloat. It's Kate Midleton today, but it might be someone you give a **** about tomorrow.

I didn't say it was ok or acceptable, I made the point that she should know better. Like I said, in theory you should be able to walk wherever you want after dark in total safety. In reality if you try to prove that you're a fool. Same here, she will know enough to know she's being targeted. She was naive to put herself in a situation where it could happen considering her family love selling their story to the media she'd surely be aware of how much attention there is. Doesn't mean it's acceptable at all but she should be living in the real world where it's simply not going to go away. The other thing is I genuinely believe they've shot themselves in the foot with the law suits stuff. That could and should have been handled much better.

[nuke]

She has not had her privacy invaded. She went topless on a balcony that was visible from a public place.

Now I don't see the need to photograph it and publish but the only thing I am clear on is she has not had her privacy invaded in this instance. Otherwise we wouldn't need curtains on our windows as people couldn't look in

[MrsMcGahan]

Not buying it. As far as her private body is concerned she very much is the same as my next door neighbour in my mind. Her role as a public servant doesn't extend to people having the right to see her naked body just because some scumbag photographer and scumbag publications see fit to invade her privacy. I hate this "in the real world" idea - we make laws to shape our society and in cases like this where an innocent woman has her privacy invaded so sad acts can get their rocks off is a sad reflection on our society and I hope all involved get taken to the cleaners. "In the real world" if someone tried to take a shot like that of me or mine, they'd get taken to the cleaners one way or the other by me and the same goes for most people on here. There's no valid public interest in her body outside of the neckbeard fap brigade.

People that think that she's a royal so she deserves it (or whatever other black helicopter tinfoil hat wearing bullsh!t they can think of) would want to be careful what they wish for here because as circulation goes down and the public's decency threshold gets lower and lower I don't think we'll like where the tabloids will go to stay afloat. It's Kate Midleton today, but it might be someone you give a **** about tomorrow.

"Neckbeard fap brigade"? "Black helicoptor tinfoil hat"?
WTF! I need a new dictionary........

Shaping society with laws?
Are you mad?
Eamo will be sticking needles in a voodoo doll in your image with that sort of evil government wild talk.

Anyway, on the whole I agree with you. I also think the Royal family parasites thing is unbalanced. I'm a republican myself and would phase the royalty thing out but some of the royals actually have to work hard (the Queen carried out more than 400 public engagements last year) - some of them pay a high price for their comforts - and they deserve some protection from paprazzi parasites who contribute SFA to society, on the make for a quick buck.

[MrsMcGahan]

She has not had her privacy invaded. She went topless on a balcony that was visible from a public place with a nuclear powered telescope.

Now I don't see the need to photograph it and publish but the only thing I am clear on is she has not had her privacy invaded in this instance. Otherwise we wouldn't need curtains on our windows as people couldn't look in

Fixed that for you.

[nuke]

Fixed that for you.

Your ignorance of rugby is obviously matched by your ignorance of photography

[MrsMcGahan]

Your ignorance of rugby is obviously matched by your ignorance of photography

Your ignorance of rugby is obviously matched by your ignorance of common sense.

[99_oK?]

Way OTT here in some of the comments.

She was sunbathing in a pretty secluded, but overlooked (at a distance) spot, a lowlife got a few grainy pics of her, and sold 'em on. A few papers and mags have bought and printed. Similar happened to he MIL (backlit dress...). Can't see she's doing anything wrong either, unless sunbathing is now illegal.

No interest in her or the papers, but seems folks (incl. the British 'mainstream' media) seem to be a bit too precious here. Might be in bad taste, but it's not illegal to take the pics, so what do you suggest? - UK pressure France to bring in a law banning all cameras (or at least bannin g taking pics of folks). She's not the first royal (of either sex) to take some (or all...) of their clothes off. Belgian princesses were noted for sunbathing too not too long ago; nobody died (or even cared...) - and that was Italy where it was illegal to take your top off on most beaches.

As for Mr. Desmond - made most of his dosh from showing far worse than this. Obviously a total hypocrite, and if you ask me the threat to close The Star has nothing to do with these pics. He's following another agenda and this is just a convenient excuse (and maybe some (needed...?) publicity.

Here's what tory Britain sees him as: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-Chequers.html

kettle, pot, black (much blacker methinks)

[joeriddick]

"Neckbeard fap brigade"? "Black helicoptor tinfoil hat"?
WTF! I need a new dictionary........

Shaping society with laws?
Are you mad?
Eamo will be sticking needles in a voodoo doll in your image with that sort of evil government wild talk.

Anyway, on the whole I agree with you. I also think the Royal family parasites thing is unbalanced. I'm a republican myself and would phase the royalty thing out but some of the royals actually have to work hard (the Queen carried out more than 400 public engagements last year) - some of them pay a high price for their comforts - and they deserve some protection from paprazzi parasites who contribute SFA to society, on the make for a quick buck.

I have no great love for the royals either - I just despise the lowest common denominator behavior of the tabloid press and paparazzi. If there's corruption to find in the royals then go and find it, just don't dress up this tawdry voyeurism as journalism. It degrades the whole profession.

[joeriddick]

It doesn't have to be any of these. Nobody is saying to ban cameras, that's ridiculous. How about this - you cannot publish pictures of someone in a state of unacceptable undress without their permission or knowledge unless there is a clear, demonstrable and non titillation related public interest.

[Point]

Ah, but what about bottomless ones? Not that I'm suggesting that Kate has no bottom - she has - look! - and a pretty neat one it is too.

Much credit is due to her loving husband for considerately rubbing some sunscreen on it!

You'd have thought she's have purchased swimwear that offered protection against UV rays..... are you sure it was sunscreen ?

[Cougar Moon]

Paps are pretty disgusting. As we have seen with Murdoch's Men, (and Rebecca), they are lowlife. The Editor of The Star also sounds like a Gob****e. The real Story though is The Heavy Handed Approach St James Palace have taken via The Star's UK Parent. You cross them and get closed down? Is that how it works? I don't feel sorry for Kate, my concern would be for the Families of all The People that will join our lengthening Dole Queue's. Kate and Will's want to Run with The Fox and Chase with The Hounds it seems.

[John123]

My question is, if there were topless pics of another European royal would the British tabloids refuse to print those pics as a matter of respect? Ha...

I'm not in support of the pics being printed but they were. At most they are in bad taste. She was foolish to think she could sunbathe topless without consequence. Some of you may think that is not relevant but it is, she is THE MOST photographed woman in the world!!! She doesnt have an off day...this is what she signed up for when she married the future King of England.

[McCloud]

My question is, if there were topless pics of another European royal would the British tabloids refuse to print those pics as a matter of respect? Ha...

I'm not in support of the pics being printed but they were. At most they are in bad taste. She was foolish to think she could sunbathe topless without consequence. Some of you may think that is not relevant but it is, she is THE MOST photographed woman in the world!!! She doesnt have an off day...this is what she signed up for when she married the future King of England.

So that makes it alright?

[cornerboy]

My question is, if there were topless pics of another European royal would the British tabloids refuse to print those pics as a matter of respect? Ha...

I'm not in support of the pics being printed but they were. At most they are in bad taste. She was foolish to think she could sunbathe topless without consequence. Some of you may think that is not relevant but it is, she is THE MOST photographed woman in the world!!! She doesnt have an off day...this is what she signed up for when she married the future King of England.

Call me an Old Fart but it is not acceptable to photograph any woman topless without their permission.

[No. 16]

Call me an Old Fart but it is not acceptable to photograph any woman topless without their permission.

OLD FART !

But seriously. I despise any tabloid in general. I have never spent a penny on the likes of the sun or star, etc. I refuse to support them. I am amazed the noses of more paparazzi aren't smashed in anger. I strongly believe there should be stronger controls on them and more criminal prosecutions - not with new law, but based on existing laws.

Having said that - I'm amazed at the outrage over this except that which is obligatorily expressed as act of duty. In realistic and rational consideration - It is far more surprising to me that, as others have said, she thought there was a good chance she wouldn't be photographed with her titties in the breeze then I am at sleeze rags publishing them.

An invasion of privacy yes. Surprising - definitely not.

Then to throw in further absurdity - What countries are they where you'd be sued for being seen naked through the window of your own home? What newspaper normally show topless celebrities? What country is known for topless sunbathing?

Wasn't it just a couple years ago Pippa was snapped in half a bikini on a boat?

Surprise? Outrage? Give me a break!

[Evil Omer]

McCloud and cornerboy you're missing the point being made I'm afraid. We're not saying it is ok. We're saying she should have known this would happen when she agreed to marry him. Don't forget all the "friends" stories fed to the press about how she thought long and hard about the marriage because of the responsibilities, pressures etc. Can't have it both ways, thought long and hard but didn't realise might be someone looking for a photo opportunity wherever went?

The thing is they're the ones saying it's a big deal for her to be seen topless so then they're saying it's not acceptable for a UK royal to be seen topless, therefore she needs to think about what could happen. Whatever legislation you put in place there will always be scumbags with cameras and papers willing to challenge the law - that's what's happening now. Therefore they can't live with the freedom the rest of us have - that's reality and it's reality everyone has to try to live in. It's not fair but goes with the job.

I would repeat it's not a matter of it's not fair, it's a simple matter of for some people this is the goldfish bowl you chose to live in, you need to not let your guard down.

And to answer some of the comments, if my daughter had married into their royal family and got caught out like this one conversation I would definitely be having would be with her on the subject of realising you will not get privacy so don't do this kind of thing thinking you will. Thing is it's not like the two of them were on that estate on their own without any staff being there to run it so there was still the chance the staff, who weren't her staff, could have seen her as well.

[Grandpasimpson]

She has not had her privacy invaded. She went topless on a balcony that was visible from a public place.

Now I don't see the need to photograph it and publish but the only thing I am clear on is she has not had her privacy invaded in this instance. Otherwise we wouldn't need curtains on our windows as people couldn't look in

The house she was in was a secluded spot visable only by a telescopic lense from 700 or so yards, thats a pretty long distance to consider it a public place. Had she been on a beach or a yacht moored on the marina in Monaco then I would have said she should have known better and courted the publicity. However she chose to go to a private spot and that privacy was breached by a perv with a long range lense from up a tree or so other sleazy peeping tom spot.

My issue here isnt the fact that it is a royal, its the fact that a woman and her husband cannot go to a private location for a day or two off without having her private parts displayed for public oogling. Why did we need to see a shot of William rubbing lotion on her behind???

[i_like_cake]

Wasn't it just a couple years ago Pippa was snapped in half a bikini on a boat?

Pippa..? from Home and Away.... that goes back a few years....

[John123]

[Cowboy]

"Neckbeard fap brigade"? "Black helicoptor tinfoil hat"?
WTF! I need a new dictionary........

Magnificent neckbeards