Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Fundamental Error

It may seem a far-fetched connection, but the vicious oaf we describe in the previous post  has a link to the furore over Those Photos of  Duchess  Kate.

I have heard several people try to blame the lady for being so stupid as to relax in a place that she believed to be private, with the nearest public road a long way away. The link is, of course, blaming the victim, rather than the offender.

24 comments:

  1. Also sounds linked to a certain candidate for the US Presidency...

    ReplyDelete
  2. The ability of technology to breach privacy will continue to increase. With the arrival of the greatest Depression yet seen in the world, the market for such breaches will increase.

    As the West: hanged a look alike Saddam whose voice we never got to hear, for obvious reasons; and arranged for the discovery of a look alike Ghaddafi to be slaughtered; could we not have superb athletic specimens as stand ins for Royals, with Harry playing himself, of course?

    The money earned could supplement the Civil List?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you off your medication?

      Delete
    2. Backs away, trying not to make eye contact.

      Delete
    3. No, still on my meds thanks!

      Kate showed her left arse cheek at Brisbane Airport, saw it on TV, so it must be true! That girl is way too thin. Was going commando or else "wore" a thong ....

      Delete
  3. I think this Matt Cartoon sums BS teams point very nicely indeed...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

    ReplyDelete
  4. The thing is, the Duchess *was* stupid. If you don't want topless photos published, you cannot go outside topless. Sure it sucks, sure it's a gross invasion of privacy, and you cannot excuse the behaviour of the paparazzi, but no matter how much you punish the photographer you can't un-publish the photos.

    If I leave my front door unlocked and get robbed, the thief is still to blame, but I'm stupid for not locking the door.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree entirely that the paparazzi and the Dutchess are both responsible (and for that matter so the general public for creating the demand), and that blaming one doesn't exonerate the other.

      But... the poor woman is *constantly* in the press. I cannot remember the last time I looked at a magazine shelf and didn't see her on at least one cover.

      You could level the same argument at Prince Harry. But, he was in a private hotel room. Admittedly, and with the benefit of hindsight, he chose his "companions" unwisely. But imagine their lives. From morning, to noon, to night. Every. Single. Day. You cannot *ever* let your guard down.

      The Duke and Dutchess have been married now for nearly a year and a half, and they first met in 2001. This is her first big "mistake" in 11 years.

      I for one couldn't hack it.

      Delete
    2. The Duchess (please learn the spelling) was not stupid. Modern people sunbathe topless or totally nude widely in Europe, and even the United Kingdom. It is refreshing that we have some non-dinosaurs amongst the royalty, and disappointing you are not with them.

      Delete
    3. I'm no dinosaur. If HRH doesn't mind being photographed, she can sunbathe topless wherever she wants. But she does mind, hence the current fuss.

      Delete
  5. The Duchess' prime responsibility is to make a success of her marriage, and in this , the paranoid vigilance required to avoid all incidents might not help a lot. She wasn't doing anything wrong, and the fuss and the embarassment will soon be forgotten. But what was the security doing, for pity's sake? What if it had been a gun, and not a camera, shot at her?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Range far too long.

      Delete
    2. Agree. First successful marriage for a long time in that dysfunctional family.

      Delete
  6. Can someone explain to me why the kind of paparazzo who goes around taking these photographs with huge zoom lenses, crouching in wait by limos to take photos up the dresses of B-list celebs on a nigh out and so on isn't committing a crime?

    If I go out and shove my camera up women's skirts, I'm pretty sure I'd be arrested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I recall any photo taken from public land is perfectly lawful. Up skirt photos may not be but prosecuting the psparazzi who keep the so called celebrity victims in the press would deny them the publicity that pays the wages of both the photographers and celebs alike

      Delete
  7. These photos were taken in France, where such invasion of privacy is indeed deemed to be a crime. Proceedings are under consideration, as I understand, but first they need to establish who took the photos. (My remark relates solely to the highly intrusive photos of the Duchess, seeking respite from constant public attention, in a place she truly believed to be private and beyond even a pap's lens - and not to the more legally fraught snaps by paps 'crouching by limos' in a public place. If anyone needs such down time, it is surely this couple, who are so constantly under constant public scrutiny. That she - and her security detail - misjudged how secluded the spot was should not mean that any blame attaches to her for the taking let alone publication of these images.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. The question that I asked was "Where was their security team?".
    Where a photographer can take a picture with a telescopic lens, so could a sniper take a shot using a rifle with telescopic sights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can only go to reasonable lengths with regard to security to block the impulsive nutters. Highly skilled professionals are another matter.
      If I recall correctly the record for a successful sniper in Afghanistan is about 2km. Having a security cordon out to that distance would take huge manpower levels

      Delete
  9. When she starts predicting precisely how she will die is the time to get worried .......!

    It suggests she would have been given a stern talking to with "friendly" advice following about "how these things can be arranged"

    Still, it could never happen twice?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Am I alone in finding Fungus positively creepy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The polite thing to do is ignore the mentally-ill person.

      Delete
  11. And even then no guarantee of catching anyone doing anything they shouldn't, and that's just during the day. Imagine covering that sort of ground at night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should have appeared under Anonimouse post 20 Sep at 21.00.

      Delete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.