Irish Daily Star to shut?

Fatbiker

fionnsda wrote: »

so have you all seen her tits then!

Fionnsda...I thank you sincerely! FB

GSF

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Who the hell cares if her pics are published, people out there are trying to put food on the table and pay their bills and if you have enough time to care about these topless photos you must have an empty life. I mean, a bit of perspective here, there are much more important things going on in the world than what some Princess does with her spare time :rolleyes:

many more are sitting on their backsides posting to the internet all day

later12

super_furry wrote: »

Such staggering hypocrisy. It's ok to torture celebrities by following their every waking moment and taking pictures of them in some of the most vulnerable moments of their life but if someone does it to one of their untouchables, that's crossing the line.

I heard the editor of the Irish Daily Star make almost this exact point. He said "she's not our future Queen/ we'll treat her like we would treat Rihanna".

Two points there - (a) no, it's not ok to take pictures of any celebrity when they are in a private setting and believe themselves to be invisible to prying eyes, and then to publish those pictures and (b) there is a difference between Rihanna and Lady Gaga vs Kate Middleton (and believe me, I'm not Monarchist) ; the difference is that Lady Gaga and Rihanna need the press and to some extent endorse that sort of celebrity ; Kate Middleton is firstly an army officer's wife, that's her day job, and she doesn't court that kind of publicity.

666irishguy

It would be a pity if those jobs go. The Star should claim that although initially publishing them might not have been in the public interest, the fact that the story got so big means that they decided to run the story just to show the public what the fuss was about. At the end of the day I think it's a bit of a joke that a newspaper in this country would have to close because they ran a story on a British royal. UK media bosses are media are the living definition of hypocrites.

AllGunsBlazing

Haven't bought the Star since the late 90's - it had a fantastic sports section back in those days.

Like most people (I'd imagine) I get my news via the old interweb machine. And that's part of the problem - the more we look for our news elsewhere the more salacious the red tops become in trying to attract sales. There's also been a significant dumbing down of the tv news as well imo.

As for some ex-porn baron trying to claim some sort of moral highground...:rolleyes:

Latchy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Anyone who bought the Star for blurry nude pics of Kate middleton should be sent for mandatory therapy. As should the guy who thought it would sometime of interest to an irish person.

They are already up on the net anyway so nobody had to buy any newspaper to see them if they so wished .

kowloon

vitani wrote: »

There's a massive difference between taking a photo of someone on a public beach and taking them of somebody in a private estate. There's laws against what they did for a reason.

My mistake, I assumed in this case it was the former.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Solair wrote: »

Basically, we've a foreign company dictating editorial policy to an Irish news outlet by threatening it with financial destruction.

It doesn't matter if they're from Ireland or from the moon, they still own the news outlet and they can disassociate from them financially whenever they see fit if they're not happy with what they publish or if they feel what the outlet published might threaten the entire franchise. It's well within their rights to do so. Plus, they're a private company.

later12

Solair wrote: »

While the publication of the photos was fairly tasteless, I think this is a total over-reaction by this company which is only a partial owner / shareholder.

Basically, we've a foreign company dictating editorial policy to an Irish news outlet

No, they have a major shareholder protesting editorial policy, which may bring the paper down.

While that may be excessive from a commercial point of view, that has nothing to do with "us" or whatever sort of injury to "our" sovereignty that you seem to feel has occurred.

girl in the striped socks

It you're willing to take your top off on holiday then don't come crying about invasion of privacy when titty photos make the newspapers.
You don't want your boobs in magazines, newspapers & on the Internet? No problem, keep your top on. A harsh lesson has been learned.
I'd be more concerned about them being shot dead if a photographer is able to get photos from long range.

General General

Maybe, just maybe, there are bigger problems than this with respect to the press, especially in the UK... & maybe, just maybe, the Royals should realise that.

Solair

later12 wrote: »

No, they have a major shareholder protesting editorial policy, which may bring the paper down.

While that may be excessive from a commercial point of view, that has nothing to do with "us" or whatever sort of injury to "our" sovereignty that you seem to feel has occurred.

They can do whatever they like as investors but it doesn't mean that it's necessarily right though, or make their position reasonable.

I can also pretty much 100% assure you that it WILL be reflected in a downgrade of Ireland's score on the RSF Press Freedom Index as they'll interpret it as lack of editorial independence at a major national paper.

Judging by the pile of unsold papers I've just seen in the local shop, I'd say that the (Irish) Star really boobed by publishing these pictures|

Seanchai

vitani wrote: »

People who appear in porn choose to do so, and get paid for it. Kate didn't.

"Kate" appeared in the British royal family, as a member. She is therefore fair game, just as is any other publicity-seeking "celebrity" who avoids real work in real jobs like "normal people".

She, and all the rest of them, could always abdicate and become private citizens. They choose not to. Ergo, fair game in tabloid land. She deserves no more protection from such publicity than any other "star" who makes their living from publicity.

She certainly does not deserve special treatment by virtue of her membership of a royal family. That seems to be why certain people object to this.

In advanced societies, we've rejected this medieval royalist cult and its blood-based nonsense. To protect it and its (sectarian) elitism in 2012 is an aberration on any democracy.

later12

Solair wrote: »

I can also pretty much 100% assure you that it WILL be reflected in a downgrade of Ireland's score on the RSF Press Freedom Index as they'll interpret it as lack of editorial independence at a major national paper.

Oh for Heaven's sake.

The RSF index is intended to highlight serious government interference in editorial freedom ; particularly as relates to civil liberties.

It's not there to protect a newspaper from itself in printing pictures of a semi naked woman... boggle.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

It you're willing to take your top off on holiday then don't come crying about invasion of privacy when titty photos make the newspapers.
You don't want your boobs in magazines, newspapers & on the Internet? No problem, keep your top on. A harsh lesson has been learned.
I'd be more concerned about them being shot dead if a photographer is able to get photos from long range.

If you were getting changed in your bedroom and you didn't have the blinds pulled and then someone takes a picture of you while you were getting changed from your neighbour's garden then that's stalking and it is illegal. The case is no different here. It's an invasion of privacy. It doesn't matter if you're a celebrity or an ordinary joe soap. There's no harsh lesson that needs to be learned here other than the harsh lesson that will befall the photographer for taking the photo and the newspaper for publishing those photos when legal proceedings take place.

Solair

later12 wrote: »

Oh for Heaven's sake.

The RSF index is intended to highlight serious government interference in editorial freedom ; particularly as relates to civil liberties.

It's not there to protect a newspaper from itself in printing a woman with her bra off... boggle.

Watch and see!

RSF is intended to highlight ANY interference in editorial freedom - government, judicial, regulatory, commercial or even criminal intimidation of reporters.

They rip the US, UK and lots of other media apart for excessive interference by commercial organisations and media mogul type groups that have potentially too much control over the flow of information.

M cebee

anyone who's seen the tiddies in the paper confirm something for me

are they as small as they seem on tv or bigger?

thanks

Kurz

bewb rating: 3/10

Seanchai

M cebee wrote: »

anyone who's seen the tiddies in the paper confirm something for me

are they as small as they seem on tv or bigger?

thanks

I doubt if anybody who bought a paper with them in it understands what the word 'confirm' means.

Anyway, no matter who she is, it's crass to demean somebody like that.

Cavehill Red

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

If you were getting changed in your bedroom and you didn't have the blinds pulled and then someone takes a picture of you while you were getting changed from your neighbour's garden then that's stalking and it is illegal.

No, it's not 'stalking'. It may be an invasion of privacy, in which case it is a matter for the civil courts. Of course, the laws are different in France, but the photo was taken from a public road.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

The case is no different here. It's an invasion of privacy. It doesn't matter if you're a celebrity or an ordinary joe soap. There's no harsh lesson that needs to be learned here other than the harsh lesson that will befall the photographer for taking the photo and the newspaper for publishing those photos when legal proceedings take place.

The photos were initially published by a French version of 'Closer' magazine, not a newspaper. Secondly, the 'harsh lesson' will be a fine capped at 60 grand, and that in the most stringent and constrictive regime in Europe for privacy.
Note, I'm neither defending the act of taking the pictures nor of publishing them. I'm merely correcting the errors in what you wrote. For what it's worth, as a senior royal, Kate's advisors know she will be followed everywhere at all times by photographers, as all significant celebrities are. If anyone should be learning harsh lessons here, it is her security staff who failed to case the house and its environs properly to ensure it was not overlooked.

SEPT 23 1989

The Star have got this very wrong you cant compare this girl to slags like Rihanna and the rest of her ilk

Seanchai

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The Star have got this very wrong you cant compare this girl to slags like Rihanna and the rest of her ilk

Why not? She doesn't work, and she lives off the publicity she gets from her position. And her position, membership of a blood-based elitist institutionally sectarian royal family, is an abomination in the modern world in 2012. Sure, her pr machine markets her differently, to a different demography, but she didn't become a member of the British royal family by being "one of the ordinary people". Of that, we can be certain.

Kurz

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The Star have got this very wrong you cant compare this girl to slags like Rihanna and the rest of her ilk

Yeah because Rhianna looks good and can sing. Whereas this woman looks like the back of a bus and married someone who inherited something by accident of birth.

General General

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The Star have got this very wrong you cant compare this girl to slags like Rihanna and the rest of her ilk

So, so right. Rihanna & company actually do something that makes money.

force eleven

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The Star have got this very wrong you cant compare this girl to slags like Rihanna and the rest of her ilk

That's grossly unfair to Rihanna. She's a fine upstanding woman. Just ask that farmer up north about her video in the field. As for that GaGa wan, bet she is raging she can't get publicity like Kate.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Solair wrote: »

They can do whatever they like as investors but it doesn't mean that it's necessarily right though, or make their position reasonable.

I can also pretty much 100% assure you that it WILL be reflected in a downgrade of Ireland's score on the RSF Press Freedom Index as they'll interpret it as lack of editorial independence at a major national paper.

This has nothing to do with the freedom of the press. These press freedom indexes are usually to do with government interaction with the press and the regulation of the press inside a particular state by government. They usually have nothing to do with how the press manages itself, such as how the owner of a media franchise deals with a subsidiarity newspaper within the franchise and how he/she deals with then financially. After all, they own the newspaper and ought to have a right to deal with it however they please. This has nothing to do with breech of sovereignty. By the way, the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech are, at their core, property rights first and foremost.

Augmerson

Seanchai wrote: »

"Kate" appeared in the British royal family, as a member. She is therefore fair game, just as is any other publicity-seeking "celebrity" who avoids real work in real jobs like "normal people".

She, and all the rest of them, could always abdicate and become private citizens. They choose not to. Ergo, fair game in tabloid land. She deserves no more protection from such publicity than any other "star" who makes their living from publicity.

She certainly does not deserve special treatment by virtue of her membership of a royal family. That seems to be why certain people object to this.

In advanced societies, we've rejected this medieval royalist cult and its blood-based nonsense. To protect it and its (sectarian) elitism in 2012 is an aberration on any democracy.

Man, let me first say, I see your user name, and your location as in Béal Feirste, Eire. I might make an educational guess that you don't care a whole lot for the English royal family. And neither do I to be honest. If I was English, I'd want rid of them. I'd want elected representatives. Not ones designated by birth or marriage, but I'm not English.

I'm not defending the Royal family at all for being "Royals", but if somebody is on their own property or in a location they've paid for, however they have paid for it, I feel they do have a right to their privacy. More so, I feel that publishing these pictures is just adding to the dumbing down of society, and that's something I really reject. I agree with you, just because of who she is, shouldn't mean she has special status. I think all of us should have the same rights and the same responsibilities. I just think this was wrong and had no real merit for above reasons mentioned. It's just crass.

She doesn't even have decent tits like.

vitani

Seanchai wrote: »

"Kate" appeared in the British royal family, as a member. She is therefore fair game, just as is any other publicity-seeking "celebrity" who avoids real work in real jobs like "normal people".

She, and all the rest of them, could always abdicate and become private citizens. They choose not to. Ergo, fair game in tabloid land. She deserves no more protection from such publicity than any other "star" who makes their living from publicity.

She certainly does not deserve special treatment by virtue of her membership of a royal family. That seems to be why certain people object to this.

In advanced societies, we've rejected this medieval royalist cult and its blood-based nonsense. To protect it and its (sectarian) elitism in 2012 is an aberration on any democracy.

Her husband works as an RAF pilot. They're not just coasting along, doing nothing.

'Fair game' does not and should not include the level of privacy invasion that occurred here. She was on a 600+ acre private estate and the photographer stood half a mile away with a long-range lens. If someone did that to any other celeb or any 'normal person', I'd feel as disgusted as I do now. What that photographer did is illegal and the fact that she is royalty has nothing to do with it.

I'm the first to criticise people who court publicity complaining when they receive unwelcome attention, but this has crossed a line and is not typical of how other celebrities are treated.

M cebee

Seanchai wrote: »

I doubt if anybody who bought a paper with them in it understands what the word 'confirm' means.

Anyway, no matter who she is, it's crass to demean somebody like that.

like you just demeaned the daily star readers?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seanchai wrote: »

Em, they're not, unless it's normal for "normal people" to have their lives followed. Of course, they could always abdicate their right to the (anti-Catholic) British crown if they hate the publicity and go off and work like "normal people" and have private lives like ordinary people. They chose not to do that. They chose to keep their life of lazy-arsed status and privilege. Ergo, they're not victims.

Sorry, but she's still a human being and as such as human rights. Privacy being one of those rights.

I can understand your objection to royalty - I'd be anti-royal myself, generally speaking - but it's the lifestyle that's abnormal rather than the person.

girl in the striped socks

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

It you're willing to take your top off on holiday then don't come crying about invasion of privacy when titty photos make the newspapers.
You don't want your boobs in magazines, newspapers & on the Internet? No problem, keep your top on. A harsh lesson has been learned.
I'd be more concerned about them being shot dead if a photographer is able to get photos from long range.

If you were getting changed in your bedroom and you didn't have the blinds pulled and then someone takes a picture of you while you were getting changed from your neighbour's garden then that's stalking and it is illegal. The case is no different here. It's an invasion of privacy. It doesn't matter if you're a celebrity or an ordinary joe soap. There's no harsh lesson that needs to be learned here other than the harsh lesson that will befall the photographer for taking the photo and the newspaper for publishing those photos when legal proceedings take place.

It's very different. She was outside, in the open air. It may have been a private property but there's a huge difference in knowingly sunbathing topless compared to getting a shot through a window.
She could have had bigger problems to deal with like a bullet in her forehead.
I personally don't understand why the royal family are so horrified that a rag would print those photos. Of course they will print them. Theres probably paparazzi employed for the sole purpose of getting royals in situations they don't want to be photographed in.
Surely at some stage their pr would have laid down a list of what's acceptable behaviour & what's not.
She is entitled to her privacy, if she wanted to walk around naked at the villa she should be able to without fear of photos surfacing. But that's not the world we live in & she should have known better.

Cavehill Red

NUJ condemns over the top threat to Irish Star

THE National Union of Journalists has called on the co-owners of the Irish
Daily Star, Northern and Shell to reconsider the threat to close the
newspaper following publication of photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge.

NUJ General Secretary Michelle Stanistreet described the decision as "an
over the top reaction which should be reconsidered calmly and with
consideration for the full implications for Irish journalism and for
editorial diversity".

Irish Secretary Séamus Dooley branded the arbitrary decision as "a callous and crude attempt by Northern and Star to protect their UK commercial
interests with no regard for the livelihood of 80 Irish workers".

Ms Stanistreet said: "There is no justification for putting the livelihood
of workers at the Irish Daily Star in jeopardy because of disagreement
over an editorial decision of this nature.

The Irish Daily Star is a joint venture between Independent News & Media
and Northern and Shell. The future of the newspaper is linked to the
financial and editorial support of both investors.

Editorial management of the newspaper rests with the editorial team in
Dublin and it is difficult to see why the UK shareholder has chosen this
issue as the grounds for withdrawing from a long standing contract. The
Irish Daily Star is a successful newspaper and any threat to the survival
of the title is a threat to editorial diversity."

Séamus Dooley, Irish Secretary, National Union of Journalists, expressed grave concern for the journalists employed by the Irish Daily Star. He
said the announcement of the UK shareholder had stunned Irish staff and
would shock loyal readers of the newspaper.

Mr Dooley said: "The Irish Daily Star has always been marketed as an Irish title free of UK interference in editorial matters. The editor took a
controversial decision on this issue, just as he and his predecessors have
done in the past, without reference to the newspaper owners. I do not
understand why this particular decision is being treated any differently.

There are agreed mechanisms for dealing with breaches of editorial
standards and it is difficult to see why these mechanisms were not used
rather than the sledge hammer deployed by the UK partners of the
newspapers. While there are undoubtedly strong views about this issue I do not accept that publication of the pictures provides justification for
ending a commercial relationship with Independent News & Media."

Solair

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the freedom of the press. These press freedom indexes are usually to do with government interaction with the press and the regulation of the press inside a particular state by government. They usually have nothing to do with how the press manages itself, such as how the owner of a media franchise deals with a subsidiarity newspaper within the franchise and how he/she deals with then financially. After all, they own the newspaper, they do with them however they please. This has nothing to do with breech of sovereignty. By the way, the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech are, at their core, property rights first and foremost.

Those indexes most definitely do look at the ownership structure and how independent the outlets are.
I'd suggest you go and look at some of the criteria they use. It goes way beyond just state/government issues.

It's an EXTREMELY drastic move to just close down a publication entirely / threaten to over a single photograph that you didn't like being published, even if you are a major shareholder.

While the circumstances of this particular issue are pretty nasty i.e. publication of a nude photo that you couldn't really argue that there was any public interest motive for, it is not a good precedent to set that a shareholder would just react this dramatically.

It's also not a particularly good situation if shareholders are micromanaging editorial content on an on-going basis either.

In ANY media organisation something like this could potentially happen. Editors, journalists and others are not infallible and mistakes and errors of judgement can happen and do happen resulting in all sorts of chaos and problems when something goes to print / to air / online.

There's supposed to be a procedure in any organisation in place for dealing with a disaster like this i.e. you hold an internal enquiry and decide what needs to be done to put it right.

Pulling the plug on what is a fairly large media outlet, on the whim of a shareholder is just a bit odd and seems to all stem from the way Murdock handled the News of The World disaster i.e. closed it down to get all the good PR and then launched the Sun on Sunday

Also, I cannot see how the shareholder is in anyway likely to be held responsible for this precisely because they DO NOT control editorial policy at the publication.

Seanchai

Augmerson wrote: »

I'm not defending the Royal family at all for being "Royals", but if somebody is on their own property or in a location they've paid for, however they have paid for it, I feel they do have a right to their privacy. More so, I feel that publishing these pictures is just adding to the dumbing down of society, and that's something I really reject. I agree with you, just because of who she is, shouldn't mean she has special status. I think all of us should have the same rights and the same responsibilities. I just think this was wrong and had no real merit for above reasons mentioned. It's just crass.

She doesn't even have decent tits like.

I see where you're coming from, and for an ordinary private citizen I'd obviously agree with that. It is crass, as is invariably the wont of tabloids in the British mode.

However, I just don't believe that people who saunter about life doing sfa should be getting away so lightly. If I were to have role models, it would be people who work hard, raise families in trying conditions and generally survive life. The parents, for instance, who produce the soundest, kindest and most mannered kids in an area where most other parents produce the opposite. I'd have sympathy for those decent people.

I can't honestly say I have sympathy for people who choose to live their super glamorous life in the spotlight, visiting people and doing other handy "public engagements" while the rest of us work in real jobs dealing with real shít.

Adverse publicity is about the only downside of life for people who choose, as this girl does, to spend their lives in the public eye. Instinctively at a personal level, I'd be inclined to think she's a lovely girl who has a right to privacy. However, she is now a super rich member of a super rich family whose very position revolves around being a blood-based anti-democratic and sectarian relic of pre-democratic days. It is also a family which depends upon publicity, most of which they are controlling in Britain by virtue of deals with the "free press" there. She, as with other people who choose to be "celebrities", cannot have her cake and eat it.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, it's not 'stalking'. It may be an invasion of privacy, in which case it is a matter for the civil courts. Of course, the laws are different in France, but the photo was taken from a public road.

I'd love to know how you don't see this as stalking. It doesn't matter if the photos were taken from a public road.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the verb to stalk:

Definition of stalk
verb
1 [with object] pursue or approach stealthily:
a cat stalking a bird
harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention:
for five years she was stalked by a man who would taunt and threaten her
chiefly literary move silently or threateningly through (a place):
the tiger stalks the jungle
figurative
fear stalked the camp
2 [no object, with adverbial of direction] stride somewhere in a proud, stiff, or angry manner:
without another word she turned and stalked out
noun
1a stealthy pursuit of someone or something:
this time the stalk would be on foot
2a stiff, striding gait.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stalk--2

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The photos were initially published by a French version of 'Closer' magazine, not a newspaper.

I don't see how it really matters if they are a newspaper or a magazine to be honest in the context of this discussion.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Secondly, the 'harsh lesson' will be a fine capped at 60 grand, and that in the most stringent and constrictive regime in Europe for privacy.

Seems reasonable. Though I personally believe that whatever the punishment is, it ought to be proportional to whatever damages were incurred by the person who's privacy was breached, which, in the case of nude pictures being published in a magazine, might run into millions.

Just because she's a celebrity shouldn't matter here, she still has her rights under the law.

therewillbe

UKJon wrote: »

Yamanoto wrote: »

Doubt the Star would disappear, though the current arrangement between the parties involved in its publication may be in jeopardy.

To us KM is merely another celeb and as such, our editors shouldn't tip-toe or give special dispensation to the royals.

Company chairman Richard Desmond said: "I am very angry at the decision to publish these photographs and am taking immediate steps to close down the joint venture."

I have heard it said Desmond would quite like a knighthood. Hence his iffy charity lottery venture. Would explain why he's so 'angry'.

This fella owns most of the Porn shown in the UK etc.Ye,A real upstanding member of society.Stick your rag up your brown nose.

Seanchai

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Sorry, but she's still a human being and as such as human rights. Privacy being one of those rights.

I can understand your objection to royalty - I'd be anti-royal myself, generally speaking - but it's the lifestyle that's abnormal rather than the person.

I accept that. But she chooses that lifestyle. It is her choice. If she threw in the towel like the English guy in the 1930s and chose a private life she wouldn't have this problem. The problem seems to be that the British royal family had made deals with the British media about not doing this sort of thing, but they never made similar deals with foreign media. What is unacceptable in Britain is unacceptable simply because of her position in that society. To people outside that society, she is just another celebrity.

Personally, I think it would be a better world without tabloids or any journalists who are not public interest journalists. But until that changes exceptions should not be made for a "celebrity" for political reasons.

mike65

Kurz wrote: »

Yeah because Rhianna looks good and can sing. Whereas this woman looks like the back of a bus and married someone who inherited something by accident of birth.

What? Kate is fragrant!

The Italian rag that's publishing these pix is owned by Silvio Berlusconi which is ironic to say the least.

Cavehill Red

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I'd love to know how you don't see this as stalking. It doesn't matter if the photos were taken from a public road.

Actually, it does. There are legal (as opposed to dictionary) definitions for both stalking and for breach of privacy. I suggest you familiarise yourself with both before pontificating further.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I don't see how it really matters if they are a newspaper or a magazine to be honest in the context of this discussion.

It goes to the accuracy of what you wrote.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Seems reasonable. Though I personally believe that whatever the punishment is, it ought to be proportional to whatever damages were incurred by the person who's privacy was breached, which, in the case of nude pictures being published in a magazine, might run into millions.

While people who lose limbs in industrial accidents get thousands? Thankfully the libel laws and other legal circumscriptions of media activity do not yet adhere to your bizarre standards.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Just because she's a celebrity shouldn't matter here, she still has her rights under the law.

Yes, and I already told you that French law is the most stringent in Europe in this regard, legal action is being pursued, and the likely result will be a 60 grand fine and a moratorium on republishing the images.

Seanchai

M cebee wrote: »

like you just demeaned the daily star readers?

Not quite: they weren't named. It's not like I was discussing the body parts of Beyonce Rihanna Shania Jordan Murphy, who everybody knows of, from the Liberties. That would be crass.

Solair

The only thing that will change this kind of coverage is if people grow up a bit and stop prying into the intimate details of private lives of celebrities.

Unfortunately, as long as there are a % of the public who are basically voyeurs, there will always be a demand for this kind of rubbish.

Tabloids and red-tops have always made their money out of selling stories like this. We can moralise until the cows come home, but the market's there and it's global.

What I find so utterly hypocritical about this is that the same people who were on ranting about what a disgraceful intrusion this was would largely be the same people who would see nothing wrong with publishing intimate details of non-royal celebrities personal lives!

They're simply running scared because they feel that UK public's taken a turn against this kind of tittle-tattle on royals.

I really don't even understand what the hype was about. Surely we've moved on since Victorian times and are no longer shocked by boobs or guys in the nip. Even if they are royalty! She was doing nothing shocking or remotely newsworthy!

later12

mike65 wrote: »

What? Kate is fragrant!

The Italian rag that's publishing these pix is owned by Silvio Berlusconi which is ironic to say the least.

Is fragrant the new word for hot?

Genuine question btw, I'm still not quite used to "sick".

Scioch

Regardless of who she is the girl was in a private estate in the company of family and friends. Some piece of shít snapped some indecent pics and then another piece of shít published them in a rag to make a few quid.

Rat bastards one and all and I hope they get whats coming to them.

kowloon

I have to wonder if there would be as much trouble if they'd published pictures of me topless on my estate.

later12

kowloon wrote: »

I have to wonder if there would be as much trouble if they'd published pictures of me topless on my estate.

If you were a woman?
Bigger.
And it would be the IDM leading the charge against such an invasion of privacy.

Tox56

kowloon wrote: »

I have to wonder if there would be as much trouble if they'd published pictures of me topless on my estate.

If I went to your estate and starting taking pictures of you topless without your knowledge and I was caught, I'd imagine I would be in quite a lot of trouble.

kowloon

later12 wrote: »

If you were a woman?
Bigger.
And it would be the IDM leading the charge against such an invasion of privacy.

You sexist swine! :pac:

J. Marston

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Dozens of Irish jobs are set to be lost all because one tasteless gimp decided to reprint some blurry pics of some English bint's baps.
Why not replace the editor and move along if this is deemed so heinous a crime to a man (Richard Desmond) who made his entire fortune publishing blurry pictures of English bints' baps?
Why must the Irish media suffer the loss of another national newspaper for the sensitivities of a porn magnate seeking a knighthood?

Baps must be the worst ever slang word for boobs.

Scioch

kowloon wrote: »

I have to wonder if there would be as much trouble if they'd published pictures of me topless on my estate.

No because they would offer you a lump sum to drop all action and nobody would give a shít. Royals dont need money they cant be bought off, they need to protect their image and they have friends in high places who are prepared to go all out to help them. Hence the furore.