I kinda assumed you weren’t interested in celeb culture, Terry – me neither!

However, I haven't also been saying that medial sleaze and lack of privacy is a good thing.

I know you haven't, I wasn't suggesting you did.

But I'm not sure why you don't understand the idea that royals/celegs should accept a loss of privacy as their fate. That's the price, surely, and they know it.

I don't accept it because it’s exactly that kind of argument that attempts to excuse and justify the appalling way some aspects of the press behave. I think everyone (famous or not) should be entitled to privacy. The idea that people have forfited the right to privacy by becoming famous (in whatever way) just condones the bullshit tabloid media culture we have in this country. It sends a message that the press stalking is okay. It isn't, not so far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps my views are coloured by the fact that an old childhood friend of mine (now ex-friend) became a tabloid journalist (she went on to be headhunted for the UK start up of Closer magazine). It certainly changed and hardened her. I remember her telling me about doorstepping Chris Evans after Radio One had announced he'd been sacked. It was clear he was having some kind of nervous breakdown. But that didn't stop my friend (and scores of other journalists) camping outside his house, effectively holding him hostage. When he fled to his car she and the photographer she was working with jumped in their car (as did all the other reporters covering the story) and chased him down the motorway as he tried to lose them. I was horrified that she actually seemed excited by this, and not in the least concerned it might be unethical/immoral/otherwise objectionable. She justified her work with the argument that famous people know what they’re letting themselves in for, and that it was all ‘a game’. Now, I can't stand Chris Evans, but no one deserves to be treated like that, do they? To be hounded when they're falling apart? And not everyone who gets hounded by the press is famous, either. Anyone who gets caught up in the media spotlight for whatever reason may well end up being treated similarly.

Michelle, I don't think we're disagreeing about the sleaze of the press. After all, I'm the man who was once plastered all over the front page of the South London Press as a black magician (I wasn't by the way, just in case you're wondering).

And I would definitely agree that people who are not seeking fame should be protected from the press if they wish to be. I also believe the press over-stepped the line with phone-hacking (although that looks to be a criminal offence, so is not really a matter for moral judgement alone). But Kate Middleton agreed to a life that is always going to be in the media eye; and if she wasn't fully aware of exactly what that meant, various officials would have made sure she did before tying the royal knot. If she really believed she was out of camera range, then she needs to adjust her expectations. The royal family is not a private family. It's a paid-for institution. Kate will be using our money to fight the press if she takes it that far, not her own. In which case, nasty though the intrusion on her was, I'd say there's an argument she was careless and now the tax-payer is going to have to stump up for her to contest it.

Black Magician????? Blimey!

Hmm...I hadn't really thought about it being our (i.e. taxpayers money) paying for the legal action. I'd still support it though.

It's a long story and I have told it before. But I'll repeat the bit where, concerned what my neighbours might think, I took Tom out for a drink. I patiently explained that I had no idea about magic, black or white, and went into details about the kind of esoteric stuff I was actually into at that time. At the end, he said, "Okay, Tel, but can you do something about that bastard with the loud radio next door to me?"

lol, Terry!

Lol

But Kate Middleton agreed to a life that is always going to be in the media eye; and if she wasn't fully aware of exactly what that meant, various officials would have made sure she did before tying the royal knot.

This argument rankles with me. What happens if a woman (or man) falls in love with someone who just happens to be a celebrity of some kind? Are they supposed to face the bleak choice you're suggesting? On the one hand, if they go with their feelings, they are, according to you, accepting that they must live their life in a goldfish bowl. On the other hand, if they go against their feelings, they will be denying themselves the right to spend a happy life with the person they love.

What these kinds of debate really sound like, to me, when they revolve around royalty is, "I don't like the Royals, and nothing they can ever do will be right, as far as I'm concerned."

Even when one of them, Prince Edward, tried to build a non-Royal career for himself, that wasn't right by the nay-sayers. He got shot down in flames, basically for daring to try to become a film producer. So why should any of them try to work as a means of earning their living? Someone or other won't like it, no matter what they do. And would the media machine stop even if they all abdicated? I doubt it. Look how long after Diana's death people kept churning out books about her.

If someone falls in love with a doctor - should he/she then complain when their social life is constantly interrupted by their partner being on call? If someone falls in love with a dedicated social worker should they then complain that they are never going to be rich? Should a vicar's wife moan about being expected to eschew certain forms of behaviour? A man who marries a nurse - should he complain that he has to pick up the kids more often than couples who both work in a bank? Should a working farmer's wife complain at backbreaking work often with endless financial worry etc?

Not accepting the reality of being a Royal is a position that certainly rankles with me.

It's life. It's the way it is. William and Kate's happiness cannot be predicated on the fanciful idea that they can use their (or indeed our) money and influence to evade the inevitable nature of the role they have chosen. Although Wills was born into his position (itself an indefensible absurdity for me) as his great uncle showed - he still has a choice. Just one he isn't willing to make. And a feather-bedded, financially worry-free choice at that. Kate had a choice. No one has the right to happiness. I'd like these two young people to be happy - but they have chosen the try to be happy as royals - and yes that means they will always live in a gold-fish bowl - because we are the ones who put them there. That's where Her Majesty's loyal subjects want them to be.

In return for never having a moments worry about money, an endlessly privileged life-style, the as yet unearned, unlike the Queen, respect and admiration of 'the people' etc etc - these two young people have to accept that part of the deal is that they either have to sacrifice certain trivial and minor freedoms: or in fact not sacrifice them, just get organised to enjoy them.

Neither of the Cambridges is or will ever be, ordinary people - they have accepted or chosen not to be; we don't want them to be; they cant be both ordinary people and royals and the apparent desire by many that they should be allowed to be both is nonsensical.

The best informed, most experienced person on earth to judge the wisdom of Kate's actions here, and I wouldn't mind betting in her heart of hearts she is highly critical - is the Queen herself. She accepted the deal - and has graciously lived up to it for 60 years. That is the truth of the matter.

And I can't believe anyone is asking for sympathy for others of The Queen's offspring and their spouses, some of whom have exploited their position for personal aggrandisement and venal greed, and behaved at times on the very edges of financial fraud. Someone said Kate had been subjected to sexual abuse. Well her late mother-in-law was subjected to real psychological and sexual abuse by perhaps one of the most inherently dysfunctional families in the land. The 'Firm' destroyed Diana long before her car hit a pillar in a French Tunnel.

I'm glad the law is, as it should, cutting the ground away from the greed of inancial gain from these pictures. That is, and always was the issue and the proper redress. The rest is, in my view, muddled sentimentality and in innate instinct for deference which perhaps only one member of the present royal family has unfailing earned - even if, as I do, I fundamentally disagree with and reject the institution to which she has dedicated her life. Frankly the Queen deserved better: seriously from Harry and marginally from the Cambridges.

I think the Duchess of Cambridge has accepted a great deal of change and confinement to her freedom. But, honestly, what is it with some of you men that you can't see it is a gross invasion of your privacy and an assault on your dignity to have a camera pointed at your tits unless it's being done with your consent?

I don't think any agreement can be reached here while some people see the Duchess of Cambridge as simply her role and not a human being. It's just two different mindsets.

I think the real question is: why do we need to see Kate's tits?

There is an argument thatthey are in half the public's interest.

Oversimplicifation and disproportion again.

No one is seeing the Duchess as 'simply her role and not as a human being'. She is being seen and considered as both. For that is the real world she inhabits.

I find the comment 'you men' patronising: so all men are the same? sadly this enthymeme lurks in many man/women debates - on both sides.

Disproportion? I'm assuming the tits in question for the unsanctioned camera point are uncovered. Is that a 'gross' 'invasion' of privacy? An 'assault' on your dignity. Only a minority of men would be that impolite; most men would understand that would be discourteous and showing a lack of respect. As described the action is a crass piece of bad manners: it's not a gross invasion or assault on anything. In a rational, reasonable world.

And by the way, as a man if I expose any sexually significant part of my body in any public situation, even to satisafy an urgent call of nature I'm not being carefree or a free spirit, I'm doing something illegal and will assumed by many as almost certainly a pervert.

I like the 'in half the public's interest' At last a sense of humour and a sense of proportion. Nice one Gaius.

good will to all

Z

Disproportion? I'm assuming the tits in question for the unsanctioned camera point are uncovered. Is that a 'gross' 'invasion' of privacy? An 'assault' on your dignity. Only a minority of men would be that impolite; most men would understand that would be discourteous and showing a lack of respect. As described the action is a crass piece of bad manners: it's not a gross invasion or assault on anything. In a rational, reasonable world.

I think we must have very different ideas of what constitutes a rational, reasonable world! To be spied on, from a long distance and have photos taken of you without your consent and knowledge and sold to magazines/papers - yes, that IS a gross invasion of privacy - it is not merely 'impolite' or 'showing a lack of respect' or 'crass bad manners'! In *my* idea of a reasonable world these things would not happen.

And by the way, as a man if I expose any sexually significant part of my body in any public situation, even to satisafy an urgent call of nature I'm not being carefree or a free spirit, I'm doing something illegal and will assumed by many as almost certainly a pervert.

*Sighs*. Oh come off it, Zettel. Kate was not in a public situation - she was very FAR from public. You're also not comparing like with like in other ways - breasts are not the primary sexually significant part of a woman, the comparison with a man pissing in public laughable. And thirdly, I'd be surprised if there were many reported cases of women flashing themselves at men in public - as there is of men attempting to intimidate women in this manner.

some of you men

is not the same as "you men" Zettel as well you must understand!

*Groans*

My last post was about your example - not the original offence. Though not universal 'some of you men' is a patronising generalisation though a subtle one.

Talking of your views not the Cambridge case

[q]I'd be surprised if there were many reported cases of women flashing themselves at men in public - as there is of men attempting to intimidate women in this manner.[/q]

Are you kidding?


I didn't say breasts were primarily sexual only that they were sexually significant and the trillions of £'s women spend every day on the products of the beauty industry and associated commercial enterprises rather proves it. Or is a woman wanting to be sexually attractive an intimidating burden imposed upon them by we men?

Hello: the remark about the double standard men's nudity wasn't just about having a pee but also about beaches etc etc. Anyway it was meant to be tongue in cheek. Some hope it seems.

[q]In *my* idea of a reasonable world these things would not happen.[/q]

That's almost scary when you read between the lines of it.

I'll let you have the last word with your next post because there isn't the basis for meaningful dialogue in this case.

sincerely - best wishes

Z