# Irish Daily Star and pictures of Kate



## Guest105 (15 Sep 2012)

I can't help but feel sory for William and Kate, such a lovely couple.  I think this rag paper were scum for publishing those pictures, no one has the right to invade the privacy of another human being, its disgusting what this newspaper did.


----------



## Alwyn (15 Sep 2012)

Gutter press. 

Though as intrusive as these pictures are there have been worse intrusions by the paparazzi. They have been gradually getting more out of control. The infamous Britney Spears meltdown played out in front of our eyes to the latest train wreck lifestyle of Lindsay Lohan.

Why people buy into this tripe is beyond me.


----------



## Birroc (15 Sep 2012)

Rosanna wont be too happy. She wanted those headlines.


----------



## DB74 (15 Sep 2012)

The paper is to be shut down apparently!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0915/kate-middleton-irish-daily-star.html


----------



## The_Banker (15 Sep 2012)

DB74 said:


> The paper is to be shut down apparently!
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0915/kate-middleton-irish-daily-star.html


 

No ones pictures should be published like that but I think shutting down the paper is using a hammer to crack a nut.
The owners (who also own the English version of the tabloid) have decided to shut it down. POT, KETTLE , BLACK?

Fair enough, sack the editor who made the decision to publish the pictures but the rest of the employees are going to suffer now.

This is more about politics than it is about the dignaty of Kate Middleton.


----------



## ajapale (15 Sep 2012)

William's mom Diana was hounded by paparazzi and she was being pursued by them when she met her tragic death. Now William's wife is being hounded by paparazzi who have taken photographs of her on private grounds *1/2 kilometer* from the public road. If he has daughters are they also to be subjected to such hounding?

All the _*Irish Daily star editor Michael O' Kane*_ can do is to trivialise the matter  by twittering on about "_*pics*_" and "*celebs*".


----------



## Alwyn (15 Sep 2012)

Bizarre that they feel the need to shut down.


----------



## Guest105 (15 Sep 2012)

Boomtobust said:


> Bizarre that they feel the need to shut down.


 

It will be no loss, one less piece of garbage off the shelves.


----------



## Leper (16 Sep 2012)

You can't have a garbage newspaper without garbage readers.


----------



## Sunny (16 Sep 2012)

The Star in Britain and the other tabloids in the UK are hardly in a position to make moral judgements on whether the pictures should be published. This is all about the Leverson inquiry and papers fear of going the way of the NOTW. Two years ago they would be rushing to publish them. 

The editor should be sacked for pure stupidity in publishing these photos. I always wonder why the guy who who took the photo isn't prosecuted. Can I do the same thing to my hot neighbour when she decides to go naked in her back garden? Have a feeling I would be getting a knock on my door.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (16 Sep 2012)

DB74 said:


> The paper is to be shut down apparently!
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0915/kate-middleton-irish-daily-star.html


 

Or is the paper to shut down it's joint venture with Northern and Shell?


----------



## Niallman (16 Sep 2012)

They'll have to shut down the Internet next. Kate's bangers are all over it now. Reading Broadsheet earlier and they now have a post about it and have published the pictures. They may not be profiting from it like a tabloid rag might but have they not just done exactly the same thing?!


----------



## blueband (16 Sep 2012)

why are we talking such an intrest in who prints photos of members of the brittish royal family!


----------



## Sunny (16 Sep 2012)

The majority of people couldn't care less about the pictures. I do find the media reaction to be interesting. This is the same media who used to print these type of pictures including ones of Diana and who can forget the tie sucking antics of Fergie. Now they call it disgraceful. It shows the impact that the NOTW phone tapping has had on the media over there. 
Also as much I couldn't care less about the Star newspaper, I do feel sorry who may lose their jobs because of a dreadful editorial decision.


----------



## The_Banker (16 Sep 2012)

Listening to the radio this morning it appears that the guy threatening to shut down the star is also the owner of an array of pornographic magazines and pornographic satellite TV channels.

You couldn't make it up.


----------



## mathepac (16 Sep 2012)

cashier said:


> I can't help but feel sory for William and Kate, such a lovely couple.  ...


I've never met them so I can't say that.


cashier said:


> ...  I think this rag paper were scum for publishing those pictures, no one has the right to invade the privacy of another human being, its disgusting what this newspaper did.


I don't read the paper although I understand it is nominally Irish with the O'Reillys having a slice.

The people concerned have embraced the "celeb cult" nonsense. That comes with a price, a downside. I don't see how they or their PRs, mammies and daddies can complain, because after all, as it says in Matthew 26:52 "...  for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword".

Yer man's grandma is the boss of the Church that uses that book so as far as I am concerned they were fore-warned and should have been fore-armed.


----------



## Knuttell (16 Sep 2012)

Totally blown out of proportion, bordering on hysteria,a few fuzzy long lens snaps of what can readily be seen on any beach in the Canaries 365 days of the year and a paper is threatened with closure.

Seriously those offended need to get out a bit more,God forbid they ever stumble onto the interweb thingy.I genuinely fear they will physically explode with moral outrage if left unsupervised to surf for 10 minutes.


----------



## NOAH (16 Sep 2012)

all BS,  look at the facts,  they picked a house viewable from the road, where was their security,  they romped openly, they never complain when they are photographed being winched up a tree, crossing a bridge,  taking shoes off in fact they are in the news for every bit of miniutiae. Its all much ado about nothing, it keeps the real news off the front page.  If they are so dumb they cant organise proper privacy with all their millions then they deserve it.  They cant have it both ways.

If the paper is shut down because of a few pics then god help us.


----------



## Sunny (16 Sep 2012)

Knuttell said:


> Totally blown out of proportion, bordering on hysteria,a few fuzzy long lens snaps of what can readily be seen on any beach in the Canaries 365 days of the year and a paper is threatened with closure.
> 
> Seriously those offended need to get out a bit more,God forbid they ever stumble onto the interweb thingy.I genuinely fear they will physically explode with moral outrage if left unsupervised to surf for 10 minutes.



Eh, who is morally outraged about what the pictures show? That's not what the fuss is about. It's about the right of privacy.


----------



## Knuttell (16 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> Eh, who is morally outraged about what the pictures show? That's not what the fuss is about. It's about the right of privacy.



Whatever...


----------



## Sunny (16 Sep 2012)

Knuttell said:


> Whatever...



Good answer. You should be getting ready for bed. It's nearly 7pm.


----------



## Bronte (17 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Rosanna wont be too happy. She wanted those headlines.


 

Funnily enough I thought the same.  Hubby showed me the photos last week and I didn't recognise her at all, he asked me who it was and I'd no idea.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

cashier said:


> I can't help but feel sory for William and Kate, such a lovely couple.  I think this rag paper were scum for publishing those pictures, no one has the right to invade the privacy of another human being, its disgusting what this newspaper did.



It's kind of funny really; people calling the paper scum, it's readers garbage, yet its the paper that gets blamed for sensationalism.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> William's mom Diana was hounded by paparazzi and she was being pursued by them when she met her tragic death. Now William's wife is being hounded by paparazzi who have taken photographs of her on private grounds *1/2 kilometer* from the public road. If he has daughters are they also to be subjected to such hounding?
> 
> All the _*Irish Daily star editor Michael O' Kane*_ can do is to trivialise the matter  by twittering on about "_*pics*_" and "*celebs*".



You can hardly be hounded from a 1/2 km away.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

Leper said:


> You can't have a garbage newspaper without garbage readers.



Newspapers are aimed at different demographics. If someone reads The Star, in doesn't make them inferior in morality or intellect to someone who reads a broadsheet.


----------



## DB74 (17 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> Newspapers are aimed at different demographics. If someone reads The Star, in doesn't make them inferior in morality or intellect to someone who reads a broadsheet.



Well if anyone bought the Daily Star to look at the pictures then I would have to question their intelligence, given that the pics were freely available on the great inter-web!


----------



## dereko1969 (17 Sep 2012)

mathepac said:


> I've never met them so I can't say that.
> I don't read the paper although *I understand it is nominally Irish with the O'Reillys having a slice.*
> 
> The people concerned have embraced the "celeb cult" nonsense. That comes with a price, a downside. I don't see how they or their PRs, mammies and daddies can complain, because after all, as it says in Matthew 26:52 "... for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword".
> ...


 
Have you ever read it? It's totally Irish unlike the other tabloids that have 1 or 2 Irish stories tacked on.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

DB74 said:


> Well if anyone bought the Daily Star to look at the pictures then I would have to question their intelligence, given that the pics were freely available on the great inter-web!



I'd question their taste in women.


----------



## orka (17 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> Newspapers are aimed at different demographics. If someone reads The Star, in doesn't make them inferior in morality or intellect to someone who reads a broadsheet.


Maybe not inferior in morality (how to define/measure...) but very likely inferior in intellect - for the exact reason you state - they are aimed at different demographics.


----------



## mathepac (17 Sep 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> Have you ever read it? ...


I did once and like stepping in dog poo, there was nothing about the experience that made me want to repeat it.


dereko1969 said:


> ... It's totally Irish unlike the other tabloids that have 1 or 2 Irish stories tacked on.


I see, so publishing pictures of a topless minor British Royal on her holliers in France qualifies as some of this "totally Irish" content does it?

Forgive me if I point out that you have like totally failed to convince me dude.


----------



## liaconn (17 Sep 2012)

Knuttell said:


> Totally blown out of proportion, bordering on hysteria,a few fuzzy long lens snaps of what can readily be seen on any beach in the Canaries 365 days of the year and a paper is threatened with closure.
> 
> Seriously those offended need to get out a bit more,God forbid they ever stumble onto the interweb thingy.I genuinely fear they will physically explode with moral outrage if left unsupervised to surf for 10 minutes.


 
But she was not on a beach in the Canaries, fully aware that she was in publice view.

What people are objecting to is the fact that Kate Middleton was on private property and some scummy photographer used a long lens to take a picture of her topless which has now been published in various publications. This is not about being 'uninhibited' and 'open minded'. It's about recognising someone's right to privacy and to not be photographed topless in a private place without their consent.


----------



## elefantfresh (17 Sep 2012)

I wonder what the sales of The Star were on the day the pictures ran compared to any other day


----------



## dereko1969 (17 Sep 2012)

mathepac said:


> I did once and like stepping in dog poo, there was nothing about the experience that made me want to repeat it.
> I see, so publishing pictures of a topless minor British Royal on her holliers in France qualifies as some of this "totally Irish" content does it?
> 
> Forgive me if I point out that you have like totally failed to convince me dude.


 
You stated it was nominally Irish, I stated having read it on a few occasions (barber shops mostly, it wouldn't be a paper I'd buy) that it is mostly Irish content.

By the way totally Irish to any sane person does not mean only having Irish content. If you were going by that yardstick then none of our papers are Irish. 

The fact that they published these photos is neither here nor there in the context of whether the paper is Irish or not.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

mathepac said:


> I did once and like stepping in dog poo, there was nothing about the experience that made me want to repeat it.
> I see, so publishing pictures of a topless minor British Royal on her holliers in France qualifies as some of this "totally Irish" content does it?
> 
> Forgive me if I point out that you have like totally failed to convince me dude.



She is famous, and just like most other famous people that appear in all of the papers, she isn't Irish, so what difference does that make?


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

orka said:


> Maybe not inferior in morality (how to define/measure...) but very likely inferior in intellect - for the exact reason you state - they are aimed at different demographics.



So if I read the Star and you read the Irish Times, you would assume that you have a superior intellect than me?


----------



## Kine (17 Sep 2012)

Lets call a spade a spade - the pictures weren't great to look at. She needs a few more hot dinners!

Now, Ms. Davison's on the other hand...


----------



## mathepac (17 Sep 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> ...  I stated having read it on a few occasions (barber shops mostly, it wouldn't be a paper I'd buy) that it is mostly Irish content. ...


I'm sorry but I can't seem to find any of that purported content of yours posted in this thread.


dereko1969 said:


> ... By the way totally Irish to any sane person does not mean only having Irish content. If you were going by that yardstick then none of our papers are Irish. ...


But I'm not the one defining what "totally Irish" is, you are with this comment - _"It's totally Irish unlike the other tabloids that have 1 or 2 Irish stories tacked on."_So following your logic, the more Irish content a tabloid features the more Irish it is. Therefore, by your own definition, to be "totally Irish" it must only feature Irish content otherwise it is not "totally Irish".

Nominally Irish means it features the word "Irish" in its masthead but is owned by an English pay-per-view TV pornographer and dirty magazine publisher, Mick Desmond, and O'Reilly's INM


dereko1969 said:


> ... The fact that they published these photos is neither here nor there in the context of whether the paper is Irish or not.


You have this This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language-about-face IMHO; if the paper was not nominally Irish, they would not have published the pictures.


----------



## orka (17 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> So if I read the Star and you read the Irish Times, you would assume that you have a superior intellect than me?


If you read the Star and I read the Irish Times, it is more likely than not that I have a superior intellect to you.  But it is obviously not the case that every single Irish Times reader is more intelligent than every single Star reader.  

There are various studies looking at IQ by social class (easily found on t'internet and there seems to be little dispute about the findings/general concept) - one showed that the highest social class had an average IQ of 115, compared with the overall average of 100 and an average of 90 in the lowest social class (the lack of symmetry caused by there being a greater chance of someone of higher intelligence being in the lowest social class (through lack of opportunity or choice) than of someone of lower intelligence being in the highest social class).

Tabloids are more likely to be read by lower social classes therefore tabloid readers are more likely to have a lower IQ.  But again, these are all averages - you can't form a judgement about a single person based on what they read...


----------



## ajapale (17 Sep 2012)

If it was a Sweedish Princess I dont think the English tabloids would have hesitated to publish.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

liaconn said:


> But she was not on a beach in the Canaries, fully aware that she was in publice view.
> 
> What people are objecting to is the fact that Kate Middleton was on private property and some scummy photographer used a long lens to take a picture of her topless which has now been published in various publications. This is not about being 'uninhibited' and 'open minded'. It's about recognising someone's right to privacy and to not be photographed topless in a private place without their consent.



I dont understand how this happened at all.

Yes, she was in a private place, but she is a figure in the public eye, a member of the british royal family, and fully aware that scummy photographers exist. So, when in a private place, if its within sight of a public road (and by sight, I mean, long lens sight), then why on earth did she go topless! In her position, I wouldnt have done it. 

I think it was Princess Anne who said before, people allow themselves to be photographed, there are enough private estates and residences available to the royal family, if you do not wish to be photographed in your private time you do not have to be.

It is not her fault that there exists a scummy photographer - but it is certainly her fault that she was dumb enough to go topless on a pool terrace where she could be seen and photographed from a public road.


----------



## Yachtie (17 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> William's mom Diana was hounded by paparazzi and she was being pursued by them when she met her tragic death. Now William's wife is being hounded by paparazzi who have taken photographs of her on private grounds *1/2 kilometer* from the public road. If he has daughters are they also to be subjected to such hounding?


 
I agree and I am so disappointed that they are not leaving Catherine alone, even though William pleaded with the media when they got engaged. The two of them seem to be doing a wonderful job of giving a new, friendlier and more approachable image to the monarchy, why won't people just leave them alone? Life really can't be easy if you are being watched 24/7.


----------



## DB74 (17 Sep 2012)

Yachtie said:


> I agree and I am so disappointed that they are not leaving Catherine alone, even though William pleaded with the media when they got engaged. The two of them seem to be doing a wonderful job of giving a new, friendlier and more approachable image to the monarchy, why won't people just leave them alone? Life really can't be easy if you are being watched 24/7.



See (and I'm not having a go here) part of the problem is that you know all this about them and appear to be quite interested in them, like many thousands of others. If people weren't interested in stuff then the papers wouldn't bother with it.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

orka said:


> If you read the Star and I read the Irish Times, it is more likely than not that I have a superior intellect to you.  But it is obviously not the case that every single Irish Times reader is more intelligent than every single Star reader.
> 
> There are various studies looking at IQ by social class (easily found on t'internet and there seems to be little dispute about the findings/general concept) - one showed that the highest social class had an average IQ of 115, compared with the overall average of 100 and an average of 90 in the lowest social class (the lack of symmetry caused by there being a greater chance of someone of higher intelligence being in the lowest social class (through lack of opportunity or choice) than of someone of lower intelligence being in the highest social class).
> 
> Tabloids are more likely to be read by lower social classes therefore tabloid readers are more likely to have a lower IQ.  But again, these are all averages - you can't form a judgement about a single person based on what they read...


That's all very informative, so you can't judge a book by its cover, but we can judge a man by his paper.


----------



## Yachtie (17 Sep 2012)

DB74 said:


> See (and I'm not having a go here) part of the problem is that you know all this about them and appear to be quite interested in them, like many thousands of others. If people weren't interested in stuff then the papers wouldn't bother with it.


 
They are public figures and I have no problem with them being reported on when they are doing their official duties. I am most certainly not interested in what they had for breakfast and what kind of bed linen they sleep in and that's why I think that they should be left alone when they are off duty. 

Enda Kenny is in the public eye too and nobody seems to be interested in publishing a photo of him in his jocks even though we are all more or less interested in him in his official capacity.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

Yachtie said:


> Enda Kenny is in the public eye too and nobody seems to be interested in publishing a photo of him in his jocks even though we are all more or less interested in him in his official capacity.



Speak for yourself, Id love to see Enda in his jocks!


----------



## Guest105 (17 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Speak for yourself, Id love to see Enda in his jocks!


 

Why?


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

cashier said:


> Why?



Because Ive got an Enda crush of course! I find it difficult to concentrate on the content of anything he says due to my fluttering heart at hearing his manly dulcet tones. I even get my husband to say things 'Enda Style' for a giggle. Its the whole sinister alpha male tone he uses. I often make up things that would sound funny 'Enda Style' - things like "Im going to break every bone in your body if you dont vote for me"


----------



## Knuttell (17 Sep 2012)

liaconn said:


> It's about recognising someone's right to privacy and to not be photographed topless in a private place without their consent.



I understand what you are saying but still do not get the whole knicker twisting that's going on,whether she likes it or not she made a Faustian pact when she decided to step into the limelight and became a Royal,in the real world you just cannot expect to turn media attention on and off to suit your purposes,it just doesn't work like that.


----------



## Sunny (17 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Because Ive got an Enda crush of course! I find it difficult to concentrate on the content of anything he says due to my fluttering heart at hearing his manly dulcet tones. I even get my husband to say things 'Enda Style' for a giggle. Its the whole sinister alpha male tone he uses. I often make up things that would sound funny 'Enda Style' - things like "Im going to break every bone in your body if you dont vote for me"



You are a sick puppy. Get help!!


----------



## Leper (18 Sep 2012)

Knuttell said:


> ...... she made a Faustian pact when she decided to step into the limelight and became a Royal,in the real world you just cannot expect to turn media attention on and off to suit your purposes,it just doesn't work like that.


 
Kate Middleton made no Faustian pact.  Like everybody else she is entitled to privacy.  She has a right to be respected, just like you and I.

Sorry to say this Knuttell, but just like you said of one of my posts yours is "codswallop" and of course like you, we are all entitled to our opinions.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (18 Sep 2012)

Bronte said:


> Funnily enough I thought the same. Hubby showed me the photos last week and I didn't recognise her at all, he asked me who it was and I'd no idea.


 
Was that him in Easons the other day?


----------



## Bronte (18 Sep 2012)

BOXtheFOX said:


> Was that him in Easons the other day?


 

Actually hubby was in Easons recently but no idea what you referring to, he showed me the pictures on the web. Also yesterday he showed me the pictures of Kate to see what the fuss was about. OMG. Particularly the ones of her bum. I'd be mortified. Only good thing to notice was that they seemed a couple very much in love. After the wreck of a life he's had that looked like he had found stability and hapiness. They should be entitled to privacy when in a private domain and there is no public interest. I'm all for freedom of the press, but without a public interest, which there is none demonstrated by Closer, only a purient one then there is no justification for taking the pictures. Kate is entitled to take off her top when on holidays, in a private place where she had no reasonsable expectation of paparazzi whether she married into the royal family or not. 

This story does though demonstrate a lack of security as does the Prince Harry pics in Las Vegas.


----------



## Liamos (18 Sep 2012)

Just an observation. Isn't it a bit sad that we Irish people are so wrapped up in the antics of the British Royal family?

We have all the British High street stores, we watch British television. Are we all just west brits?


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2012)

Knuttell said:


> I understand what you are saying but still do not get the whole knicker twisting that's going on,whether she likes it or not she made a Faustian pact when she decided to step into the limelight and became a Royal,in the real world you just cannot expect to turn media attention on and off to suit your purposes,it just doesn't work like that.


 
But that's the point. Kate Middleton doesn't go around courting the press the way Diana did. She is always quite happy to be photographed when she is performing her official duties but other than that she tries to keep as low a profile as possible for someone in her position.
The reason for all the 'knicker twisting' is because the public have seen what happens when photographers place no boundaries on how far they can intrude into the lives of royals or chase them around when they're trying to have a bit of privacy. It ended in real tragedy all those years ago in Paris and incidents like this one indicate that some members of the Press have still not learned their lesson.
Maybe Kate was a bit naive to think that the days of scumbag photographers with long lenses were over and I'm sure she won't make that mistake again. But it doesn't excuse the photographer's behaviour or make that kind of thing alright.


----------



## mandelbrot (18 Sep 2012)

Liamos said:


> Just an observation. Isn't it a bit sad that we Irish people are so wrapped up in the antics of the British Royal family?
> 
> We have all the British High street stores, we watch British television. Are we all just west brits?


 
Surely we are all whatever we choose to be, thanks to those who died to obtain that freedom for us?

Cultures change over time, take a look at some of the countries in the middle east (and the terrorists they're exporting) to see what happens when culture can't / won't adapt in line with the rest of the world... would you rather we were still in a repressive 1950's church-run state?!

But I don't see that "we Irish" are wrapped up in the antics of the British monarchy - I don't pay them any heed generally; to me, and I would presume to many others too, the issue here is about the right to privacy of individuals who are public figures (whether or not I've any interest personally in them) and in this case it just happens she's a Royal.


----------



## MrMan (18 Sep 2012)

Liamos said:


> Just an observation. Isn't it a bit sad that we Irish people are so wrapped up in the antics of the British Royal family?
> 
> We have all the British High street stores, we watch British television. Are we all just west brits?



People tend to talk about their neighbours. There are many influences on our lives, I'm starting to think that Hollister has taken over our schools.


----------



## TarfHead (18 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> .. The issue here is about the right to privacy of individuals who are public figures ..


 
+1


----------



## Purple (18 Sep 2012)

This is the same British media that published photos of Nicholas sarkozy's wife naked, right?
The indignation is sickening; the uk tabloids are the trail blazers of scumbag journalism.


----------



## mandelbrot (18 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> This is the same British media that published photos of Nicholas sarkozy's wife naked, right?
> The indignation is sickening; the uk tabloids are the trail blazers of scumbag journalism.



The difference being IIRC that the photo in question was one taken while she was posing nude as a model, her profession at the time.


----------

