Duke-of-Earl
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,185
- City
- Nova Scotia
- Country
- Canada
I think there will be jail sentences over tthis
I think there will be jail sentences over tthis
What part of it is illegal in France to do what was done do you not understand?! Good gracious its like trying to teach some of you people chemistry; in one ear out the other.
A jail sentence, how ridiculous. It is silly photos, by some dope who wanted to make a big buck and people who will pay for it. If you don't have a buyer, it wouldn't be done. And the poster who said, it is not right to infinge on a person's privacy, that person, also, has to make wise choices. Harry's nude photos, William peeing in public, Kate removing her swimsuit are, also, poor choices.
Yes, it is illegal, but, not knowing French Law Terms, is it a Felony or a misdimeanor? Using American Law Terms. Is it a Class A Felony or Misdemeanor, or a Class D Felony or misdemeanor? Do you get fined, expelled from your profession. You need to take these things into consideration. What evidence do they have to present to a jury, if there is a trial, if a person committed the act. Do they plea bargain? How much will it cost the French Court System to prosecute someone, way after the fact, unless they have "real evidence" as to the perpetrator and what does the law, actually say? It is illegal to park near a fire hydrant in this country, but it is different than committing a murder or a burglary. But they are all "illegal".
William was also photographed while peeing during a polo game. (Those pictures are available on the internet.) Some day Diana's photo's will also be released...
Article 226-1 of the French Criminal Code:
“A penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 is incurred for any wilful violation of the intimacy of the private life of other persons by resorting to any means of:
1° intercepting, recording or transmitting words uttered in confidential or private circumstances, without the consent of their speaker;
2° taking, recording or transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned.
I think there will be jail sentences over tthis
Ah, that's what I like to see . . . a clear, unequivocal statement of the law. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. And, most important of all, no room for anyone to witter about "it's only . . ." or "she shouldn't have . . ." or "she was silly and naive".Article 226-1 of the French Criminal Code:
“A penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 is incurred for any wilful violation of the intimacy of the private life of other persons by resorting to any means of:
1° intercepting, recording or transmitting words uttered in confidential or private circumstances, without the consent of their speaker;
2° taking, recording or transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned.
I certainly hope so. An example needs to be made, because if there are no consequences, acts like this will be committed again, and again.
Amen...thank you!...You talk about realities of life - as they are now.
I talk about principles. The basic right to privacy. A right that should not be breached for profit...
Yeah because having human decency is so much harder than Harry and Kate being paranoid non stop. I wonder if this coupled with his mothers death made William at least think of saying screw it and becoming William Wales and ditching the Prince part. Though I doubt he would put such a burden on his little brother.
I certainly hope so. An example needs to be made, because if there are no consequences, acts like this will be committed again, and again.
I think one of the problems we have is that we consider this "news" versus a criminal violation and that it must, therefore, have a shelf life. As Muhler points out, this is bigger than a discussion about something which has exceeded its public interest shelf life. In fact, the very idea that it can be considered to have expired as a topic of interest should tell us we're in more social trouble than we may realize.
People were violated, in broad daylight, the very act of which is a crime in the country in which it happened. The *notion* that some people think we should forget about it and move on to more current topics is *frghtening* to me. This is called a "slippery slope" and once the slide down begins, it moves fast.
It's in the same line as those who said WnK should have just not acknowledged what happened and just go about their daily life.
It's being discussed with some urgency in legal and publishing circles in many parts of the world.
It is believed that there are over 300 photographs, not the relative few openly sold and published already. These photographs include a naked William. These photographs are all stills from a video.
I look forward to evaluating the criticisms (if there are any) of William if this video becomes public property, and comparing them with the vitriol, gleefulness and smirks which Catherine has suffered. Arguably, he should have known much better than she of the possibility of their being spied upon.
It has been salutory to read the opinions and views of those criticising Catherine with nary a mention of her husband's participation.
I can only speak from having read (most, but not all, of) the posts on this thread on this forum, for that is all I have read about the matter, but I don't recall reading any vitriol or glee about Catherine's situation here. A number of us have commented that she should have been aware of the risk of being photographed, but took it anyway, and made an error of judgment.
It has been salutory to read the opinions and views of those criticising Catherine with nary a mention of her husband's participation.