[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...if it’s illegal to take those photographs, which it is...then it’s surely also illegal to publish them in the media...which leaves open the purpose for why they were taken and where they would appear...

The Remote Drone
getting up close for 4K pictures /film
does not care , Ammi.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

Just because theres money to be made doesn't make it any less creepy. Let kids be kids.

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

The Remote Drone
getting up close for 4K pictures /film
does not care , Ammi.

...well, it’s good that drone is getting sued McSuefaced then, Arista...because taking photographs in someone’s home without their invitation/permission is not acceptable at all...if someone was doing that in our own homes, we would definitely feel creeped out by it...

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Cherie

The 10 most charitable working royals
According to the GivingAssistant.org study, these are the most charitable working royals ranked by the number of patron visits they made between July 2019 and July 2020.

1.) Princess Anne - 73

2.) Prince William - 58

3.) Prince Charles - 48

4.) Prince Richard (The Duke of Gloucester) - 34

5.) Prince Edward - 33

who is Prince Richard

I know who the Duke of Gloucester is but he isnt a prince

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

I would say taking photos of people without their consent or initial awareness of it is creepy.

It may not be the "sexually perverted" kinda creepy, but still creepy regardless imo.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

I'm sure you'd be this relaxed if the press were doing this to your kids. So many parents in here defending things that any normal parent would find completely unacceptable,

[Nicky91]

not 4k

that is truly a invasion of privacy, if you got best of best camera quality

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...well, it’s good that drone is getting sued McSuefaced then, Arista...because taking photographs in someone’s home without their invitation/permission is not acceptable at all...if someone was doing that in our own homes, we would definitely feel creeped out by it...

They are asking for it.


More 4K Drones are going to Photo them.

Its LA
money to be made

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

You do not know that... you don’t know them as people no one does, their full intentions isn’t clear. The person who took them could secretly be a nonce who sold pics and used them for their own pleasure.

The child is 1 years old as i mentioned, it’s really creepy to do it regardless what the intention is. Makes me shiver that people do it

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

They are asking for it.


More 4K Drones are going to Photo them.

...the whole point of it is that they didn’t ask for it, Arista...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I wouldn't say hanging out in pizza express in woking was particularly secret.

Well no one spotted him in there , did they?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

The press can be pretty perverse to be fair, remember when trying to get "upskirt" pictures of female celebrities was a thing? Or that time Kate Middleton was photographed topless in the grounds of a holiday home in France by paparazzi with long lense cameras?

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...the whole point of it is that they didn’t ask for it, Arista...

Something needs to be done, child/baby pics should always be authorised by the parents, i know they are celebrities but that doesn’t matter. Background checks too because they are dodgy people out there. Children should have protection no matter what.

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The press can be pretty perverse to be fair, remember when trying to get "upskirt" pictures of female celebrities was a thing?

Even that’s creepy. I don’t know why that was allowed either

[Ammi]

...they’re in California, in the land of sunshine and outdoor swimming pools ...who would know if any Meghan or Archie would be naked, if Archie would...even if not, is it appropriate for any of them to be photographed in swimsuits in their homes for instance...or would that be considered creepy, because I find it so...if any photographs appeared online of their child in a swimsuit or naked in a pool...then would they have appeared not diligent enough to have allowed that to happen...

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I'm sure you'd be this relaxed if the press were doing this to your kids. So many parents in here defending things that any normal parent would find completely unacceptable,

Im not Royalty...and thats the difference. I have clearly stated it is an invasion of privacy and unacceptable but when you are famous or Royal thats the sort of press coverage you sadly get.
Ive seen famous people getting married with paparazzi in helicopters trying to get shots...drones will come in to play now.

[LeatherTrumpet]

I wonder how they knew
It was a camera drone, that it was taking pictures, that the pictures were of the son and that the drone was for them?

I take it lots of people fly drones in LA?

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The press can be pretty perverse to be fair, remember when trying to get "upskirt" pictures of female celebrities was a thing? Or that time Kate Middleton was photographed topless in the grounds of a holiday home in France by paparazzi with long lense cameras?

I agree...they can be.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...the whole point of it is that they didn’t ask for it, Arista...

Living in LA
they are asking for it.


They need a Sniper
that can shoot those $5K drones down

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The press can be pretty perverse to be fair, remember when trying to get "upskirt" pictures of female celebrities was a thing? Or that time Kate Middleton was photographed topless in the grounds of a holiday home in France by paparazzi with long lense cameras?

That was German tabloid, different laws there

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

Living in LA
they are asking for it.


They need a Sniper
that can shoot those $5K drones down

...I think it’s more they are living, they are asking for it...?...except they haven’t asked for it, it’s the media obsession with them regardless of where they are living...

[Glenn.]

Wow literally anything to have a pop at our Megs.

People actually defending the press though

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Wow literally anything to have a pop at our Megs.

People actually defending the press though

We ho buys the newspapers?

[The Slim Reaper]

We ho

[Cherie]

I don't know why people on the thread who are parents are being dragged for this, they moved away from the UK to get away from press intrusion but then moved to LA 'for a quiet life' did they think the press would ignore them or something, any parent in their position who truly wanted to protect their child wouldn't have done that imo