24 August 2012

Those photographs

The establishment is tying itself in knots.  The Guardian reports:

Newspaper editors are understood to have been asked informally by royal aides not to run the pictures at lunchtime on Wednesday. Later in the day a strongly worded letter from Harbottle & Lewis was circulated via the Press Complaints Commission, along with a covering note from the regulator saying it was happy to pass on St James's Palace's view that publication would be in breach of clause three of the PCC's editors' code of practice. The clause says "it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent".
The letter from Harbottle & Lewis warns editors that publication outside the UK is no justification for publication in Britain.
"The only possible reason for publication of the photographs is one of prurience and nothing more," said the letter from the law firm.
"No matter of public interest as those words are understood in English law is raised by these photographs. The fact that they have appeared in another jurisdiction is meaningless."

Aye well.  Suppose, just for the moment, that it had been David Cameron playing strip billiards and displaying his crown jewels in Vegas.  Would it have been in the public interest for us to know about it?  Too damn right, it would; we are entitled to know about the personal morality of those who seek to influence our lives and who take decisions on our behalf.  Is Harry different?  Third in line to the throne, a political personality - he may not have chosen to be in the front line, but there he is, enjoying all the advantages.


No comments: