Friday 24 August 2012

Should the Sun have printed photos of naked Prince Harry?

Should the Sun have printed photos of naked Prince Harry?

By Dark Politricks

Today the Sun has printed the naked photos of Prince Harry in Las Vegas which were apparently taken by random people who Harry and his friends had met in Las Vegas and invited up to their apartment for "fun and frolics".

After much ringing about once the photos were put up on the internet by one of the "randoms" hoping to make some money from their camera phone shot, the UK paper industry decided to not print the photos.
This was probably due to the ongoing Leveson  inquiry into Press Standards and the fact that journalists have risen into the top 3 most hated professions along with Bankers and Politicians.

It had to be Rupert Murdoch and his Sun newspaper, who's cousin the News of the World was shut down earlier this year, who broke the understanding between Fleet St papers.

He is obviously flexing his muscles and probably out for a bit of revenge after he and his son, his friends and the paper he loved so much which was attacked and vilified for it's disgraceful behaviour during the phone hacking scandal. The scandal that made it perfectly clear that the company was full of Editors who were apparently all a bunch of liars and criminals.

Their crimes went from phone hacking dead girls mobile phone voice-mails to paying police for information and possibly perjury (if lying in front of select committees constitutes a crime ).
Legal cases are ongoing and many ex News of the World staff have been charged with crimes and await their fate.

Therefore it is no surprise to see the rag I wouldn't even wipe my bum with print these photos to sell more toilet paper to the public.

Yes the photos are on the web and if people want to look at them (if that's their turn on) then they are easily accessible with a Google search. However the Sun believes it is in the "public interest" to see people partying in private.

Their excuse is that it is the fact the pictures are of a member of the Royal family that makes it in the public interest.

Apparently Royals can expect no privacy wherever they are from the toe sucking episode with Princess Fergie in the 80's to the chasing and killing of Prince Harry's mum in France and now to the printing of photos of a supposedly "private" party.

For one thing our Royal Family has been filled with loons, nutters, sex and drug addicts for hundreds of years. It is only with modern technology, camera phones, long lens cameras and spy cameras that these antics have been brought to more public attention.

It's not like Harry's uncle Prince Andrew is not unknown for his liking of ladies and a bit of "philandering" or older Kings didn't have mistresses or weird antics. There is even a theory that Jack the Ripper was one of the mentally ill Victorian princes of the time.

I have no love for the Royal Family which you can read about here and here however Prince Harry is probably the most likeable of all the Royals.

He fights for our country, he obviously has issues with his father due to the rumour that his real dad is James Hewitt.

Apparently Prince Charles treats Prince William totally different than Harry but then without an independent DNA test we will never know - but this doesn't stop the rumours.

Harry maybe a bit of lad who likes to party and have fun when he is not on the battlefield. And he would have spent more time out in Afghanistan fighting for his country if it wasn't for papers like the Sun "breaking" the story that he was out there fighting  which totally ruined his chances of staying for fear of kidnap by the Taliban.

I have no issue with what Prince Harry got up to in Las Vegas - "what goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas" - is the saying but the Sun obviously doesn't see it that way. What I take issue with is the whole Royal Family in general.

Yes they bring American tourists in to spend their dollars touring palaces but the whole concept of a family that is "above" the general public due to luck of birth alone is one that should be abolished.
The Crown is the law - the Queen is the Crown.

The Queen or King - maybe even Price Harry if something happened to King William once his dad is dead would never face a trial in court for anything - ever!

They are above us mere mortals and only through stealing and killing our ancestors hundreds of years ago.

If Prince Harry (if he became King - or maybe even now) actually did something criminal - say beat someone up at one of these drunken parties he would never see a day in court like we would if we had done the same.

Crown versus Crown - not int this meritocratic England we all love so much.
We do not need a monarchy. 

We are supposedly rebalancing our economy - lets start by getting rid of the Royal tourism industry by becoming a country without a Royal Family living above the law and living off our taxes and land.

We do not need a President - we have a Parliament made up of Members of the Public and a Prime Minister who can (and already does) represent us on the world stage at meetings and important events.

Adding another election for ex Prime Minisiters and people we hate but have no alternative for is just complicating things. Get rid of the royals, sell off all their land and use it for building low cost houses for all the millions of people on council waiting lists to rent or buy.

The Palaces can stay so that Americans can take their photos and pay us money for the privellege - they never get to see the Queen anyway - so nothing will change there.

We have no need for a Royal family in this day and age and whilst Prince Harry maybe the most normal of the whole lot in my eyes he shouldn't be partying on my taxes!

So tell me what you think about the Royal family and whether or not the Sun should have printed photos of naked Prince Harry?

No comments:

Post a Comment