Re~Stirred Forum

The Sun will apparently publish the Harry pictures tomorrow.

Should it? From an editorial point of view does this confuse the difference between what the public will be interested in, and what is in the public interest?
Does the fact anyone with google who wanted to see them would have seen them in 20 seconds change if they should have been published?


Is there anything off whatever about a 27 year old bloke, not on army business, not on royal business, about to go to Afghanistan, doing whatever the hell he wants in his own hotel room with whatever fully willing participants?

I'm curious what others think.

I think it is a foolish thing for The Sun to do.

It really is against the press code. It is not about freedom of speech. I have always argued for a different approach to images as to text because the psychological impact of images is greater.

Harry was letting his hair down at a private party, some people have said at the tax payers expense? He has money of his own and is in the army. I think this is an evasion of privacy ,
As for the sun! well what would you expect? The answer would be not to buy it , wont be hardship for me , i hate the sun and page 3, buy a magazine full of naked breasts if you want, but they dont belong in a comic er sorry tabloid paper.
If this was a story of any other 27 year old would it be news , ? I doubt it , and if it was a story somewhere in the paper , most people would say leave him alone .
I really think it is a case of media bullying . /stalking . Harry didnt want the camera's there , for his sanity he has to be able to have adult fun in privacy. He is photographed every where else he goes. this is not proper order .

I love how the Sun has attempted to project blame onto its readers by suggesting it is a picture that 'everyone' has seen on the internet so it is "vital" that the Sun shows it. Pathetic really but it is from the same stock who listened into dead soldier's voicemail messages so at least they are consistent in their level of journalism.

This from the man who used parliamentary privilege to name and shame Ryan Giggs? Are you serious? Don't you think 'the psychological impact' of doing that in the House of Commons, the centre of the nation's democratic system, was pretty great too?

No. Mainly because it's really boring and the Sun are only doing it to sell papers and get hits on their website.

The wider issue though is that people in the press are using events at the Leveson Inquiry to try and suggest that our proud media has had it's wings clipped. The Sun are trying to make this a freedom of speech question. Which is absurd.

Right to print it, wrong to put it on the front page. If they'd run it several pages inside with a 'So what' line like the title of this thread, they could have been on the side of the angels. This business of stuff being censored only in Britain (remember Mrs T and 'Spycatcher'?) makes us the laughing stock of the world and also draws attention to the very thing that our Lords and Masters are trying to conceal.

Should have titled this thread 'Flash Harry'. I have to say I see little difference between reporting that there is a picture of a prince in the buff and publishing it.

I think that's completely wrong. You are ignoring the 'public interest' point. Thus your comparison and use of the word 'censorship' in association Thatcher is invalid and suggests you have missed the point. There is no public interest in what PH gets up to in private, assuming it's legal.

Agree Richard , I do feel sorry for Prince Harry, how must he feel to have been "stabbed in the back " by a so called friend. Harry was at a party, we the public wouldnt have seen or known about, if someone there hadnt took photo's
then sold them to the press. it wouldnt have been in our interests to know about it. and doesnt affect public interest now we know. let the voyers have their pleasure. "peeping toms" leave me feeling uncomfortable. The sordid part of human nature.
The Sun newspaper is gutter press and how.