Prince George 'Harassed' By Paparazzi Photographers

prince georgepm

In the headlines today is a letter issued by Kensington Palace about "paparazzi harassment" of Prince George in recent months. It has been sent out to leaders of media industry bodies and press standards organisations around the world. It seems that the foreign press in particular have been going to extreme lengths to get photos of Prince George, and that the tactics being used are getting dangerous.

When you read the descriptions of what the paparazzi have been doing to try and get their pictures it makes for truly shocking reading. They have been using other children to try and coax Prince George into view, hiding in bushes and in sand dunes, concealing themselves on private property at the family home, and even concealing themselves inside a car at a children's play area.

 A photographer rented a car and parked in a discreet location outside a children's play area.  Already concealed by darkened windows, he took the added step of hanging sheets inside the vehicle and created a hide stocked with food and drinks to get him through a full day of surveillance, waiting in hope to capture images of Prince George. Police discovered him lying down in the boot of the vehicle attempting to shoot photos with a long lens through a small gap in his hide.

No matter what your view of the Royal Family as a whole, or as an institution, there can be few of us who would consider such an intrusion into the daily life of a two year old child as acceptable.

All the British press have refused to print any unauthorised pictures of Prince George, and as a result the Duke and Duchess Of Cambridge have expressed their gratitude by releasing regular authorised photographs.

The full letter from Kensington Palace has been published on their website here, and they have done so to raise awareness of the issue with the public.

So what do you make of this statement today from the palace and the tactics of the photographers?

TOPICS:   News and Recalls

What do you think?

Your comment