Private Eye logo
twitter
twitter
rss
rss
rss
gnitty
street of shame
From the Eye archives
Richard 'dirty' Desmond: A Humbuggery Special
Issue 1323, 18th September 2012
richard desmond 2.jpg
HUMBUGGER OFF: Richard ‘Dirty’ Desmond, who was appalled by the topless pictures that appeared in Ireland… and whose own TV porn tribute to last year’s royal wedding, ‘A Royal Romp’, featured a character called Kate Fiddleton and someone who looked like the Queen.
“I’M very angry at the decision to publish these photographs,” declared Richard Desmond primly after the Irish edition of the Daily Star, in which he has a 50 percent stake, ran the pictures of Kate Middleton sans swimsuit.

“The decision to publish these pictures has no justification whatsoever and Northern & Shell condemns it in the strongest possible terms,” he added. “Northern & Shell is profoundly dismayed at the decision made by the Irish Daily Star, which would never have been made by any of the newspapers or magazines under our editorial control.”

A character called Kate ‘Fiddleton’ (geddit?)
So respectful is Desmond of the royal couple that he celebrated their nuptials last year by commissioning a tasteful tribute, broadcast on two of his television stations and heavily publicised in the Daily Star.

A Royal Romp featured a character named “Kate Fiddleton” (geddit?) engaging in hardcore sex with lookalikes of both Princes William and Harry, as well as a blonde woman purporting to be the latter’s ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, in the presence of lookalikes of Prince Charles and the Queen.

“We have chosen to put A Royal Romp on both Television X and Red Hot TV across the Friday and Saturday of the Royal Wedding bank holiday weekend to make sure as many people as possible get a chance to view,” announced Desmond’s head of programming Chris Ratcliff.


Totless photographs

BAUER, publisher of the UK edition of Closer magazine, was swift to distance itself from the title’s French edition.

“Closer France is published under licence by Italian business Mondadori, and Closer UK would like to make it clear that the two publications make entirely independent editorial decisions,” the company announced as the inevitable internet backlash built up last Friday. “Closer magazine UK takes its obligations under the PCC Code extremely seriously and would never publish topless images of a member of the Royal family.”

So respectful is the UK magazine of people’s privacy that its cover last week was devoted to “exclusive” speculation as to whether “Posh’s Bump Riddle” meant she might be in the early stages of pregnancy, whether Cheryl Cole could be attempting to conceive, and whether a photograph of actress Jennifer Ellison proved she was failing to keep to her diet.


Mirror's image problem

“THERE is something very admirable in Prince William’s determination to protect the privacy of his wife,” declared the Daily Mirror last weekend.

“The young couple are showing maturity, or their Palace advisers are, in realising they must make a stand against a French Peeping Tom celebrity gossip magazine… A long lens prying on Kate sunbathing topless on a private estate is a clear breach of this right.”

As several other media outlets managed to note over the weekend, one of the legal precedents in this case is the £1.2m paid by, er, the Daily Mirror after it published photographs of William’s mother Diana exercising in a gym, taken with a hidden camera. Did this deter the paper from claiming the moral high ground? Did it heck.

“Lord Leveson may care to note that an officially regulated French press is the transgressor, while the self-regulating British papers are respecting the Duchess’s privacy,” its editorial loftily intoned.


Rogue mail

“THE pictures were taken on private property using cameras with extremely long lenses, which means no British newspaper would publish them,” the Daily Mail pointed out on the day the Closer shots were printed.

Really? The same criteria apply to a series of fuzzy shots of model Heidi Klum relaxing on a beach with her children which were published by, er, the Daily Mail at the end of August. Indeed, the paper acknowledged as much by describing them as showing an “intimate family holiday” and “a seemingly private chat” between Klum and her new partner, leaving little doubt that these were circumstances under which she had what the Press Complaints Commission calls “a reasonable expectation of privacy”.

But then the Mail – which unequivocally banned the use of all paparazzi photos in a front-page promise after the death of Diana – has never been known for its consistency. Last weekend the lead story on its website was the outrage over the Kate photos. Directly adjacent were no fewer than seven stories based on paparazzi photographs of celebrities going about their day-to-day business, three of them with children under 10 in tow.


Sun stroke

“KATE: It’s pure greed,” screamed the front page of the Sun last Sunday as it condemned the Irish Daily Star on Sunday for publishing the topless photos. “Prince William’s wife is entitled to feel fury and disgust,” it opined, “at those lowlife rags printing pictures of her topless.”

This is clearly quite different from the Sun’s altruistic decision to publish naked photos of Prince Harry in Las Vegas two weeks earlier, when every other British newspaper declined to print them.

“The Prince Harry pictures are a crucial test of Britain’s free press,” the Sun explained on 24 August. “It is absurd that in the internet age newspapers like the Sun could be stopped from publishing stories and pictures already seen by millions on the free-for-all that is the web. It was vital for us to run them.”

For although the much-discussed Harry photos were already a mouse-click away for the 77 percent of British households with internet access, “the many millions of people who get their news in print, or have no web access, could not take a full part in that national conversation because they could not see the images”.

No “pure greed” there: just selfless, heroic generosity.

Tags: Topless pictures
More top stories in the latest issue:

TELEGRAPH TURMOIL
Chief exec Murdoch MacLennan bans staff from contact with sacked editor Tony Gallagher… while the new editor-in-chief blocks Gallagher from reading his tweets.

SELFIE-PUBLICITY
Like the late Cap’n Bob, Standard and Independent owner Evgeny Lebedev fills his papers with pictures of himself and “news” of his new TV channel.

THE LOST HONOUR OF CHRISTOPHER JEFFERIES
Former victim of press lies turned Hacked Off activist Christopher Jefferies seems to think it’s fine to make stuff up for a TV drama about his ordeal.

PRIVATE FAMILY MATTER
No space on the Grauniad’s Comment is Free site to note that contributor Lindsay Mackie is married to editor Alan Rusbridger… or that his daughter works there too!

private eye issue 1363
To read more from issue 1323 you can order a copy from our archive of back issues here.
gnitty
More From This Issue
HP Sauce
Latest stories
more »
HP Sauce
Strips
Yobs
more »
Strips
Crossword
Win a £100 prize
more »
Crossword
Also Available Online
More From This Issue
Private Eye Issue 1363
private eye Only In The Magazine

New From Gnome Mart – the Chris & Gwynnie Sick BucketStalin, Hitler, Pol Pot: Nigel Farage’s Guide to Great Leaders Around the World… Those Coalition Bingo Calls in Full… Malaysian Aircraft Story Disappears… Crystal Meth User Admits Being Banker… Loch Ness Monster Demands Referendum Vote… New for Pensioners: It’s the Lamborghini Mobility Scooter… Tony Benn’s Diary, as told to Craig Brown

And also...

- Phoenix flights: Awkward questions for busy defence boss Robin Southwell.
- Moscow-on-Thames: Slicker on the oligarchs who help keep Putin in power.
For all these stories you can buy the magazine or subscribe here and get delivery direct to your home every fortnight.
Next issue on sale: 15th April 2014.

Private Eye Issue 1362
gnitty