Kate was right to sue over nude pics
We've had a week of frenzied debate regarding Kate Middleton's bare breasts now and it's clear the only people who think she's not entitled to sunbathe topless in a private place without having to worry about pictures being beamed around the world are greedy magazine proprietors, greedy lawyers and misguided Royal family haters.
And while we're on that point; it's one thing to disapprove of the monarchy in principle, as I do - it's another, very stupid, thing to hate people because of an incidental consequence of birth or marriage, and to believe as a tax-payer you own them, and are thus entitled to see them naked.
You own nurses too if you follow that logic; should you be allowed to see all the nurses you fancy naked, too?
Some accused Sienna Miller of being unnecessarily litigious when she sued The News of the World after almost exactly the same experience a few years ago.
But I cheered her on as a fighter for female dignity who wouldn't be cowed by powers of the media or the overwhelming cultural trends which, at that time, suggested her objection was akin to a single stalk of barley struggling to stand straight in a hurricane.
Cheeringly, the past year has seen the direction of that hurricane change dramatically. Not just in Lord Leveson's court, but in the court of public opinion.
What hasn't changed sadly is the fact that a paparazzo can make enough money to buy a house for a picture exposing the breasts of a very famous female. How utterly pathetic.