Kate Topless Photos Are 'Grotesque Invasion'

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Oh is it an invasion of your privacy? Royalty demands it's privacy while there is a camera on every street corner in the UK invading everyone else's privacy. What a joke.




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


I don't see any loss of dignity.

Sure she took on a role when she married into the Royal family, that doesn't mean she can't have a private life.
That was a private affair and should be respected as such by the media.

That grubby little photographer should not only be named and shamed but also charged with being a 'peeping tom' or what ever illegal act in France fits that invasion of privacy.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I expect she will just have a couple of fried egg sized boobies. No big deal really.

After the hullabaloo a couple of weeks ago about Prince Harry naked butt on show you think they would be mindful of this sort of thing.

Or maybe they are letting themselves be seen naked deliberately, one to make them more real to us commoners, and two because I bet Kate wants to sun bath with her top off, so just get em out and folks can get used to seeing them. The UK is particularly prudish about going topless, whereas on beaches in Europe it's pretty normal behavior.

I think the biggest concern about this story is the link to Diana who died after being hounded by paperazzi in Paris. It brings back memories especially for Prince William.
edit on 14-9-2012 by bigyin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Tykonos
 


when Queen liz opens a hospital at least folk cant say "i have seen your chebs" - she had accepted the pro's of the position she accepted, she has to accept the cons too. you cant go getting upset about it, she knew this would be highly likely, she just needs to wear a bikini top - was that so hard?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBlood
Oh is it an invasion of your privacy? Royalty demands it's privacy while there is a camera on every street corner in the UK invading everyone else's privacy. What a joke.


perfection in a nutshell



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by Tykonos
 


when Queen liz opens a hospital at least folk cant say "i have seen your chebs" - she had accepted the pro's of the position she accepted, she has to accept the cons too. you cant go getting upset about it, she knew this would be highly likely, she just needs to wear a bikini top - was that so hard?



Yes, she is an individual on PRIVATE property. Last I checked peeping in on women showering is illegal. It's disguting the people here supporting this. Yes, it's a risk. She has to live with the consequences. Those involved should all face SERIOUS jail time. Not because she is the duchess, but because she is a human being.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBlood
Oh is it an invasion of your privacy? Royalty demands it's privacy while there is a camera on every street corner in the UK invading everyone else's privacy. What a joke.


Well then you shouldn't go walking around the streets with your boobs hanging out! Where is the invasion of privacy you are talking about? There is no privacy on a public street but on a private balcony of a private villa...!!!
Huge difference!

How would you feel if you had been robbed or raped on the streets but because of public demand all CCTV had been removed and as a result there was no evidence and the perpetrator got away scott free? Bet you would be calling for the reinstatement of the cameras then!

People who take pictures like this are scum and the magazines or newpapers that publish them are even worse scum!



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by Tykonos
 


when Queen liz opens a hospital at least folk cant say "i have seen your chebs" - she had accepted the pro's of the position she accepted, she has to accept the cons too. you cant go getting upset about it, she knew this would be highly likely, she just needs to wear a bikini top - was that so hard?



Yes, she is an individual on PRIVATE property. Last I checked peeping in on women showering is illegal. It's disguting the people here supporting this. Yes, it's a risk. She has to live with the consequences. Those involved should all face SERIOUS jail time. Not because she is the duchess, but because she is a human being.


but she was not showering, the OP and referenced article clearly states that she was on the terrace, the word shower does not even appear in the article. they also state that it is "unthinkable" that this should happen, whereas it's actually highly predictable given that it has happened so many times in the past.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by wiser3
 


I was about to go crazy with the ignorance in this thread. Thank you for a voice of reason.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
She's only got herself to blame,should have kept her top on. I was listening to the radio this morning with muppets advocating a ban on French goods because someone had dared take a photo of her with her naps out,. Some people



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
i think that the best thing that we can take from this incident, and the resultant thread, is how many fantastic terms we have for bazongas.

huzzah for the english language!



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
It feels like suddenly the younger members of the Royal Family have forgotten how curious people are about them, and how sleazy some aspects of the press can be...they are handing out opportunities for naked photos practically on a plate, and seriously need to stop whinging about it, or cover up. Kate will be Queen on day, whether we like it or not, and cannot risk being snapped practically naked ANYWHERE. Their overprivileged ignorance of what some people will stoop to is quite shocking, considering Princess Diana's history with the press.

But then...tis their right to be naked wherever they want if they want to be private individuals...I wouldn't argue with that at all. In which case, they kinda need to shut up about it. For every other person on the planet, the response would most likely be that if you don't want to be snapped nekkid, keep your clothes on.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


Bazongas...
How unflattering..! She was in France though, so surely they would be heaving la la's? Non?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 



Originally posted by CX
However things like this just show the scummier side of the press.


Actually, it shows the scummier side of the PEOPLE. If people weren't buying the rags that publish these pictures, there would be nothing in it for the "press".

I remember when Diana died, Geraldo Rivera had a show and he claimed to have pictures of Diana after the crash and promised to show them after the commercial. When he returned, he admitted that he didn't have the pictures, but chastised the viewing audience (and yes, I was glued to the TV) for having such a sick fascination with the intimate details of celebrities. He explained how this fascination was what feeds the paparazzi. And he was right. That taught me something.

The paparazzi are just the tool. We are the consumer. We drive the market.

I feel sorry for Kate and other celebrities who can't step outside their houses without flashes going off. But it's a statement about the people who buy the magazines. If they weren't driving the market, the paparazzi would have no reason to take the pictures.

I agree this is a grotesque invasion.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
*Scuttles off to FB to start a "Go topless to support Kate" page*.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
At least Kate is a looker, thank the lord it wasn't Theresa May or Hillary! One pic of either of those two topless and there could be a rise.....in male suicides!

I agree with Benevolent Heretic, this was intrusive and it is fueled by the people that buy the magazines or newspapers that publish this trash!

But it will blow over..how long did it takes for the hysteria over Harry's indiscretion to fade? Less than a week!



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I must confess that I am pretty dismayed that ANYONE would defend the rights of the media in this scenario. It is bloody inappropriate for ANYONE to be photographed without thier consent, before the shutter button is even depressed. An image, even of the face, no matter how famous one might be, is a very personal thing, and it should be the right of anyone pictured in such a way to veto the publication of such a thing.

Of course there are circumstances where the press ought to shoot many photographs, when there is wrong doing, when there is tragedy, when there is suffering. But the international press have no right to invade peoples privacy when they are engaged in private activities, wether out doors or not! The fact of the matter is, that unlike the creeps and attention whores which populate the glossy mags, day in and day out, Kate and William HAVE to interact with the press to some degree, in Kates case because that is the price she pays to be with the man she loves (lets not forget that they are a normal couple in that regard if no other) and in Williams case because some media attention is a part of the life of a Prince, and has been part of Royal life for a considerable time.

None of that means that these photographers have any business hounding them all around the world, waiting for them to provide an image that may titilate. Unlike the rest of the people who have been featured in OK, Hello, Closer (in both the UK and France) and the myriad of "personalities" from television who populate the media pages of the papers, William and Kate do not behave in certain ways in order to attract this sort of attention. There are plenty of media darlings who DO get thier bits out , purely for the cameras, to add to thier fame, to get themselves in the papers again. So many of these idiots are there in fact, that it beggars belief that the pap who shot these images could not have gotten better shots, of someone else, without going to nearly as much effort.

To those who reckon that Kate should have kept her top on, I say this. Taking ones clothes off is NOT an invitation to anyone with a lens that can capture the moment, to do so.If that was the case, then no one would go to the swimming baths, nor would they shower or bathe, for fear of being snapped in the act. The fact that William and Kate went out to the remote location in which the photos were taken, in order to get some peace and distance from the rat race, shows that they expected some privacy, and were not there to get themselves in the glossies, especially with the recent uproar over Harry's bits being all over the international press.

Also, I am absolutely disgusted at the French publication for daring to publish the photographs. When one considers the heart ache that the French papparazzi has already caused William, Harry, and indeed the many, many people in my nation who loved Princess Diana as a personality, as a figurehead and as a humanitarian, it is a wonder that they had the outright lack of decency to compound that already massive insult, with this gargantuan diplomatic balls up. I would hope that the Royal family, and specifically Kate and Williams legal team, absolutely gut the people responsible, and I would hope that the useless flesh sack we have as PM will get his French counterpart to condemn this media action as well.

Do not get me wrong, I believe in press freedom, but it must never come at the cost of the privacy of people who value thier dignity. Found Rooney knocking another prostitute? Well fine, thats an immoral act, and the people need to know in order to understand Rooney and decide wether he is a good role model or not (hes not, lets be honest. Hes a media whore). Caught a politician cheating on his wife with his male secretary? Fine, hes a liar, which goes to his suitability for his job. Woman who is married to a man close to the top of the Royal pile does something natural and relaxing, and is photographed purely because people want to know what her tits look like? I dont bloody think so. If you can support that, then I hope your innards rot and fall out of your backside.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Woman who is married to a man close to the top of the Royal pile does something natural and relaxing, and is photographed purely because people want to know what her tits look like? I dont bloody think so. If you can support that, then I hope your innards rot and fall out of your backside.


just from my pov, i dont actually support that this should happen, but that she should have expected it, so clearly that she must have known that this would happen. and hoping someone's guts rot and then prolapse for disagreeing with you?


she only had to keep her ta ta's covered
edit on 14-9-2012 by skalla because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


A person of such dignified comportment should expect that when they go to a place which is secluded and away from the gaze of the unaided eye, that he or she ought to be able to behave in a natural way, without having people photograph them, and splash thier intimate areas all over the press.

Contrary to contemporary thinking, dignity does involve a measure of privacy. A set of photographs of this nature are almost BOUND to errode that dignity, and she had a right to expect her privacy in the location where they were taken.

And as for hoping peoples innards fall out if they support the position of the editor of Closer, deal with it. I love my country, and I love our Royal family. For any one of them, but especially William, Harry, and now Kate, I would gladly kill or die to defend thier honour, let alone thier lives if it came to me to do so. To see thier honour impuned in this fashion is an affront, and I cannot abide it, will not accept its legitimacy, and will not apologise for the heat of my words when discussing the matter.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
What if that was your wife, your daughter?

I'd tell my daughter that it was her own damn fault for parading around naked outside.

Originally posted by MartyrCollect
I think they belive they're more popular than they really are.

Definately.

Originally posted by CX
but at what point do you have to respect someones privacy, even if they are celebs?

Those royals THRIVE on being celebrity. Newsflash for them ... you can't turn on and off celebrity at a whim. They get the press all jazzed up and then whine when the press takes pictures of them. It's silly.

BOTTOM LINE .... She was outside NAKED. She should have known better. She knew what she was doing and what she was getting into when she got married. Now she complains. Easy solution .. keep your clothes on when you are outside. Is she an airhead or something?





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join