Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Kate Topless Photos Are 'Grotesque Invasion'

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Im still unsure it's a "Grotesque Invasion" as she was outside in public view, anyhow I will have a good hard think about it tonight.




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoSpace
Im still unsure it's a "Grotesque Invasion" as she was outside in public view, anyhow I will have a good hard think about it tonight.


It's only a "Grotesque Invasion" because this scum "royalty" honestly thinks it's better than the common man. They honestly believe that they don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. It is the mentality that brainwashes an entire nation from birth to worship and lick their boot. And this is not just the British royaly by the way. This has been going on since Rome and Egypt where these people see the rest of us as garbage and they run around and set rules for the low lives to live by but of course they're exempt from.

edit: I just want to add that this is not directed towards Kate.
edit on 14-9-2012 by TrueBlood because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBlood
 





I doubt Kate is ashamed in anyway, after all she has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of


Now the low life peeping tom scumbag excuse for a photographer SHOULD be ashamed of

violating her privacy



Unlike publicity hungry celebs who wear gowns slashed to the waist, exposing underwear.

Necklines to the waist, and barely there garments exposing acres of flesh. Kate has always

conducted herself with dignity and has always worn demure garments, never too short or

exposed, or strapless, or low,or cut away exposing acres of un necessary flesh!!


Women like to sunbathe topless so that their tan is all over, so that when they wear

different necklines and backs [square round off the shoulder] there are no white areas on

show.



I sunbathe topless privately in my garden surrounded by a 61/2 foot hedge, and i know i

am safe and my privacy will not be invaded as any photograph of myself will produce

zilch in revenue to anyone....However IF some 'sick' individual/joker were to put a ladder up

or climb onto a nearby flat garage roof and photograph me for the local paper or shop

window I would be devastated at the invasion of MY privacy!!


So i do sympathise with her.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I saw them, the quality is so horrible you can barely make anything out.
I wasnt impressed.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog
I saw them, the quality is so horrible you can barely make anything out.
I wasnt impressed.


I have seen them aswell and I agree.

The pics do not do her justice.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Not impressed everyone says due to quality? Check this out


edit on 14-9-2012 by Skywatcher2011 because: video found to be revealing but didn't want to upset anyone...but I do have the link for it




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


That was just a slideshow of the same pics that I saw.


However blurry they were, they did look to be a nice pair of boobies
edit on 14-9-2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
If you put it out there someone is going to look at it. Kate may have been at a private pool, but she was still out in the public where others had access with a view.

Kate is proud of her body otherwise, she would have kept her shirt on. I say more power to her for being free with herself. Maybe the younger generation of royalty isn't as stuck up as the older crowd.

I understand she is the future queen and she must act in a proper way, but she is human and permitted to be herself. For me it doesn't mean I've lost any respect for her, but have only gained more respect because of her ability to be herself.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Ph03n1x
 





don't get me wrong i love a good pair of tits as much as the next guy but this is not journalism it's blatant invasion of privacy


How is it an invasion of privacy ? She is a public figure paid for by the tax payer we have every right to see her tits if she gets her kit off .

If I have to pay for this bit of fluff to live a lifestyle that most of us can only dream of the very least I expect is to see her tits when she's getting them out for viewing, it ios only common courtesy.

If she doesn't like it then tough no one forced her to jump on the royal gravy train and put her hands in the publics pockets, that's the price she has to pay a pittence compared to what she takes.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ChristianJihad
 





Does that mean that my employer is entitled to see me naked or topless because he

pays my salary??



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
mwaaa seen better tits....

no big deal.....
edit on 14-9-2012 by ressiv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Does anyone have a link to the pictures that they would please post.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Kate Middleton is a anagram of Naked Tit Model. LOL



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ressiv
 


You know, I got so sick of hearing about her when they first got married. Then they focused on Pipi, always showing pictures of her butt. Why idolize these people like some kind of fanatical stalker?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I don't know about the laws in France, or anywhere in Europe really, but I cannot imagine someone getting arrested for this in America. Well, I can imagine it, with what has been happening regarding police officers and the justice system lately. But, as a principle, if someone is topless where they can be seen by the public, I don't see how someone can complain. Just don't do things like that where you can be seen. I imagine she didn't realize she could be seen, but when you are as popular as she is, you have to realize that you just cannot do things like that, because unless you are indoors or something, there is always the chance someone is watching if outdoors.

I don't think there are laws against photographing people in public here in the US, because the paparazzi hound celebrities all day long, and some of those celebrities get really mad. If they were able to keep them from taking photos, I'm positive they would. I've always heard people say that you must gain permission from the person if you wish to take their photograph or videotape them, but that just sounds like bull given the plethora of examples against this that happen all the time. But these are different countries with different laws, but I still don't see how this is a criminal act, as private property doesn't count for line of sight.

I wonder why this person didn't attempt to sell the pictures back to the couple...or the queen or something, lol. They probably would have paid a lot of money for this to go away. And if they tried to screw you, you have an accomplice who is ready to anonymously release the photos, just in case you're in jail for extortion or blackmail. That is illegal though, unfortunately. Or, fortunately, depending on which side of the argument you're on, lol. Anyway, strange situation all around. Well, I guess I'm off to find the pi...err, I mean...uh, something else.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by ChristianJihad
 





Does that mean that my employer is entitled to see me naked or topless because he

pays my salary??


Let's make no mistake here these royals are not my "employees" , they just happen to agree with a few others that it's ok to stick their dirty stinking hands in my pockets to fund their existance of opulance and excess.

However If your employer took you on as a bit of fluff to be gawked at by the empty headed and fawned over by the ignorant in an industry that thrives upon image then yes it's part of your job to titilate the swine.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 




my brother used to have a magazine which was a collection
of nude and topless pics of pretty much all of them, then and now,
even old lizzy back in the flapper days, wearing absolutely nothing
but a flapper hat and thigh-high stockings


Well as Lizzy wasn't born until 1926 and The Wall Street Crash of 1929 and The Great Depression saw an end to the flapper era she must have been very young?

Any such magazine would literally be worth a fortune - probably millions - ?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
If she doesnt want her lovely lady parts to be seen she shouldn't show them. It is the risk you take, when you remove your top, for your lady parts to be seen. As a public figure, you would think she would be smarter than this. I have absolutely no sympathy for her.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


I think its needless to say that our star loving paparazzi is out of line.
But in our days of time, "we" mainstream people just love DRAMA, best if the drama is coming from
people almost as dumb as ourselves. I hate it, screw todays TV. ITS AN INSULT TO THE HUMAN INTELLECT.

But for all i care ../.. the royal family, why should they get any special treatment.
For all i care, she shouldnt be topless when she is who she is.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join