Kate Topless Photos Are 'Grotesque Invasion', page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 14-9-2012 @ 07:18 PM by Chrysalis

I can't sympathise with her, she is a public figure and ignoring what she was getting into would be pure stupidity.
She ain't stupid.
Papparazzi are here to stay it seems and they have served a function in cases like Berlusconi.
The other function is money of cour$e.

As long as there will be people buying that, you'll find others willing to sell.

What kinda bothers me more is when we all know they don't live in the same world as we do.
The rules don't apply the same.

But when it suits their needs, they invoke the common law to protect themselves.

Get a grip Kate, we hope your feminity will shine on the covers of magazines for a long time.
Just don't try and make a buck out of it, that would be indecent.

Another story, in France too :
The Sun : Shock as Pippa Middleton pal points pistol in crazy car stunt

reply posted on 14-9-2012 @ 08:39 PM by Trublbrwing

I saw the pictures, and yes they are Gross.

Last month we had that little red headed twit Henry buck ass naked in Vegas, now this, all par for that course. The veneer on that entire "royalty" thing is coming unglued and I say it's about bloody time. Why the British people are so fascinated with those people is a real mystery to me, they built their palace using the blood, sweat and tears of the common man for mortar.
She knew the paparazzi followed her everywhere so why would she for one second think it was wise to remove her top? Every other person on the planet uses a tanning bed for "private" areas because we all know nude sunbathing isn't a really good idea. Besides the obvious questions of judgement and discretion I have to wonder if some weird exhibitionist thing is going on.
Of course young William dragging the memory of his dead mother into the mud pit over this was icing on the nipple. Instead of taking responsibility for bad decisions he digs deep into his Freudian vault and finds a way to transfer blame to the cameras.
I say lock the whole bunch in the tower with Paris Hilton and the Kardashians.

reply posted on 14-9-2012 @ 09:18 PM by pacifier2012

How come no one has taken photos of paparazzi's homes and children and pasted them all over the media via the internet because the 'world has a right to know how they live?'

reply posted on 14-9-2012 @ 10:19 PM by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by Freeborn
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 - ?

lol you seem to be assuming you've debunked something

sorry if my over 20 years recollection of a B&W photo in a special edition magazine
published by some tabloid and my ignorance of womens fashions led you to think you've disproven my statement

other than my assuming a naked photo subtitled "a young queen elizabeth" in stockings wearing the same kind of hat/cap usually seen in pictures of flappers led me to make such a small error

should i ever find that magazine amongst the hundreds of boxes of junk filling the rear of my house
i'll u2u you a high res scan

for your collection

reply posted on 14-9-2012 @ 10:41 PM by MAC269

reply to post by CX

Dear CX

Before someone starts on me calling me anti-royalist I am not. However neither would I go out of my way to meet one of the family. As I do not hold them in any particular great esteem.

Last month we had the Harry fiasco this time we have Kate in a similar fashion.

One can not blame the photographer he or she are merely doing their job.

These people know the life they lead very well.

So it comes down to one of too possibilities.

Number 1 they are indeed lacking in commonsense too the extreme. In other words what were they thinking?

Or number 2 it is a deliberate attempt too distract the world press from some other event.

After all this is ATS.

reply posted on 15-9-2012 @ 02:05 AM by eletheia

Originally posted by k21968
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.

In point of fact the photographs were taken from a mile away - and as no one can

see that distance without employing binoculars or telephoto len's. In my book that makes

it a 'peeping tom' type of violation of privacy.

It is not out there in the public arena.

reply posted on 15-9-2012 @ 08:17 PM by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by pacifier2012
How come no one has taken photos of paparazzi's homes and children and pasted them all over the media via the internet because the 'world has a right to know how they live?'

Probably for the same reason paparazzi aren't arrested for unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct or any of the possible charges that apply. They're good for business.
Celebrities want the ability to hit a switch and turn the machine on or off when they choose, but pictures of posing people aren't nearly as interesting as candid shots.
The beast does not follow a schedule, it eats when it's hungry.

reply posted on 15-9-2012 @ 08:32 PM by jiggerj

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by CX

My opinion is that whoever took the photo should be arrested immediately, I think this warrants a 10 year sentence. The publication that published the photos should be smacked with a multi million dollar lawsuit and the editor should face criminal charges. She may be the duchess, but she is also a person. What if that was your wife, your daughter?

Maybe it's my age, or the fact that I've seen millions of boobs (thank you internet), but they're just boobs. So what? It's not as if Kate is hiding something special. Boobs are round, and even men have them. Honestly, I'm not impressed by boobs anymore.

reply posted on 15-9-2012 @ 08:41 PM by Amanda5

I have read the media comment about the young royal couple planning to sue the French magazine. Why on Earth would they want to sue the magazine? Do they need the money from the compensation they might gain? I thought the royal family thrived on publicity - all of it!!

If the young royal couple can sue a magazine for 'topless' photographs they find offensive - how about the rest of us 'sue' the government for providing the opportunity to photograph images of innocent Children and their innocent Parents splattered to pieces in war photographs - I find those offensive - because they depict the actual pain and suffering of real people.

The young royal couple know they are up for media attention if they so much as sneeze in the wrong manner. Going topless is a choice - she made a choice and put herself out there as topless - she is not stupid and should have realised she would be a target. How do we know it was not a set up - to divert attention back to the royal family - just like the younger brother being naked only weeks ago??? Anyone here - close personal friends with the young royals and know their true motives for placing themselves in 'photographic' situations they know will be splashed through the global media???

Quite frankly there is a lot worse that could happen to a young royal than to be photographed topless. How about she focusses on the legacy of her deceased mother in law and utilise her position to help those less fortunate instead of whinging about her invasion of privacy. When she married into the royal family all privacy went out the window in a heartbeat. If she want so to go topless she has to live with the consequences or keep her chest covered.

Much Peace...

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 02:51 AM by silo13

The only 'Grotesque Invasion' I see has nothing to do with the 'Princess'...

What is GROTESQUE? That even ONE even just ONE person who lives in the UK finds the photographing of her royal-ness breasts offensive - when - they as people can't go anywhere and or do anything without being photographed by the countless COUNTLESS surveillance cameras...like they're already prisoners.

Wake up.

peace

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 03:17 AM by eletheia

reply to post by Amanda5

Yes she did make the 'choice' to go topless.... BUT PRIVATELY in a rural property that

belonged to a relative and in a very unpopulated area out of the public arena - just the two

of them [and staff]

The photographer however, as said in the news, took the pictures from ONE MILE away

which is hardly tantamount to 'Kate flaunting her assets'

They would be suing the papers/magazines NOT because the photographs were 'offensive'

but because the invasion of their privacy was offensive...AND any compension paid to

them i would hazard a guess would go to one, or all of the many charaties they support !!

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 03:31 AM by eletheia

reply to post by silo13

I am one of those people who get photographed on surveilance cameras daily....and

guess what, as a law abiding citizen...I don't care...because if it catches people breaking

the law 'so be it'

If it wasn't for those cameras the likes of Jamie Bulgers killers and other criminals would never

have been caught!

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 03:53 AM by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by silo13

I am one of those people who get photographed on surveilance cameras daily....and

guess what, as a law abiding citizen...I don't care...because if it catches people breaking

the law 'so be it'

If it wasn't for those cameras the likes of Jamie Bulgers killers and other criminals would never

have been caught!

Now when the government has cameras in PRIVATE property monitoring us, I will be angry. Until such time I am with you.

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 04:07 AM by eletheia

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Which in turn goes back to my previous post

The said 'photographer' was in a 'public' place pointing his camera at a PRIVATE property and

the occupiers there in.

"Peeping Tom??" Isn't that breaking the law?

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 05:57 AM by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Which in turn goes back to my previous post

The said 'photographer' was in a 'public' place pointing his camera at a PRIVATE property and

the occupiers there in.

"Peeping Tom??" Isn't that breaking the law?

As I said, I side with you. The photographer should be in jail, the publications should be fined, the editors/those approving of the photos being published should be thrown in jail too.

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 06:31 AM by Freeborn

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

lol you seem to be assuming you've debunked something

Lol, not at all - just curious and wishing a little clarity, that's all.

I thought it was a private collection of photo's but it now sounds as if you're saying the magazine was in general circulation in which case I'm very surprised the photo in question isn't more well known - I'd have thought that a photo of Liz posing provocatively in all her glory with just stockings and a hat would be pretty much notorious.

If it is from a private collection then I'd suggest that you are sitting on an absolute fortune - and we are talking millions.

should i ever find that magazine amongst the hundreds of boxes of junk filling the rear of my house
i'll u2u you a high res scan

Please do, I'm sure someone would be very interested in purchasing such an image.

for your collection

Ha ha, if only - and so predictable.

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 07:17 AM by purplemer

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by CX

My opinion is that whoever took the photo should be arrested immediately, I think this warrants a 10 year sentence. The publication that published the photos should be smacked with a multi million dollar lawsuit and the editor should face criminal charges. She may be the duchess, but she is also a person. What if that was your wife, your daughter?

Whats the big deal. Its a picture of a pair of breasts.. People are over sexualised...

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 07:58 AM by eletheia

reply to post by purplemer

The deal is IF i wanted to show you or anyone else my breasts that is MY perogative

And if you don't want to see them...don't look...thats your perogative

BUT if someone gets a ladder or stands on a garage roof and looks into my garden

(with or without a camera) to see me sunbathing topless he is violating my privacy.

Apparently although not moral it is not against the law... untill they use a camera then

it becomes an an offence. Like many on the thread have said "it's only breasts"

SO what kind of scum/pervert/low life gets their 'kicks' in this way?

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 10:04 AM by silo13

reply to post by eletheia

SO what kind of scum/pervert/low life gets their 'kicks' in this way?

What makes this person a 'lowlife scum pervert'? He was doing his job - it's what he gets paid for. You're presuming he 'got off' on it. Just because you don't agree with someone's line of business is no reason to attack their moral character.

As for your opinion concerning the surveillance cameras in your country? I cannot wrap my head around anyone trading privacy and rights for safety. It's beyond my comprehension.

peace

reply posted on 16-9-2012 @ 02:23 PM by Freeborn

I wouldn't like photo's of my wife's tits being viewed by all and sundry - but come on, it's no bigee really is it - or are they may be more apt.

Take it on the chin, express your discontent and then just get on with it.

There's a damn sight more important things going on in this world than dwelling upon this - is it an infringement of their rights? - I really couldn't give a toss - exactly the same as William doesn't seem to give a toss about the gradual erosion of our rights.

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^