Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Kate Topless Photos Are 'Grotesque Invasion'

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 





I wouldn't like photo's of my wife's tits being viewed by all and sundry


Jeez, theyre only milk "jugs"




posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Go to google and type in "topless beaches" and see the thousands of photos taken showing showing thousands of boobs on display some far away and the owners of said boobs are unaware that their bits and pieces are on the interweb. Whats the problem ?



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 





He may be a photographer, but i doubt his remit calls for him to behave like a

voyeur/peeping tom?

The UK law takes the subject of non consensual voyeurism seriously. If you find you

have been watched/filmed/recorded in a place which can reasonably be expected to

provide privacy, the law will protect you


As for my trading my privacy rights? for surveilance cameras ?
I'm in the public

arena and do nothing that is of any interest to anyone execpt for maybe my own family or

circle of friends!

How can i object to surveilance cameras when they are a means to, and have been

responsible for apprehending the mugger, the abductor, the thief, the rapist,

the murderer, et al....For me that's small change for me being caught on a camera

doing nothing..........



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
Go to google and type in "topless beaches" and see the thousands of photos taken showing showing thousands of boobs on display some far away and the owners of said boobs are unaware that their bits and pieces are on the interweb. Whats the problem ?






No problem on a public beach
...could even be blatently flaunting their assets


Big problem in a remote private property photo taken covertly from a mile away!!



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by eletheia
 


He may be a photographer, but i doubt his remit calls for him to behave like a
voyeur/peeping tom?

Why do you keep using sexual terms for someone who took come captures? Like when you implied the photographer 'got off' on the photo? Again - the photographer was doing his job. Presuming there's more to it is just foolishness.

As for the rest? Again - it's impossible for me to even begin to address your thought of mind that complies to and even applauds the reduction of freedoms and privacy to incur 'safety'. Public or no. It's just too mind-boggling for me to even comprehend.

All that being said and done? Once again - the 'Royals' are fair game - just like anyone else. Until they want to give back peoples divine right to privacy? They deserve none of their own. And really - lol - they're just boobies. Royal or not.


peace


CX

posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Again - the photographer was doing his job. Presuming there's more to it is just foolishness.



Thats a bit like having a locksmith who breaks into locks for a living, suddenly burgle your house, only to say he was "just doing his job.

It breaks the law when he breaks into your private house without consent. Same here, what he did was illegal and as they have already mentioned, France take a dim view on this and the offense can bring you a couple of years inside.

On a slightly different angle, last night on Sky a former soldier who was discussing the story, spoke about the more serious side to this....the security.

If as has been reported this was taken from about a kilometer away with a long range lens, what was to stop this being a sniper? Kate, if some people have forgotten, like it or not is not just a celeb, she is the future queen of England. Quite the target for some organizations.

As the soldier said last night, thats an easy shot to make for a lot of people.

I wonder if they'll start reviewing security further out now when they stay anywhere? I know you can only do so much though.

CX.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 




It is you who has read sexual content into my posts. "Peeping Tom" and "voyeurism" are

the only terms i felt suitable to convey what the photographer was doing - He was NOT after

legitimate photographs of Kate, no he was after all 'lurking' for the purpose of gaining

'THE pic's' the ones that would bring him in the ££££££'s and $$$$$$$'s


I am assuming you are not from the UK? Because it never ceases to amaze me, how so

many people from other countries, who are not effected by our 'royal family' have views on

how we in the UK should view them! Myself i would not cross the road to see, cheer, wave

flags or whatever for any of them...But if i'm entitled to my privacy so are they - live and

let live.......



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by eletheia
 


It is you who has read sexual content into my posts.

Because I have a firm grasp and understanding of the English language of course I do.

Your quote:


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

Your word choice(s) thorough the thread:


Peeping Tom is a character in the legend of Lady Godiva who watched Godiva riding naked.

Peeping Tom may also refer to: Peeping Tom, a nickname for a male voyeur


Voyeurism is the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other actions usually considered to be of a private nature.


Now that you understand why your choice of words is misleading - The question you've failed not only to deflect but answer? Why do you feel the need to foster perversity on this photographer who’s doing his job?


But if i'm entitled to my privacy so are they

Exactly. Take down those millions of cameras treating the populace as a while like criminals and they (the Royals) deserve their privacy too. One thing we do agree on.

peace

en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">wiki link to ex
edit on 17-9-2012 by silo13 because: trying to fix link to ex



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 





Theres no way of accounting for how some people get their 'kicks' one of them is

acheivement, being the first at anything, another is getting one over someone else, both

of these i would say apply to the photographer...being the first to capture titilating photos

of the newest royal!! a feather in his cap? AND ker ching £££'s and $$$'s in the bank

He'll be able to dine out on that for ages! (if he doesn't get proscuted and do time!)


Voyeurism is the watching of a person naked or disrobing...which can go on to something

of a sexual nature - however i was only referring to the first half of the defination, giving him

the benifit of doubt on the second part...but who knows??



What would you call someone who has possibly travelled miles and surreptitiously hangs

around for god knows how long on the off chance he catches a particular person not fully

clothed??



And if and when Kate is shopping in Kensington, Oxford Street, Park Lane, Harrods or

whatever she will be subject to the very same 'surveilance' camera's as ME!



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I wonder who or how many here ridicule all the outrage over a video and support 'freedom of speech' yet advocate censorship of photo's of a pair of hooters?

Just wondering aloud.

ETA.

Or vice versa.
edit on 17/9/12 by Freeborn because: Add ETA



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If you go naked outside then people are going to look and take pictures. If you are living off your celebrity .. like Kate .. then you should know better than to go outside naked. Seems like stupidity on her part.


Kate and her hubbie are no fools or stupid....They are well aware there is a reporter lurking somewhere with a giant telelens mounted on his camera. To be sure he is there they can always rely on MI5 or 6 intel to know for sure it is "unsafe" to go outside naked.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join