BS: More naked royals

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 12:00 PM

You got my sympathy, Alan, cos you are completely missin' the point. The point in the lyric was that even a very important person in a high position like a president or a king can still be humbled by events in life...just like the rest of us can. He ain't exempt. Yer literal thinkin' has led you far astray on this one. Yer logical analysis about a person bein' naked or not naked, and when and when, has nothin' to do with it. It's poetry! Poetry deals in metaphor, symbol, allegory, stuff like that.

As fer puttin' his monkey on a log and orderin' him to do the dog...I figger that for one of two possibilities:

1. Bob Dylan abuses his pets (or familiars) by makin' 'em do cross-species sexual acts. (that would be the literal-minded interpretation)

Or.....

2. He was crackin' a joke.

I'm bettin' it's #2.

Now, tell me...whadda you make of the lyric "but he just smoked my eyelids and punched my cigarette"? You gonna go literal on that one too? ;-D

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 04:25 AM

If a tree falls in a forest and no one sees it....would you still try and swing from its branches, Chongo as if it hadn't happened.

And if the President of the USA never stood up not even to wipe his bum - say someone incapcitated like FDR - would he have stood naked even in private?

Okay, from that point - let us progress logically - it is possible (not strictly probable) that the Predident could manage without standing naked.

You were misled on that that point by the great man. He's also the chap who claims to have put his monkey on a log and ordered him to do the dog.

Would any thinking person give such an order? I think he lied on that point too.

The man's a scoundrel.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Allan Conn
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 02:29 AM

"How big are you, are you a guy or a gal, have you eaten anything tonight, over what period did you sup your two pints..."

Plus what kind of beer is it etc. I've seen a graph for instance that shows a weak beer of about 3% would contain 4 units in 2 pints whilst a beer of 5% strength would contain 5.6 units in 2 pints. Not many are as low as 3% but of course there are beers of more than 5%. Going to get more ocmplicated for UK drivers as the Scottish govt is aiming to reduce the limit here!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 08:55 PM

He was not lyin'. Everyone sometimes must hafta stand naked, presidents included, and that was his point. He didn't say they had to be standin' naked in public...he just said they had to stand naked sometimes. And he was right.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 08:37 PM

That's cos the very great man was lying to you on that point.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 07:15 PM

A very great man once said "even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked".

Be that as it may, we never got to see any naked photos of Richard Nixon, did we?

Ook! Ook! ;-D

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnomad
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 04:39 PM

Well, Fp, we know that everything is bigger Stateside, and the way your media go hysterical over a minor wardrobe malfunction suggests you are right.

I still think we have a problem here, but I'll grant that yours is more extreme.

As for education producing a more rational approach to such matters, well it sounds logical, and it fits with my limited experience. It would be interesting to see some proper data.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 02:39 PM

"Can't help feeling that we in the UK are far too hung up on all aspects of nudity"

Oh, yah? I betcha our American hangups over nudity are bigger than your hangups over nudity any day! : )

I can't cite anything substantive on this right now, but I've seen alleged results of studies over the years to the effect that educational and professional levels are generally higher among members of nudist organizations than the general populace. Personal experience for me would say that's true to a limited degree. I would just think it would follow with the general tendency of non-rational taboos, biasis, and traditions to fall away with education.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 04:36 AM

"Nothing to see here, folks. Move along please."

Or at least, that was my impression when I initially googled the pictures.

Clearly just something to interest the French, or the sleazier of the UK tabloids.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 11:28 AM

I've heard that such nudism (in private) is fairly common among the very wealthy in this world. After all, they feel that being very wealthy should allow them a certain additional degree of license, as it were, a measure of freedom not necessarily common to the rest of mundane humanity. This was certainly true in ancient Rome. Why shouldn't it be so in the present era?

I had a friend approach me and ask if I were interested in attending private nude get-togethers with himself and some of his close friends. He made it clear that it wasn't a sex gathering...no orgies or anything like that...just shared nudity in the outdoors, that's all. He said he found it very liberating.

I thought..."Yuck!"...and declined the offer. I don't particularly want to see most of my middle-aged to elderly friends and acquaintances in the nude...and besides, I get cold too easily. The weather conditions would have to be almost perfect. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnomad
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 09:11 AM

That last cartoon could illustrate this NewsBiscuit item.

Can't help feeling that we in the UK are far too hung up on all aspects of nudity.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Edthefolkie
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:45 PM

Back to the subject in hand (literally in the case of Harry on the right!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/sep/18/topless-pictures-duchess-cambridge-cartoon

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Jim McLean
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 12:52 PM

........ two doubles of Scotch ..... different measures in Scotland and England.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 08:00 PM

the British limit is two pints or less of beer, or two doubles of scotch. Twice is four doubles or four pints. Approx.

Well, Al, I like your precision (despite your lily-livered "approx" ;-) ), but it's basically bollix innit. How big are you, are you a guy or a gal, have you eaten anything tonight, over what period did you sup your two pints...

In my long, alcohol-fuelled life, I've come across four cases of my mates having been breathalysed in which I know what they'd supped. Here ya go:

1. My mate supped seven pints and got done. He was 83 on the scale when the limit is 80. A smidgeon over after seven!

2. Mate numero deux supped a pint and a half. He was under the limit by a titchy fraction. Phew!

Number Three had had three and a half pints. He passed the breath test with flying colours. "Have a safe journey home, sir."

Numero quatro had had two pints and the cop told him there was no trace of booze on his breath.

So let's not go down this path, eh, Al!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 07:03 PM

While some may feel "secure" with a person driving them home who have consumed that amount of alcohol, IMO, most would (and should) not.

Keep in mind, thie situation in this case was not a "garden variety" drive home by a friend from a pub. The situation of "drive in question" is not remotely like what you suggest.

FYI, outside of denial, there is massive amounts of scientific data on the impacts of drinking and driving-some of those related to this situation are listed below:
""If you drink alcohol and drive, you are likely to find it difficult to:
• judge the speed of your vehicle;
• judge the distance between your car and other cars;
• notice traffic lights, vehicles and other hazards;
• concentrate on the task of driving;
• react appropriately to things going on around you, particularly if an unexpected hazard should suddenly appear.
Alcohol also gives you a false sense of confidence. You may take more
risks than you normally would – but remember, alcohol slows down your
reaction time to hazards: you may not even react at all.""

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 06:20 PM

the British limit is two pints or less of beer, or two doubles of scotch. Twice is four doubles or four pints. Approx.


I'm no William Hague with a fifteen pint capacity, but I reckon I've been driven home dozens of times by people who've drunk the equivalent of four doubles and never felt in any danger.

I hope Diana wasn't murdered. Idon't like to think anyone could be so vile as to do that. there again - Ididn't want to think Blair was lying about WMD's. I'm not a good judge.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 05:51 PM

Can't see that anyone, especially a "professional bodyguard" would not notice they were "woozy" from that amount booze regardless of the delivery method. If he were an unexperienced teen ager, I could see him saying, "WTF, I will drive drunk, and at racing speeds".

But, it's hard to fathom that a professional, with such a valuable passemnger under his care, would have such "unprofessional" judgement.

And, there was another body guard to assist in the driving, and other options rather than starting off on such a foolish "dash" even if there was such urgency to make that deadly trip.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 10:32 AM

She didn't have any HRH plates ~~ she had long since ceased to be HRH and would have had no sort of royal standing or diplomatic protection whatever. There would have been no indication on the exterior of the car that anyone of any particular privilege or regard was an occupant.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 10:30 AM

No ~ no evidence: just a gut-feeling, probably misguided.

I still think that a professional driver with his reputation & career to protect will not drink while working. I just do not believe it of him, and am still confident that he was suborned or deceived in some fashion.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 10:29 AM

twice over the UK limit - in the great days of folk clubs - that was pretty much the norm. Don't recall anybody being actually falling down pissed before driving home. but I can see the driver might have felt invulnerable with HRH plates.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 09:51 AM

Spiked? He was twice over the UK drink-drive limit and three times over the French limit. Don't you think he might have been feeling just a little pissed before he got in the car, spiked or not? He probably thought he was immune to getting done, what with his having HRH on board.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 07:14 AM

Quite the conspiracy theory, MtheGM.
Do you have the evidence to that to share, which the many investigators missed?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 06:38 AM

Oh my, Steve ~~ I don't think I have ever come across such an accomplished point-misser.

To spell it out ~~ of course it wasn't the papps who got the driver drunk. BUT NOR WAS IT HIS OWN VOLITION. He was an experienced and well-paid professional with a professional reputation to maintain. He would never have got drunk on the job. Someone spiked something, or otherwise got at him; then tipped off the papps to make sure he would be well pursued. Result, as intended: one deceased ex-royal who had become an embarrassment.

I am in general not one for conspiracy theories. Myra Hindley is dead. Armstrong walked on the Moon, not in the Utah desert.

But I make an exception for exHRH Di of Wales. She was done away with, I most strongly suspect. {&, as I remarked before, I make a similar exception for Norma-Jean.}

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 09:11 PM

I would place a well-paid and severly drunken body guard, driving a car at high speeds- with the folks he is paid to protect- pretty low on the trust scale. But, then, I have not walked in his shoes.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 08:29 PM

Hmmmmm....an intriguing multiple test question. Fun! Could we add a "none of the above" category to that list just in case, Steve? And let's throw in "chicken sexer" too. That would make for 5 possible right answers, (a, b, c, d, or e).

A few posts back you said, "You wouldn't like mine then."

I think you're probably dead right about that! ;-D But I'd just as soon not know, really.

Mine, by the way, are so small that they're practically invisible. This may at least partially explain the lack of paparrazi pursuing me about the hinterland.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 07:39 PM

What's the better occupation, being a paparazzo snapping naked regal tits, or spending your time fitting nuclear warheads to subs in Barrow? Or being an ATOS decision-maker?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 07:34 PM

Well you tell us. The facts as we know them are banal rather than romanticated. The chauffeur was totally pissed. He got into the driving seat. Diana and Dodi (possibly not stone-cold sober either, but who am I to speculate...) got in the car with him. Whether their judgement was impaired while so doing, or whether they were just bloody thick and stupid, is another matter, but they got in. Off he went, helter-skelter along a road which did not justify his speed and his compromised driving skills. He crashed and they all snuffed it. Simple. If the papps were chasing them, tough shit. I can't remember the last time I read about a papp killing or injuring someone in the act of taking their photos. Getting away from the papps was simply not that important, and, in making that misjudgement, they paid the price. No papp either killed them or wanted them dead.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 05:01 PM

Without wanting to divert this thread into another Who Killed Diana conspiracy one ~~~ I would ask, why was her driver drunk? How did an experienced professional driver on an important assignment come to be so? Who alerted the paparazzi to where she would be, knowing how they would react?...

Think on...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 03:57 PM

""imagine living in a world where you can trust absolutely no-one at all. Imagine going to sleep worrying that some of your 'buddies' might take a photos of you and put it on the internet or sell it...Imagine having no-one you can turn to, other than your brother, father or wife, who you can truly trust...""

All celebrities live with this same situation,- it goes with the glamour popularity and $. Odd that few have expressed much concern for those folks before here-Maybe because they are not also tagged as being "royal", from a feudal (and fairytale) past.

Yes paparazzi have a disrespected job to many (as with other jobs). But, someone buys the publications that pay them, and pays them well.
I have never called anyone "scum" because of the job they do, regardless of what that job involves.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 12:15 PM

I repeat. Diana was killed by a drunk driver, and she was stupid enough to get in the car with him. No-one else. Harry is not in Afghanistan, as you seem to be suggesting, because of paparazzi. And if Harry's drinking and partying habits are as you describe (I haven't heard those stories meself: you probably read them in one of those papers the paparazzi work for...) it isn't because people keep snapping him. It's far more likely to be because he has too much time and too much of our money on his hands. Comment is free but facts is sacred...

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 08:32 AM

The 'paparazzi' are nothing more than Stalking Scum. Were it not for them Harry's Mum would probably still be alive, and Harry wouldn't be half out of his brain on drink, or seeing some of his friends blown apart in Afghanistan, where he probably doesn't want to be in the first place, but fecking 'tradition' demands that he and Wills HAD to join 'the forces....

As far as Kate goes, just put William in a room with the Scumbag who took those photos, and close the door, then walk away....Justice will soon be done and Wills will emerge with a smile on his face....

These young men have not only had their entire lives altered because of these Criminally Minded people who care not an ounce for anyone, but they continue to have their lives plagued by them and by people around them who will sell any photo of them to the highest bidder...

YOU imagine living in a world where you can trust absolutely no-one at all. Imagine going to sleep worrying that some of your 'buddies' might take a photos of you and put it on the internet or sell it...Imagine having no-one you can turn to, other than your brother, father or wife, who you can truly trust...

And you wonder why Harry drinks and parties his life away???????

Leave him alone and leave Kate alone too. Go after the Parasitic Scumbags who make their living out of hounding them half to death, or entirely to death, as in Diana's case....

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 07:50 AM

""The term breast in birds (for example little fenale hawks) has been applied to the pectoralis muscles which they use for flight. They don't have mammary glands which produce milk to feed young like mammals do. However, the fact that birds lay eggs doesn't mean they could not have evolved with mammary glands. Echidnas and Platypii are egg laying mammals with mammary glands but not nipples. They have ducts through which the milk is delivered.

Platypus and echidna babies are considered to be the cutest... and some say the ugliest! You can make up your mind here, after seeing this wonderful series of images (by an exclusive permission of Australian photographer Den Whitton).""



Aren't they cute-ugly?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 05:24 AM

You wouldn't like mine then.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 11:32 PM

I've always thought that small ones were quite attractive meself. (talking like an Englishman) I think Kate is a fine looking woman.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 08:41 PM

Got bored reading this thread a couple of days ago.
But found probably the best online joke so far
on this mountain out of molehills farce;
and here it is...........



"To commemorate the release of the topless photos of Kate Middleton,
Royal Doulton will be releasing a Collector's Edition of two small jugs"

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 08:01 PM

Then there was Lady Godiva...

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnu
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 03:59 PM

Ed... I had those pics removed from the internut.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 03:40 PM

Grrr! Grrr! Working yourself up into a right frenzy over those despicable royals, eh, Steve?

Nah. Just having a go on a thread about 'em wot I didn't start. Is mudcat your idea of life? 'Tain't mine!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 03:38 PM

Hmm. Don't think you see much media sycophancy in the cases of some of those...

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 02:03 PM

Yeah...(grin)...just move the Rolling Stones, Madonna, Eminem, and Rihanna into the paragraph in place of the royals.

Stone them, I say! To the palace with torches and pitchforks!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 01:15 PM

"Play up their good looks, how hard they work, how much they do for charity, how much dosh they bring in, what good things they say (you could dwell on Charlie-boy's wise words on organic farming and architecture :-) ). Then search as hard as you can for references to their cynical and serial mistreatment of Diana, their serial marital misdemeanours and deceptions, the racism of Philip and the Queen Mum, the concealed alcoholism of Prinnie Margaret, the indolent lifestyles of many of the minor players, the lack of mental prowess, the privileges they are accorded. You won't find much coverage! Sycophancy from the conniving mainstream media rules!"

Wow - change a few of the names and you could be talking about a group of musicians.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 01:08 PM

Grrr! Grrr! Working yourself up into a right frenzy over those despicable royals, eh, Steve? ;-) Well, everyone needs a hobby or two to keep them busy.

I suggest you read David Iche. He has said even worse things about them than you have, and quite aside from that...his books make rather interesting reading in a number of ways, some of which make a good deal of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 12:52 PM

Dearie me. Tell you what. Go through them one by one, telling us of each one's finest qualities, and we'll discuss how they have been misrepresented. Play up their good looks, how hard they work, how much they do for charity, how much dosh they bring in, what good things they say (you could dwell on Charlie-boy's wise words on organic farming and architecture :-) ). Then search as hard as you can for references to their cynical and serial mistreatment of Diana, their serial marital misdemeanours and deceptions, the racism of Philip and the Queen Mum, the concealed alcoholism of Prinnie Margaret, the indolent lifestyles of many of the minor players, the lack of mental prowess, the privileges they are accorded. You won't find much coverage! Sycophancy from the conniving mainstream media rules!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 12:31 PM

they ... misrepresent themselves to us all the time
.,,.
In what way, precisely? You obviously dislike them for reasons of your own, into which we have been ad nauseam. But in what way, I repeat, do you consider them to "misrepresent" themselves to us?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 12:22 PM

Its not nice having your privacy invaded. I didn't like it when some idiot made a load of websites with pictures of me and a BNP tent (separate pictures) - but it sort of implied that I was somehow connected with the BNP.

The difference between that and this is that you were misrepresented as well as invaded. They were not misrepresented. 'Tis they who misrepresent themselves to us all the time, with the help of the conniving media, of course, who are very good to the royals, though only 99.9% of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 11:06 AM

:) Kinda late for those shots (to close the barn door), that had broad exposure (excuse the pun) outside this country and publication -

Possibly, the legal folks are shooting for next time, if common sense does not prevail. I doubt this is the end of this story and legal dilema.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 08:48 AM

Meanwhile back in the court room the French judges have ruled that this incident was an invasion of privacy, the distribution of the magazine is to be halted, and the photos destroyed. There are still efforts to fine the photographer as well as the publisher.

Tough titty for them!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 08:14 AM

From Wikki (not specific to France):

""Photographing private property from within the public domain is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room, where there is a general expectation of privacy...Should the subjects not attempt to conceal their private affairs, their actions immediately become public to a photographer using an average lens or video camera....

....The United States enacted the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 to punish those who intentionally capture an individual's private areas without consent, when the person knew the subject had an expectation of privacy.Additionally, state laws have been passed addressing the issue as well.""

France privacy laws

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 07:58 AM

Jealousy is a very negative, ugly emotion.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 07:58 AM

"You know what dale Carnegie said - nobody ever bothered kicking a dead dog."

I'll assume that old Dale wasn't talking about American politics or the definition of authentic English folk music at the time.