BS: More naked royals

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 07:56 AM

Do I see gnu in the background in these photos?

Gnu in the bushes

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 07:25 AM

I sort of sympathise. 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.

In fact that happened to a few of us on Mudcat. Richard Bridge said I ought to do something about it, but in th event I couldn't be arsed.

Call me Gruppenfuhrer. You know what dale Carnegie said - nobody ever bothered kicking a dead dog.

Its why i can't be arsed to give the BNP the satifaction of expending energy on the bloody little fuckers. Can't really see why the Royal family are bothering with harry's nuts and Kate's tits in this day and age, by the same token.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 07:21 AM

My privacy is invaded in every supermarket and bank I go into, in most public places in towns, and now they're talking of putting CCTV in school toilets. The chateau they were staying in was clearly visible from a public road about a kilometre away, clearly within range of decent binoculars or a zoom lens. If they thought they were immune from having their privacy invaded in that position they must be even more stupid than I'd thought. My sister has a lovely, clear police pic of her and my mum in her car as she drove in a prohibited bus lane. :-) Methinks they bleat too much!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 07:11 AM

"It's the invasion of privacy"


Celebraties frequently face this (I expect it is part of that life) and few have expressed issues on this regarding these folks before?

Is the concern just hyped-up for popular princess types?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 06:49 AM

""Not really, Don - what's sad is that there are people who are prepared to swallow the spin put out by the Windsors' PR team, hook, like and sinker, without the application of any questioning or independent thought. But, then, I suppose you believe everything you read in your Daily Mail.""

Daily Mail?.....Now that's really insulting. I can afford proper bog roll.

I don't believe in spin without "the application of any questioning or independent thought", not theirs, and certainly not yours or any of your leftie mates'.

Evidence is what convinces, and I've yet to see anything but ill informed opinion, coupled with a refusal to examine what evidence has been produced let alone give it any credit, from you and your mates.

When the pile of bullshit you spout has been proven, over and over again, to be a pack of lies and half truths borne out of an unjustifiable malice and envy, it's time you admitted to yourself the reasons for your hatred of anybody who has more than you.

I'm out of here. No point in talking to the malicious, envious and wilfully ignorant.

Have fun!
Don T

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 05:25 AM

But, Steve: "Are you suggesting that Kate's titties look like miniature versions of Winston Churchill?"

I don't get that at all. Please explain!

You said "To my mind they're like babies." New-born babies reputedly usually resemble Sir Winston. The moment has passed, michael, the moment has passed! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 04:08 AM

What "spin", lev? You haven't drawn our attention to anything that any of us were not perfectly aware of already, as to cost, attitudes, etc. It's just that some don't interpret them identically to you or regard them as so self-evidently abusive of and contrary to the commonweal as you appear to ~~ as a result, some might think, of believing everything you read in your Grauniad [a journal, I would add just for the record, to whose arts and features pages I was a regular contributor for upwards of ¼-century]. There is no 'spin' involved. It's just that we don't all draw the same conclusions from the known facts as you do; with ∴ no such adverse effects on the comfortable arrangement of our undergarments, whatever may be their colours or decorative features! And what's wrong, in a free society, with some of us differing in our views of certain aspects of societal organisation, whatever daily journal we might favour? Nobody's denying you the right to your opinion on the matter. Why can you & some others on your side of the question not afford a reciprocal courtesy without adopting such a crushing and unmannerly tone?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 03:44 AM

"Sad really Lev!!
"

Not really, Don - what's sad is that there are people who are prepared to swallow the spin put out by the Windsors' PR team, hook, like and sinker, without the application of any questioning or independent thought. But, then, I suppose you believe everything you read in your Daily Mail.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 03:35 AM

It's the invasion of privacy that's the problem here, more than the nudity.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 10:26 PM

OK, Kate met William in 2001, they were engaged in 2010, and married in 2011.

So, at what point were her "somewhat common boobs" (that few would care much about) transformed to being "royal" and even stellar, needing protection from the public domain?

Seems odd that horrible and tasteless pictures of dead folks are widely made public, without much regard for love ones _with no cry out for irt to stop. Yet, many say that these garden variety boobs need special status and protection.

Odd that the National Geographic showed boob shots of poor folks in underdeveloped nations, I suspect without their consent or knowledge. (I still recall one, in very poor taste, of a black woman breast feeding a juvenile pig).

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: michaelr
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 10:06 PM

Yeah, let's not. But, Steve: "Are you suggesting that Kate's titties look like miniature versions of Winston Churchill?"

I don't get that at all. Please explain!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 09:03 PM

At least Kate's are real. Right?

Oh no, don't encourage another "real or fake" post.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:57 PM

I've enjoyed the beauty of many hills and mountains besides those few I've had any real desire to climb on.

Somewhat seriously: so far as can be told by a couple of sloppy quality photos, why would a guy think of Kate's as less than attractive?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:56 PM

I haven't seen the pics but, hey, the girl looks like she weighs about 100 pounds so how ya'll expecting 36 Trip-Ds on 100 pounds is beyond me...

It's simple physics and biology and stuff...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:43 PM

To my mind, they're like babies: you've seen two, you've seen `em all. At least Kate's are real. Right?

Are you suggesting that Kate's titties look like miniature versions of Winston Churchill?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: michaelr
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:39 PM

Didn't we just have a thread about "hooters"?

To my mind, they're like babies: you've seen two, you've seen `em all. At least Kate's are real. Right?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:27 PM

gnu here posting from the Solomon Islands. I'll update my status here when I can find


That's me, over there, just across the bar from you. With the beard. Bloody steamy here innit

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnu
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:26 PM

froggy... "I would submit that the only reason a child would be affected significantly by simply nudity would be that the child has been conditioned to react to it."

Indeed. Might I add, the parent? For obvious reasons which surely follow your logic and stem from it.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnu
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:20 PM

gnu here posting from the Solomon Islands. I'll update my status here when I can find

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:13 PM

"norks" ???
Obviously we can't criticize the Solomon Island women; they're just too primitive to realize that human breasts are obscene.

Going by my experience, violent reactions to nudity are generally based in religious "customs" of declaring selected parts of the human body to be obscene (if seen by anyone other than a spouse, however the "logic" of that works). One of these days I'm going to start approaching assorted believers, in situations where nudity hasn't been mentioned, and asking, "Do you believe God would create anything obscene?" I will be very surprised if anyone says yes.

For a substantial share of "civilized" people, the critical issue is that children might see adult nudity and be traumatized or corrupted. I would submit that the only reason a child would be affected significantly by simply nudity would be that the child has been conditioned to react to it.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:05 PM

Girls bearing gifts and baring tits - Wow, a dream place to many.

I suspect Gnu's off to the Solomon Islands tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 07:43 PM

OK, but not actually Lizzie. She seriously needs to keep hers in.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 07:39 PM

With what Lizzie and Co. get paid they oughtta volunteer to do nude pics a couple times a year...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 07:35 PM

"norks"?? I thought I'd heard all the slang terms, but I guess there's always more.

Why do we NEED so many?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 07:27 PM

As in dicky ticker. Jeez, did you never watch 'Allo 'Allo?

And now we have the spectacle of our Kate, who's taking a mag to court for letting people see her naked norks, all over the telly tonight receiving gifts in the Solomon Islands from...girls with naked norks! Even nicer naked norks than hers, too, I'll be bound! Of course, said girls were not white and were probably only "observing their tribal customs." Yep, tribal, probably. So that's all right then! Heheh. Discuss!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnu
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 05:35 PM

Did you mean "dicey"?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 03:02 PM

It wouldn't do his dicky bladder much good.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 01:14 PM

You're probably right Mike. I was just thinking what the relations and loved ones of those two men must be thinking. For them it must seem like the end of the world. And yet even the broadsheet papers have nothing except this on the front pages.

I mean, if the Queen and Duke expose themselves on top of the eiffel tower - so what! in the last analysis,

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 11:56 AM

More naked than what?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:25 AM

Don't quite see your point there, Al. Might just as well object to the papers being full of crossword puzzles or the leadership of League Two. Or do you really think they should carry nothing except loved ones dying fighting for their country? And wouldn't that be a bit morbid? And [with respect] a bit boring?

Genuinely puzzled

... but regards just the same

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 07:53 AM

Do royality poo like the rest of us?

Taste of Royality

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 07:40 AM

Must be annoying, exasperating.....if you had a loved one die fighting for this country and all the papers are full of are this silly woman and her tits.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 06:40 AM

Sad really Lev!!

The only "evidence" you can supply, is the opinion (unsupported by real evidence) of an anti Royal website of dubious probity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 06:34 AM

""And hey, I bet they have better accountants than you or I could ever afford to keep their tax bills down, Don!""

For the umpteenth time, they pay in tax, voluntarily, a larger percentage of profit than they are liable for according to HMRC and annual audits.

I know you wish that your anti Royal rants would be believed by all and sundry, but I'm afraid they only show the depths to which you will sink in denigrating those of whom you disapprove, including a number of members of this forum who don't bow to your "superior" wisdom.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 04:52 AM

"Ignorance" is being unaware of the facts which, in this isntance, Don is. The "facts" put out by the Windsors' PR machine are easily challengeable. Here's an alternative view of the royal finances:

http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 04:24 AM

Absolutely right, there's no need to call someone else ignorant. But he's called you that, and he's called me worse on another subject within 24 hours or so.

I don't see the need for such boorish unpleasantness just cos he disagrees with us. And furthermore I think its out of place on a relatively civilised outpost of the internet like mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: ollaimh
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 01:19 AM

rumour has it the tabloids are going to publish naked pictures of bobert

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 11:11 PM

Naked Royals? I don't get it. Why would anyone go out of their way to see a bunch of Kansas City baseball players taking showers?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 08:59 PM

You don't need to call people ignorant. The facts will do. They are inconveniently obstinate at times. Eh, Don?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 08:30 PM

Well no one could accuse Don of being willfully ignorant. Its pretty damned obvious he can't help himself.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 07:25 PM

They receive money from the civil list for the upkeep of the publicly owned premises ror which they are caretakers, not owners.

And who, pray, do you suppose provides civil list money?

They pay in from the estates which they manage, far more than they receive.

So they should! Any owner of any business, estate or whatever has to pay tax. Are you suggesting that we should be grateful to the filthy-rich royals for doing what everyone else has to do - pay tax? And hey, I bet they have better accountants than you or I could ever afford to keep their tax bills down, Don!

Steve's comment re "pouring money over them" is simply the measure of his wilful ignorance.

Thirty-three million quid a year, Don. No questions asked, no time sheets required. I call that pouring, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 06:01 PM

@leveller: ~~ There there 2U2. Room in my ❤ 4 both -- & your prettypretty frillies, den!...

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 04:37 PM

""I've seen taxes spent on worse things than the House of Windsor.""

That's right, because there are no taxes being spent on the Royals per se.

They receive money from the civil list for the upkeep of the publicly owned premises ror which they are caretakers, not owners.

They pay in from the estates which they manage, far more than they receive.

Steve's comment re "pouring money over them" is simply the measure of his wilful ignorance.

The Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown Estates do not belong to the Royal Family, but are managed by them for the nation. They are in fact managed much better and more profitably than most business enterprises in this country.

The alternative is for the government to take over the management, or privatise them, and whichever party is in power that would be bloody disastrous.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 04:32 PM

Even though tiny in comparison, could royal titties be more succulent and lush than the not-so-royal varieties?

Science aside, we will never know for sure, which may be why many are drawn to the grainy-lens imiages of the dastardly, but resourceful and patient, paparazzi. Give 'em time and they will be snapping off from satellites.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 04:16 PM

"There·there - Kiss·kiss, Pussycat...
"

Now I feel slighted...and you wouldn't even glance ay my lovely pink frillies. Bet you would if I was a royal!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 04:07 PM

It seems so simple...don't want to be photographed in the nude...don't take off your clothes outside of your boudoir....that being said if they don't like the paparazzi both amateur and professional, let them sue. love, hg

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 03:36 PM

BTW, what the significance of the QED in Pussycat Shaw's response a couple of his posts ago? For consider ~~   He accused me of inebriation; I pointed out that I did not in fact drink alcohol at all: to which he responded "QED".

Either he doesn't know quite what 'QED' means, or his intellectual processes are more than somewhat anfractuous ~~ to vanishing point, indeed, it would appear.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 02:33 PM

"You're just like those bloody royals: you just love the attention."
.,,.
And you don't, eh Steve? You just go on the way you do because you sincerely believe the populace and commonweal will be benefited and enlightened thereby!

Oh, Mr Shaw, why, you are a ONE!...

Oh, come on. You know you're just a pussycat really...

There·there - Kiss·kiss, Pussycat...

X❤♥Michael♥❤X

Re your first injunction ~~ purely out of interest, what "funny thing" do you perceive yourself to have said about me?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 02:22 PM

Don't be such an arse and people won't say funny things about you. You're just like those bloody royals: you just love the attention.

I had a mate once who brewed home brew in his bath. Breakfast was two flat pints scooped out and a couple of fags. He never actually looked particularly well. I was banned from making home brew after I'd stored a five-gallon barrel on top of the wardrobe. Unknown to me, there was a pinprick hole in the side of the barrel which, when pressure built up, produced an aerosol that projected beer five feet into the bedroom. You only ruin an expensive pair of lined curtains that way once. I've sewn 'em back on now, and I'm not talking about the curtains.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:58 PM

But what are we to make of the fact that my suggestion, that Steve is perhaps not quite so much of a horrible rude mouthy mannerless charmless yobbo as he appears for some reason to wish us to believe, brings from him the response that such a speculation must indicate inebriation on my part?

I mean, I meantersay, eh what!

Come on, Steve: there must be some limits beyond which a wilfully contrary self-image can not be pushed?

~M~