BS: More naked royals

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:59 AM

Ah, Steve, is it envy that consumes you or mere rancour?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:37 AM

It's absolutely disgusting that those depraved sex mad snail & frog munchers
think they can get away with this vile filthy outrage.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=40b_1347627859

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:24 AM

Hmm. I misspelled "paparazzi," I see. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:55 AM

The royal parasites enjoy wonderful exposure (not that kind) and publicity from the press. It is a crucial, if not the main, channel for their perpetuation. At times the sycophancy therein borders on the positively obsequious. It's amusing, therefore, to note that when the publicity is occasionally not exactly of the glorifying kind they want they squeal like little piggies. At least the pics of her knockers and his thrusting arse are true, unlike most of the overblown, aggrandising, arse-licking rubbish we read about them most of the time. Stuff such as how hard they work, the poor dears, how we need 'em to drag in the tourists, etc. etc.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:34 AM

Or, as they say in boxing "protect yourself at all times" :)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:33 AM

If you don't want pictures of your nippies (big or kinda small) in the public domain, cover 'em up.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 07:20 AM

"As for those pics of her norks, well they are of no interest to me whatsoever, which is just as well as a three-hour search of the net for them proved fruitless... ;-)"

Titter... :)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 07:18 AM

I've heard some rubbish this week about this. "Papparazzi killed Diana..." No they didn't. A drunk driver killed Diana and she had been stupid enough to get in a fast car with him. "They're going to sue the French magazine." Well, having a go at the froggies always goes down well with us Brits, innit. I note that Harry did not sue The Sun. Most of us who go on holiday have to make do with leaking shower hoses in the chalet and a pubic hair under the sunny-side-up in the B&B. They get to stay in the lap of unearned luxury, every desire pandered to, and all they have to worry about is not flashing their titties in public view (oh yeah, we have to do that as well!). It's also quite amusing to contemplate the fact that Kate was "on holiday" when her whole life's been one long holiday. Nary a productive day's work in sight...

As for those pics of her norks, well they are of no interest to me whatsoever, which is just as well as a three-hour search of the net for them proved fruitless... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 04:59 AM

the guy's a financial genius.

Show me another investment this week that has produced about five million quid from two threepenny bits......

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:02 AM

I used to work in various sectors of photography & media in London..

Most photographers I encountered were complete c@nts.

It's the ruthless hyper competitive nature of the beast.

They don't survive long, let alone succeed,
without being arse-licking back-stabbing self-obsessed sociopaths...

The whole business is based on aggressive exploitation of one form or another.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:52 AM

That something magical is called: "money"

As was said by people like Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan: "steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you a king" "steal a loaf of bread, and you're called a thief...steal an entire nation and you're called a conquering hero".

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:44 AM

there is somthin magical about the word papparazzi which makes the peeping toms semi legitimate and vitually invisible.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:36 AM

Well, it is a genuine crime, so I think yer right, frogprince. It ain't no different than bein' a peeping tom and lookin' at people through their windows after dark and takin' pictures of 'em. That is a crime, and people get arrested and jailed for doin' it, so why not arrest and jail journalists for doin' it too? And also arrest and jail their bosses who sent them out to do it. That would put the whole thing to a stop right quick.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:13 AM

I hate to say this, but "Chongo's" idea sounds just about right. But dead seriously, it's a shame that no on will face a little serious jail time for doing this to any woman. Should this be treated any differently, legally, than pulling off a woman's clothing in public without her consent?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 10:17 PM

What should be done is to take embarrassin' naked photos of all the editors and owners of the gossip magazines that hire the paparrazi, and put 'em up all over the Net...makin' sure to identify exactly who they are and which magazines they own or work for.

Or maybe just put 'em out on the street in the stocks naked for a day to teach 'em a lesson. Let them be gawked at for a change.

I might mention that my political enemies been tryin' to defame me for YEARS by photoshoppin' bogus photos of me supposedly in the nude at public beaches and stuff like that.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 09:00 PM

This electronic age is fine for communication but it opens up another can of worms. They are a young married couple just relaxing together in their own privacy and some shit has to do that. What a shame

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:36 PM

"... privately hired holiday suite..."

With a bunch of other nude folks who had cell phone cameras. He begged for something like that.

Kate thought she was alone ....

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnu
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:36 PM

The only slution is for the works of them to throw a naked bash and invite the papernazis. Have at it and get it over with.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 06:46 PM

How in Hell ANY 'celebrity' NOT engaging in any Illegal activity can be photographed in a NON public situation and have it dubbed "In the Public Interest" is beyond me .

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 05:06 PM

"Harry was a silly twit, playing round at a party. Kate was quietly sunbathing in what she thought was a quiet, private place....until some acrobatic papparazzi climbed up something to get a blurry image.....oooohhh, wow! Probably barely identifiable."

Ha! I thought Harry was papped (just like Kate) while nudey in his own privately hired holiday suite? I don't really see the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnu
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 05:05 PM

Is there NO law under which the publisher can be enjoined?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 03:26 PM

I am pretty republican in my sentiments. I have only read a bit about it in the German press. However, I wonder what kind of a creep can have so little self respect that he is willing to put himself out in order to take photos of a woman, who believes she is in private, naked - or near naked - so that he can sell them. The fact that it was a famous person makes it no less despicable than if he had been spying on your wife. It is contemptible behaviour in my book. The paparrazzi seem to be competing to find new lows to sink to.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 12:47 PM

Harry was a silly twit, playing round at a party. Kate was quietly sunbathing in what she thought was a quiet, private place....until some acrobatic papparazzi climbed up something to get a blurry image.....oooohhh, wow! Probably barely identifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 11:57 AM

it makes nipple difference to me.....

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 11:30 AM

The problem isn't so much the photos, it's the Single-Brain-Cell Knuckle-Dragging Dickheads who buy the shitty rags that publish them. What a bunch of morons.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:16 AM

If Harry And Kate and Wills get down and dirty, that's OK.

If Her Majesty the Queen does it, I don't want to look.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:04 AM

I note from the OP a bit about double standards?

I doubt either Royal was asking lowlife photographers to invade their privacy.

It is more a reflection on the purile inquisitiveness of human nature than an excuse to deride people for being posh, rich etc.

Although the latter seems to get more airtime on Mudcat British chippy buggers keyboards than that of being impressed by tits.

Even the tits whom wish to impress the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 05:04 AM

If I were to scrutinise anybody's nether undergarments, lev, you may rest assured they would not be yours.

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:47 AM

"Otherwise why get your knickers in such a twist about them?"

How do you know that I wear knickers? Have you been peeking?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:34 AM

I think art is the problem. I think artists paint women because its easier to paint the female front bottom than the male.

Has anyone ever depicted the male sex organs convincingly - from Michelangelo's David to Jim Dine - no one's ever done justice to the old meat and two Jersey Royals.

So the female form has become the stereotype of beauty.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:11 AM

I know which is prettier.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:09 AM

Obviously you do, leveller. Otherwise why get your knickers in such a twist about them?

〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:04 AM

The royal family has always been a complete bunch of tits and they've never been shy about exposing themselves in public. Anyway, who gives a shit?

Subject: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:00 AM

Fascinating how differently people have responded to this story and the double standards being applied.

Harry was a jerk, a stupid idiot, his nakedness was damaging to the royals, he should learn to behave!
On the other hand no-body is horrified by Kate's semi-nudity, instead it's the terrible behaviour of French tabloids being commented upon.

I wonder why we have such different attitudes about how and where rich and priviliged people get their kecks off?