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.

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~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:55 PM

Sod the co9rkscrew - for economic reasons I now brew ny own vino, five gallons at a time. It never reached the bottling point!

And here, my friend, is The Levellers' toast from an old woodcut of the tim):

"No way to the old way!"

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:40 PM

If there is one thing that those who know me, or of me, know of my habits, it is that I do not drink vino, or indeed any form of alcohol, at all, and have not done so for over 10 years ~~ at Sunday lunchtime or any other time.

QED.

The sun's below the yardarm. Corkscrew, where art thou...

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 11:31 AM

As to the royals role in charities, and yes that is good.

But, is it not much different and much the same role as some other rich folk and celebrities take? I suspect if they were not there, the role would be filled by others in the spotlight.

Some celebrities do it for genuine concern (for example Willie Nelson, Bono, and the Ex Mrs Paul McCarthy), and I suspect some do it it increase their popularity. Save the wildlife, feed the kids, ban land mines, help the farmer, respect history, all good causes with celebrity and rich folk support to increase visibility...good stuff.

But, don't expect the royals to "speak out" on highly controversial topics, those that are in dire need of public attention.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 11:04 AM

Just to be clear, I am not anti-royal, and it does not matter to me if history has decided if any country has them or does not have 'em.

To me, they are merely a remnent of a feudal past, and only "window dressing" when it comes to holding any actual political power. I expect if they tried to influence politics (which I suspect they are comfortable in not doing so) they would be quickly "stomped down" (no, not beheaded in current times).

As to their purpose? "Window dressing" does not need to have a purpose beyond just that,nothing outside of being pleasing to the eye. And, it is not abnormal for there to be a difference in viewpoints on what is "fine looking" window dressing and what does not look that good.

I don't envy their money or celebrity status and feel it is no more significant than the same status given sports, music or movie stars. If they have the dollars, let them do whatever they want with it. But, I do not feel that as celebrities they should expact any more privacy than any other in the same category. When it happens, why should any celebrity whine? In some cases, as SS suggests, any coverage can improve popularity, and the public's view of their significance.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 10:47 AM

"When I was that age, I would have done the same thing."

And, who cares what you would'a done or what Harry (or any other Royal) does? I don't.

The point is, why make a big deal about it if you get captured on camera, when (like it or not) you know there are always folks out there trying to make a dollar from selling a picture of your celebrity status. It goes with the territory of all celebrities. In Harry's case, I dont believe it was the paparrazi who shot the Harry photos?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: olddude
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 10:22 AM

Well being from America I don't really have any views of Royals or anything else. But it seems to me their Charity efforts are pretty amazing (or am I just reading what people want me to read) Seems like Princess Dia really did great charity work and elevated the Nation. I suspect Kate will and does also but like I said I dunno.

But I still think a young married couple has the right to play around without half mile away camera's trying to capture their bits.

Now Harry, well he is a 20 something single soldier. Good for him. He was having fun, who cares. When I was that age, I would have done the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 10:06 AM

If there is one thing that those who know me, or of me, know of my habits, it is that I do not drink vino, or indeed any form of alcohol, at all, and have not done so for over 10 years ~~ at Sunday lunchtime or any other time.

Ah ~~ begod!

xxxxx

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 09:28 AM

I'm an atheist, and a neutral about royalty. But I am not aware of any great eliciting of blood or thunder on these particular counts. Could it be that SS attracts these, not because of his views, but because of the truculent charmless aggressiveness with which he always appears to see fit to express them? Why can you never attempt a modicum of civility, SS, or a mild moderation in what you say? You have the knack of coming over as if a kick in the cods and a bloody nose are the least you would like to give anybody who chances to think differently from you. I have no doubt that, in private life, you are quite a different persona, held in love and affection by family and friends, whom you treat with equal affection and regard and consideration in return. Why can it never appear thus on this forum, I wonder?

Affable greetings

~M~

Begod, that vat of Sunday lunchtime vino appears to disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 09:20 AM

Well I do believe that I have represented myself on this thread with considerable, calm, decorum and reasonable civility (I called chongo very very silly, admittedly, but only because he called me very silly for nothing and said something very very silly himself, but I'm not bitter). 'Tis the lot of any atheist or anti-royalist to have to put up with this flak if they ever express their views in a direct manner, which is what I seem to have done on this thread. Chongo has again said something very very silly indeed (and I'm not even sure who he's supposed to be addressing), but I won't say anything nasty to him except to request that he looks up "prejudice" in a dictionary. To his utter amazement, he will find that it does not mean "disagreement with me."

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 08:40 AM

What you got is broad prejudices! ;-D And narrow minds. Ook! Ook! Yer always lookin' for a fight with someone, but seem peeved when ya find one, and that don't make logical sense unless yer some kinda masochist.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 06:41 AM

"Hey, and it's tough being anti-royal. It's the same as being an atheist. Down rains the blood and thunder! :-)"

Yes, but we've broad shoulders - and even broader minds.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 06:40 AM

I'm an atheist, and a neutral about royalty. But I am not aware of any great eliciting of blood or thunder on these particular counts. Could it be that SS attracts these, not because of his views, but because of the truculent charmless aggressiveness with which he always appears to see fit to express them? Why can you never attempt a modicum of civility, SS, or a mild moderation in what you say? You have the knack of coming over as if a kick in the cods and a bloody nose are the least you would like to give anybody who chances to think differently from you. I have no doubt that, in private life, you are quite a different persona, held in love and affection by family and friends, whom you treat with equal affection and regard and consideration in return. Why can it never appear thus on this forum, I wonder?

Affable greetings

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 05:58 AM

That's it, Ed. They know they'll be snapped. They want to be snapped! They know it's good for 'em! Even Harry's getting over that pic of him giving a girl a standing-up one from behind. All the commentary about that by now is sympathetic to the poor lad. With the royals there is virtually no such thing as bad publicity!

Hey, and it's tough being anti-royal. It's the same as being an atheist. Down rains the blood and thunder! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: alanabit
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 04:57 AM

I dislike the institution of royalty as much as anyone else here. I am just not able to work up as much spite towards them personally as some people have developed. Removing basic human rights from anyone is ultimately extremely dangerous - not least of all to onself.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:06 PM

Is it really new and unexpected?


""In 1994, a photograph of the naked Prince of Wales, on holiday at a friend's chateau near Avignon, was published in Paris Match and the German paper Bild. It showed Charles standing at a window of his room after going swimming with only a white towelling robe thrown over his shoulder. The prince had spent time at the chateau every summer and been pictured through the same window four years earlier by a platoon of paparazzi who had their long lenses trained on him from a nearby olive grove."" Daily Mail Online

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 10:55 PM

Anyone seen "nakie" pictures of Camilla, 'cept Charlie?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 10:40 PM

You Americans are fond of dry goods....rumour has it

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:32 PM

The one coming...

Lizzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:30 PM

You mean last January...or January comin'?

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:23 PM

Just wait until you get a look at Miss January, Chongz...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:19 PM

Trouble is, Bobertz, the muddy trails that pass for "streets" in yer neck o' the woods never got useful word out about nothin'...except the whereabouts of the revenooers! ;-D

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:15 PM

Glad that I ain't paying taxes that go to the royals...

BTW, word on the street is that Liz is in negotiating with Playboy...

No???

B:~)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Beer
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:10 PM

Late arriving at this thread and stopped reading where Little Hawk spoke about Dylan and Woody etc.
Well said by the way.

I'll be honest and to the point. 100% of men like looking at breast. But not this way. Where is the morality today. The word means nothing I guess. I would love to see Kate's breast. But what are my chances of me seeing them. Bottom line is I should never see them. Anyone here contributing to this thread who are married or whatever agree with their love mate being exposed like this stand up. I am nothing to Kate or William but i would never want my privacy invaded like their's were.
I hope they fry the bastards. unlikely I suppose.
ad.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:38 PM

I'm not a Royalist either, Steve. I'm just having a little fun baiting you over your vehement anti-royalist sentiments. I can see reasonable arguments either for or against having a royal family, and I am living in part of the former empire...Canada...and the Queen is still technically our symbolic head of state and is on our coins, etc, but that doesn't worry me. I've seen taxes spent on worse things than the House of Windsor. I'm neither for her nor against her, and I don't particulary mind about her inlaws either. It's not something I intend to get my knickers in a twist over, to use another popular English expression.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:28 PM

Yeah well chimpie, yer a very very very silly monkey yerself. If you ain't got no regard for dem royals, don't get involved is my advice. And yeah, dem paparazzi are the scum of the earth. They do a useless or worse job of work wot contributes nowt to the general well-being of this great nation of ours. A bit like bankers, hedge-fund managers, landlords, accountants, Wayne Rooney, Brucie effin' Forsyth, people who run aerodromes, people who build wind turbines all over Cornwall, gentleman farmers, ATOS "medical professionals", Prince Philip, any archbishop you care to name, actors in Casualty, people who make Mr Whippy, Tory press officers, Jimmy Carr and that bastard who ripped me off over my car servicing. There are loads of people in the kind of employment that you and I would regard as less than gainful.

Aw shit. Mr Whippy ain't all bad...

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:05 PM

Steve, yer a very silly man who is doin' what he accuses others of...engagin' in a tired knee-jerk reaction, cos I ain't a royalist. Not even slightly. I got very little interest in the Royals. I just think the paparazzi are a buncha pestiferous, ammoral scum who act like jerks, that's all. I am neutral about the Royals. I ain't for 'em and and I ain't against 'em.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 07:55 PM

Heheh. Or is it all a storm in a B cup?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 06:25 PM

For what we're paying the Royals, it's only fair that we get to see their tits and willies.

And it doesn't look like our future Queen's knockers are worth the public investment. Surely there's a civil servant whose job it is to ensure that presumptive Royal boobs are at least a C cup?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 05:57 PM

And there's nothing particularly "devious" about getting a long-focus lens, pointing it and pressing the shutter. You point and you shoot. You eat yer butties and go home for your tea. They can't see in the dark or round corners, you know. The really devious thing would be for the royalty to stop getting their norks/meat 'n' two veg/front botties/bumbums out in places where they have panoramic views of the countryside, innit! We can see them, so they can see us! Doesn't take much intelligence, but there you go...

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 05:55 PM

I suspect she also "flashed" their body guards, who likely had a closer view?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 05:40 PM

Well, alanabit, you don't seem to comprehend that the royals, who you so valiantly defend, actually want this stuff to happen. That's the whole point. Harry shat slightly in his/their own bed, of course, in the particular manner of his exposing himself to the public eye, but, generally speaking, this media exposure of tits-out royal bimbos does them all nothing but good. And they don't give a flying shite about your, my or anybody else's "human rights." They prefer stags and grice and pheasants to you and me any day, old boy. If you don't believe me, try trespassing on their shootin' lands (ours, actually) and see what happens! I tried it once and shots were fired over my bloody head! I repeat. Look at the way they treated The People's Princess, and learn!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: alanabit
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 03:32 PM

The point is Steve that the paparazzi scum got those photos through devious means with no consent whatsoever. I just happen to believe that although I do not particularly like the Royal Family, they are entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 03:27 PM

Well, alanabit, as I recall no-one broke into anyone else's house to take those pics. If someone broke into my house with the specific aim of taking pics of me/mother/sis/missus/girlfriend (shhh...), I fear they would not obtain much of a marketable product. They did it not by breaking in but with that piece of kit which is all too well understood by the royals: the telephoto lens! Actually, I'm filmed walking down just about every town street these days, and I heard last week that one school near me is putting CCTV in the kids' bogs. Hey, where's the outrage there then?? One law for them...?

As for you, chongo chimpie, and little hawk I imagine, well done for indulging in that well-known, tired knee-jerk reaction common to all royalists when they hear criticism of their darling heroes: the critic is simply jealous! Not principled or imbued with any sense of fairness - just plain jealous! Ha bloody ha.

And, with this: Can't imagine why she took off her clothes completely while outside. The royals know full well there are extremely good telephoto lenses, and that any media photographer could get shots of her. Well said, Eliza. Of course they know, and of course they know they'll be snapped. They want to be snapped! They know that all the ensuing fuss will only enhance their standing in the eyes of the more gullible section of the public. Oh yes, royalists: your heroes are not only money-sponges, they are also among the most nasty, cynical and manipulative people on the planet. You clearly learned nothing from the disgraceful way they treated the People's Princess!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:32 PM

For one's own satisfaction?

Maybe it's similar to men liking to pee outdoors or something...that feeling of unfettered freedom.

Just think, if we hadn't all been taught the social custom of covering up those "bits" in the first place, no one would give a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:16 PM

Can't imagine why she took off her clothes completely while outside. The royals know full well there are extremely good telephoto lenses, and that any media photographer could get shots of her. It's not as if she was inside a house. I've travelled the world when younger and sunbathed on many beaches, but never felt the need to go topless. It's enough IMO to wear a small bikini, why tan the bits nobody sees?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:08 PM

In a country where they chopped the king and queen's head off, I can't see the courts getting worked up at nipplegate.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:19 PM

For obscure reasons this discussion of "naked royals" reminds of this fine song by Neil Downey:

Composed by Neil Downey ©

The Main Royal Yard

As I walked out one morning down by the Boston Docks
I met a pretty young Judy there and after a line of talk
She throws her arms around me waist and says, "Me jolly tar,
How I'd like to see your lofty ship and her main royal yard!"

Her main royal yard, her main royal yard!
How I'd like to see your lofty ship and her main royal yard!

Says I to myself such a strange request has never been put to me;
What interest would this Judy have in a ship that sails the sea,
Exceptin' for me six months pay for which I've worked so hard,
And what's this silly fascination with the main royal?

With the main royal yard, with the main royal yard!
And what's this silly fascination with the main royal yard!

So as we walked aboard the ship the watch he winks at me,
"Are you sick of the shore so soon, me lad, are you lookin' to go to sea?"
"To sea your ass," says I with a grin. "But don't be laughin' too hard
For this lassie is wantin' to climb aloft to the main royal yard."

To the main royal yard, to the main royal yard!
For this lassie is wantin' to climb aloft to the main royal yard!

So it's off with her petty coats one by one and her velvet slippers too;
Then up aloft as sure as hell exposing a lovely view;
And soon she's up to royal shrouds as soon as any tar,
And a prettier sailor I never did see on the main royal yard.

On the main royal yard, on the main royal yard!
And a prettier sailor I never did see on the main royal yard!

Says I to myself I must be daft to allow such a thing to be
When all of a sudden this lassie aloft starts spitting down at me;
She give to me a saucy wink, likewise a saucy nod,
And she hollers, "Now, Jack, come frolic with me on the main royal yard."

On the main royal yard, on the main royal yard!
And she hollers, "Now, Jack, come frolic with me on the main royal yard!"

Now the moon was so romantic a-shining on the bay,
And the wind was blowing east-nor'-east as she let me have me way;
Soon we'll have a little baby and he'll be a jolly tar,
For you know he was conceived up on the main royal yard.

On the main royal yard, on the main royal yard!
For you know he was conceived up on the main royal yard!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:05 PM

""a need that don't necessarily benefit society""

If if there were such a fine-tuned definition of "what actually benefits (the global) society", I suspect many would be without a job and on the street?

People wiew the stuff, buy the trashy papers and products that advertise in them, money is made, people are employed and paid (aka jobs)- (elementary Watson). That is what turns the wheels of our current economy, regardless of what your personal life choices are made up of (how you spend your time and loot), Chongo-bird.;)

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

Geez, Steve, I can see yer really peeved over this. ;-D How about we petition the monarchy to adopt you so you can get these things that you presently can only dream about? Think of it! You could get chauffered around in stretch limos, camp out on the Riviera, stay at French villas, own big yachts...what are we waitin' for?

Let's start an online campaign now and give you the life you've always deserved.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: alanabit
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:00 PM

So it's Okay Steve if I break into your house to take intimate photographs of your wife, mother, sister, girlfriend etc to sell them to newspapers is it? Little as I like the royals, I feel I owe a little basic respect and decorum to any human being. I would have been just as angry about this - possibly even more so - had it happened to the woman who serves me baguettes in the canteen at work.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:47 PM

is it :-(

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:47 PM

The royal family have been cashing in, in terms of enhancing their somewhat raggity image, on Kate's legs, arse, titties and charming fizzog for a good while now. It certainly isn't her brain-power that's been flaunted in front of us, has it? Just like they cynically did, and failed, with Diana. Watch that space, eh? She's hardly been kept under wraps. Naturally, the media have been complicit in this. It's frankly laughable to watch the royals squirm just because some obscure French society mag or whatever it is fails to play their game for them. Tuff titty, Kate!

As for the paparazzi being the real parasites, well they go out to work, they get paid their wages and go home for their tea. The royals, on the other hand, get our money poured all over them to do whatever they like with. Like staying in some French country mansion that most of us who pay for them to do it can only dream about.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:11 PM

Bein' a hit man for the Mob serves a need too, Ed, but it's a need that don't necessarily benefit society if ya see what I mean. So is it a legitimate job? Hey, c'mon...there's money in it, right? ;-D How could it not be legitimate if there's money in it?

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:06 PM

I suspect there is some "choice" (if not strategy) involved in crossing the line from just being a royal to becoming a celebrity. Some royals seek this status, maybe as an attempt to increase the popularity and thus the usefullness of the post?

I doubt that there would be much public interest in naked pictures of a royal, that are not considered celebraties. No interest, no photos, no paparrazi.

IMO, the lawsuit (another country and public air space) seems like a long-shot.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:49 AM

""So rather than envy them for their elevated position in life, we might count our blessings that it has happened to them and not us.""

I would be surprised if many on here actually envy the royals?

""...is taking surreptitious photos of people who think they are in private a legitimate "job"?""

If there is money in it (feeds some need) , someone will do it and that "makes it their job". All jobs that serve a need are legitimate, though many have more prerstige in some societies than others. Whether some, or even many, hold the profession in high regard or not (their perspective) seems (IMO)irrelevant to whether it is a job or not?.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:44 AM

I hope the civil lawsuit bankrupts the French newspaper. Hit them where it hurts.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:30 AM

Well, yeah, Ed...I think they do live with it, and they probably do attempt to adjust their lives accordingly. But they're not perfect. Nobody is.

I'm just saying that we're probably lucky not to have to deal with the stuff the really famous in this world have to put up with all the time. So rather than envy them for their elevated position in life, we might count our blessings that it has happened to them and not us.

Once you are there it's almost impossible to escape.

****

On the other tack: is taking surreptitious photos of people who think they are in private a legitimate "job"? I don't think so, I think it's the same thing as being a peeping tom, even if you are getting paid to do it. Matter of fact, I think it's worse when you're getting paid to do it, because it's a far more cold-blooded and calculated act than the act of someone who just cannot control his own prurient desires.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:20 AM

Ummmm????

I suspect dealing with the paparrazi "sneaking around and taking semi-nude photos of with telefoto lenses" is a known part of "the package" of this fate (or chosing to be part of it, aka Kate). They should live with it and adjust their behavour accordingly. It is hardly a surprise to anyone, and shouldn't be for these folks..

So, logic (common, not commoner, sense) says these folk should adjust their lifestyles to deal with it, exercise caution, or take a bit of responsibility for the results, (in which they play a part).

Making a big deal about it fuels the public interest,and IMO just makes them look silly, rather than special. As if a naked Royal body, exposed to the public, is not in "the public domain" for the picture takers, as with other human bodies. Maybe some say it is bad taste, but that also is part of life, for royals or not-so royals.

If my daughter got caught, I would have a talking to her and question her wisdom, not attack the photographer - who, like it or not, is just doing their job taking pictures that many people will (go out of their way to) look at.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:04 AM

Unlike pop stars, famous politicians, and people like Donald Trump or Paris Hilton, the Royals did not choose their fate in life, Steve...they were born into it...though I suppose you could argue that someone who marries a Royal chose her fate. On the other hand, why shouldn't she marry a Royal if she wants to? Someone has to, after all! ;-) So why not Kate Middleton?

My point being: why despise these people and indulge in slagging them because they happen to have been landed by fate in a different position in life than yours? What if YOU had been born in the Royal line? How would you have gone about escaping your rare and unusual fate if you had? Would you have felt consumed with guilt over being a social "parasite"? Would you have run away and joined Al Qaeda, perhaps? Or become a member of the Red Brigades?

You'd obviously like to see the Monarchy abolished. Well, fine, I'm sure the world wouldn't stop turning if it was, and no one is obliged to like the Monarchy...but why all this personal venom toward the individuals who were born into that situation or who married into it? They're just doing the job they were handed by fate, and I wouldn't exactly call it an easy one, because they don't have the luxury most of us do...the sheer joy of our anonymity! The world won't leave them alone. That could be a real pain to have to deal with, and I don't envy them for it. I'd hate to be stuck with a job like that, even if I did get to live in mansions and palaces.

On the other hand, you have these paparrazi, people employed in a crass and exploitive profession, people so well described above as "arse-licking back-stabbing self-obsessed sociopaths..."

Those people are the real parasites, Steve. They live merely to spread rumour and gossip, one of the nastiest things a person can possibly do. They live to embarrass and destroy other people in order to enrich themselves and their employers. They don't do it out of any sense of social service, they do it for their own personal gain. They're like vampires.

If it was your wife or daughter they were sneaking around and taking semi-nude photos of with telefoto lenses, you wouldn't like it one bit. But you're not famous enough, so they probably can't be bothered. Be glad of it.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 10:12 AM

Yes, I was curious. So, I took a quick look at the above link. My assessment - Clearly not my "cup of tea". Fortunately, we don't all have the same taste in women - not that my opinion matters much to any royal, real or fake.

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?