|
|
Post by dom on Sept 14, 2012 16:47:50 GMT -5
I think it cheers people up reading about the so called glamorous life of these people.
|
|
|
|
Post by apple on Sept 14, 2012 17:27:37 GMT -5
I think it cheers people up reading about the so called glamorous life of these people. I think more so people want to read trash to make themselves feel better. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbel on Sept 15, 2012 4:37:52 GMT -5
I couldn't care less. Tell me why i should ? If you didn't want an answer why did you bother to ask the question? |
|
|
|
Post by starlight07 on Sept 17, 2012 10:20:57 GMT -5
Royal lawyers seek photos chargesLawyers for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have asked France's criminal prosecutors to consider charging the photographer who took topless photographs of the Duchess.
William and Kate appeared animated and relaxed as they toured a cultural village exhibition in Honiara, capital of the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific, and did not bat an eyelid when they came face to face with a group of topless dancers.
Their appearance came as St James's Palace confirmed that a criminal complaint over the photographs had been lodged on Monday morning, with a civil case seeking damages and an injunction preventing further publication due to be launched later in Paris.
"We can confirm that a criminal complaint has been made to the French prosecution department today," a spokeswoman for St James's Palace said. "The complaint concerns the taking of photographs of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge whilst on holiday and the publication of those photographs in breach of their privacy."news.uk.msn.com/uk/royal-lawyers-seek-photos-charges
|
|
|
|
Post by Forever Sunshine on Sept 17, 2012 10:36:25 GMT -5
You're a celebrity. Your pic is going to be taken. If you don't want topless pics of yourself out there, don't take your top off. Simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by starlight07 on Sept 18, 2012 0:55:27 GMT -5
Ruling expected on Kate photographsA French court is expected to later announce whether it will order a halt to further publication of topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge.
The Tribunal de Grande Instance in Nanterre, Paris, will rule on an injunction to prevent further use by Closer magazine of the photographs showing the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing on holiday in France.
The civil case is seeking 5,000 euro (£4,034) in damages and a ban on the French magazine - which is run by a different company from the British version - re-publishing the images.
Representing the royal couple, lawyer Aurelien Hamelle has also asked the court to fine Closer 10,000 euro (£8,070) a day for each day the injunction is not respected, and 100,000 (£80,720) if the photos are sold.
But lawyers representing Italian publishing group Mondadori, which owns France's Closer and is controlled by former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, told the court that the photos are not theirs to sell.news.uk.msn.com/uk/ruling-expected-on-kate-photographs
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbel on Sept 19, 2012 2:24:44 GMT -5
You're a celebrity. Your pic is going to be taken. If you don't want topless pics of yourself out there, don't take your top off. Simple.
To the people of this country, FS, they aren't 'celebrities', they are our Royal Family. William's mother, Diana, was harassed constantly by the paparazzi right up to the moment she died. They were in the tunnel, photographing her last living moments. That's why we find these photos such a disgusting invasion of privacy.
Add to that the fact that the Duchess of Cambridge was in a private villa, on a private holiday in an isolated part of France, and it adds a scary revulsion to the mix. No one, it seems, is safe from these scum and no-one has any right to privacy if their long-range camera lens can find you. |
|
|
|
Post by piropo2 on Sept 19, 2012 4:12:01 GMT -5
You're a celebrity. Your pic is going to be taken. If you don't want topless pics of yourself out there, don't take your top off. Simple. She is not a "celebrity" FS she is a member of our royal family, and one day her and William will be King and Queen of England, surely some respect is due to them?  |
|
|
|
Post by Forever Sunshine on Sept 19, 2012 6:57:53 GMT -5
Yikes! I am aware she is not a "celebrity" in the traditional terms of celebrity such as a movie star. However, she is a public figure and aware that the world is interested in her every movement. She loves the attention when it's all about her fashion sense. And what happened to William's Mother was a crime and despicable but should serve as a reminder to Kate what they're capable of.
Private villa or not is immaterial. What happened to William's Mother, as well as many celebrities, should remind Miss Kate she doesn't have privacy when she leaves the royal grounds. Were the papperazzi wrong? Without a doubt but so was she knowing all she should know and given the history of Diana and even the coverage that Harry gets.
If you don't want your tits or ass published, don't show them.
And it has nothing to do with respect. Sure they deserve it but it's also earned. Just because they're "next in line" for the dubious honor doesn't earn respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by starlight07 on Sept 19, 2012 10:11:04 GMT -5
I'd never take my top off in public.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbel on Sept 19, 2012 10:29:27 GMT -5
Private villa or not is immaterial. What happened to William's Mother, as well as many celebrities, should remind Miss Kate she doesn't have privacy when she leaves the royal grounds.
If you don't want your tits or ass published, don't show them.
The villa is owned by Viscount Linley, the Queen's nephew, and was chosen for solitude and privacy. Regardless of whether the Duchess was fully clothed or not, no-one has the right to take a photo with a long-distance lens, while she was enjoying a private holiday. Had she been on a public beach then it would be fair enough, but she wasn't anywhere like that.
I don't care who it is, or what it is, but Private should mean exactly that, and not to be photographed for sale by paparazzi. That means anyone and everyone who might be trying to enjoy a break in their own private time. If they're out in public...........OK, it's different.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackthelad on Sept 19, 2012 12:14:29 GMT -5
Yikes! I am aware she is not a "celebrity" in the traditional terms of celebrity such as a movie star. However, she is a public figure and aware that the world is interested in her every movement. She loves the attention when it's all about her fashion sense. And what happened to William's Mother was a crime and despicable but should serve as a reminder to Kate what they're capable of.
Private villa or not is immaterial. What happened to William's Mother, as well as many celebrities, should remind Miss Kate she doesn't have privacy when she leaves the royal grounds. Were the papperazzi wrong? Without a doubt but so was she knowing all she should know and given the history of Diana and even the coverage that Harry gets.
If you don't want your tits or ass published, don't show them.
And it has nothing to do with respect. Sure they deserve it but it's also earned. Just because they're "next in line" for the dubious honor doesn't earn respect. I have seen a lot of stupid posts, but this one above takes the biscuit. I suppose taking a shower, she will have to take it fully clothed, those paparazzi scum seem to be able to get in to places water can't. William and Kate are not next in line for the throne, it is his father, and there is nothing dubious about it either, but then, what can we expect from a Yank. William and Kate have earned their respect, and private and privacy means what it says, they were on private property well away from prying eye,(can't say anything about long range camera lenses though) and they should expect their privacy to be respected. Out on official duties is a different matter, they expect to be photographed, nothing they can do about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Forever Sunshine on Sept 19, 2012 12:37:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jackthelad on Sept 19, 2012 12:52:47 GMT -5
[/img] ;D Have a great day.[/size][/color][/font][/quote] Yes Sunshine we can agree to disagree, you don't think your post was stupid and i do, i don't think anyone can or will change that. ;D It is evening here, so have a great evening.  |
|
|
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Sept 19, 2012 13:50:33 GMT -5
I just don't get why people think they have a divine right to look at someone naked without their permission. If it were ordinary people and some creepo put a camera in a toilet or changing room they would be prosecuted. Why is this any different? Its not in the public interest and its certainly not an entitlement. |
|
|
|
Post by starlight07 on Sept 20, 2012 10:50:45 GMT -5
I never use the public toilets because
1. They are unhygienic.
and
2. They may be wired up with cameras.
|
|
|
|
Post by piropo2 on Sept 21, 2012 15:57:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dom on Sept 21, 2012 16:23:51 GMT -5
We seem okay with violence, but nudity we race to criticize and censor.
|
|
|
|
Post by fritz the cat on Sept 21, 2012 16:47:17 GMT -5
If the future of the monarchy was put to the vote they'd be history ;D
The only thing they have is a President, and lets face it a right shower they have all been since JFK
That should include JFK and the kennedy clan
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbel on Sept 21, 2012 16:50:45 GMT -5
We seem okay with violence, but nudity we race to criticize and censor.
I think you'll find most people abhor violence, especially those who live with it or live near it. Sadly we've allowed the Politically Correct and Do-gooders to analyse and find an excuse for those who commit the violence. Human Rights are only for criminals it seems, in the society we have permitted them to take over.
The point we've argued for on this thread is the invasion of
PRIVACY, not the nudity. |
|
© 2011 -- 
Crap, the Name Escapes Me 
