mmhmm
Not so new Crapster
Posts: 220
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 3, 2012 2:07:05 GMT -5
This was just plain sad, and totally wrong on the part of the paparazzo with the freakin' camera! If the young woman had removed her clothing on a public beach, it would be a completely different story. In this case, she was not in public. She was at a private residence enjoying a relaxing day by the pool, as many of us might do. The fact that she is a well-known person doesn't give some jerk the right to weasel through the bushes looking for something sensational to photograph, to the detriment of a young woman who has done him no harm. He ought to be flogged!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2012 5:59:00 GMT -5
Ehh? She took her top off and got photographed? Oh well, it is all part of being a Royal. She should have figured there is a camera lurking pretty much everywhere. She should just shrug her shouldlers, laugh and act like it is no big deal and move on.
|
|
|
Post by zen on Oct 3, 2012 6:31:00 GMT -5
He ought to be flogged!
That statement alone says more about you,Mhmmm, than anything else.
|
|
bach
Not so new Crapster
%%Calm%%
Posts: 121
|
Post by bach on Oct 9, 2012 4:33:46 GMT -5
I agree totally mmhmm. Kate was on private property, on holiday not on public duties, and a long, LONG way away from the road. She should have had an expectation of privacy - royal or not - under those circumstances, particularly in a country with such a strong privacy laws.
The fact that Silvio Berlusconi owns two of the gutter publications which printed the photos is not surprising.
|
|