Kate Middleton topless photos: with camera phones and drone technology, soon no one w

A total non-story. The tiny knockers of kate Middleton. So what? I mean who cares really?
 
modchild said:
I personally think that the magazine has crossed the line of decency, but Kate has to share some of the responsibility as well. I don't think sunbathing topless is becomming of a future monarch's wife where she could possibly be photographed in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear an objective argument to explain why topless sunbathing is indecent. OH MY GOD SHE HAS BOOBS. Wow, I had no idea women had boobs! Amazing! What else do we have under our clothes? Gasp!

Honestly, the hysteria and attribution of moral value to the amount of someone's flesh that's on display is pathetic. I guess we have the absurdity of religion to thank for this remarkably stupid and pointless "moral transgression". Nudity should not be an issue in this day and age.
 
leftcurl said:
just a shame it wasn't Pippa's bum cheeks instead.. now THAT would be worth arguing the toss over :eek:
Click to expand...

If it was Pippa' bum then the lads mags would be fighting for the publishing rights!
 
Remove the fact that she was topless as that is distracting the point I think.

Does the argumnent for/against remain the same if she was fully clothed and had teh same photo taken?
 
Dave1 said:
You are tarring a lot of freelance (and even some agency) photographers with your very broad brush there....
Click to expand...

If the cap fits;)

Don't you think that it is a bit perverted to take half naked images of someone without their permission and then publish them for all to see in a magazine?
 
The only thing I would like to know is what focal length F Stop he was shooting at, those pictures are rubbish. Even I am a better long distance perv that he is.
 
andy700 said:
If the cap fits;)

Don't you think that it is a bit perverted to take half naked images of someone without their permission and then publish them for all to see in a magazine?
Click to expand...

This has got to be a wind up right?
 
crofter said:
He must have had some lens, she's not got a lot up top.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting someone is making a mountain out of two molehills?

Not that I've looked much but she seems adequately endowed to me.
 
Tirpitz said:
Did you not see the S on the back of the word Photographers I used earlier??

So you are OK with all phtographerS being branded as sex pests by the media because in just this one instance you decide that the guy must be a sex pest ?

Bit like the government knee jerk dangerous dogs act...
Click to expand...

Of course I saw the "s"; I learned to read and comprehend at a time when schools actually taught English as a language not an afterthought.

Did you understand my comment? The full saying goes "If the cap fits then wear it ... if it doesn't, then don't" - there's nothing there that tars everyone with the same brush. I thought folks here would be familiar enough with the saying not to have to type all of it. Sorry if my meaning wasn't clear :)

If it was just this one incident I could understand your angst but this is just the latest of a continuous stream of invasive intrusions published in the so-called "public interest". There is a real chance that once Levison publishes his enquiry results we will get a privacy law that will impact on all of us that like to take photographs for pleasure or business and this type of photo is exactly what will have brought us to that situation.
 
stu7397 said:
The only thing I would like to know is what focal length F Stop he was shooting at, those pictures are rubbish. Even I am a better long distance perv that he is.
Click to expand...

Huge long lens, 2x convertor and heavily cropped, at a guess, to get the image from a long distance away.

Edit: did anyone remember that big pictures documentary. They used 600mm lenses, 2 x convertors and rested it all on/under towels on a beach to get shots.
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
If the cap fits;)

Don't you think that it is a bit perverted to take half naked images of someone without their permission and then publish them for all to see in a magazine?
Click to expand...

So you disapprove of someone takings pics someone else without permission?

Now you've lumped street photographers into your list of perverts.
 
yes, if the street photographer is using a 600 lens and catching you in the shower through a window
 
andy700 said:
Don't you think that it is a bit perverted to take half naked images of someone without their permission and then publish them for all to see in a magazine?
Click to expand...

We could argue as to whether this constitutes an invasion of privacy, but perverted? No. There's nothing perverse about nudity. Nudity is perfectly natural.
 
Dave1 said:
Now you've lumped street photographers into your list of perverts.
Click to expand...


I'd would actually lump some of them perverse due to the way they work. perversion describes those types of human behavior that deviate from what is considered to be orthodox or normal.
 
onona said:
We could argue as to whether this constitutes an invasion of privacy, but perverted? No. There's nothing perverse about nudity. Nudity is perfectly natural.
Click to expand...

Yes but if you hide in a tree or bush with an 800mm lenes then that is wrong,also the people who buy these papers and magazines are also adding to the problem as far as i see just my view

Ian
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
Apparently they are suing the mag now anyway
Click to expand...

Yep, legal action has been launched they've said.

Closers reaction was:

Closer's editor said the couple were "visible from the street".

"These photos are not in the least shocking. They show a young woman sunbathing topless, like the millions of women you see on beaches," said Laurence Pieau.

She described the reaction as "a little disproportionate".
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see how it develops, I don't think personally I'd be entirely comfortable snapping the shots and selling them onto a magazine, even if it wasn't 'the royals'.
 
ttiwwop.gif
 
Bristolian said:
So, you're relaxing on the balcony of a house out in the country and the weather is kinda good so you decide to take your top off to sunbathe in the belief that your privacy is guaranteed by the law. Some low-life chancer gets lucky (in his eyes) and gets a photo of you which he then sells to a magazine, who subsequently publish it. At which point is this NOT an invasion of privacy? What does it matter who the subject is? Do famous people not have the same rights as everyone else? When on private property and away from the (normal) gaze of others outside of the property is it not right to expect that your privacy will be respected?

I despair at the "who cares" attitude expressed by some in this and the recent Harry thread. We should all care because this erosion of morals and respect effects us all as the trickle down will mean that eventually everyone will be fair game. If it was my wife in those pictures I'd hunt down the photographer responsible and gouge his eyes out so he couldn't do it anyone else ever again.

The Royal family have always been reluctant to instigate legal procedings in the past but I do hope they make an exception in this case just to make the point to others that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Unfortunately I suspect they won't and even if they did the fine that can be imposed on the magazine is paltry compared to the potential increase in sales this will bring them.

Society is going to hell in a hand basket :(
Click to expand...

Come on please the Royals are freeloaders who should have been Romanoved years ago!!!!
 
The way I see it is people wouldn't go to the effort of getting these kind of images if a significant number of the (not branded as peeping Toms) population weren't falling all over themselves to pay to see them in whatever trashy publications satisfy their cravings!

Surely the guy who took it was just supplying a demand?
 
I'm just glad it wasn't Camilla's baps that were papped...

I'm sure the Daily Wail will kick up a fuss and carry on showing all their intrusive celeb photos. I'm surprised they don't have hidden cameras in the Priory.

Get rid of all the tabloid papers and the moronic celeb magazines. Most of these celebs are oxygen thieves that do nothing of worth. They should not be worshipped. People on holiday isn't news.
 
Tirpitz said:
The way I see it is people wouldn't go to the effort of getting these kind of images if a significant number of the (not branded as peeping Toms) population weren't falling all over themselves to pay to see them in whatever trashy publications satisfy their cravings!

Surely the guy who took it was just supplying a demand?
Click to expand...

The same argument exists for the supply of herion, prostitutes and semtex.
 
Yes I often pop down to the newsagents for heroin & Semtex
 
Bristolian said:
So, you're relaxing on the balcony of a house out in the country and the weather is kinda good so you decide to take your top off to sunbathe in the belief that your privacy is guaranteed by the law. Some low-life chancer gets lucky (in his eyes) and gets a photo of you which he then sells to a magazine, who subsequently publish it. At which point is this NOT an invasion of privacy? What does it matter who the subject is? Do famous people not have the same rights as everyone else? When on private property and away from the (normal) gaze of others outside of the property is it not right to expect that your privacy will be respected?

I despair at the "who cares" attitude expressed by some in this and the recent Harry thread. We should all care because this erosion of morals and respect effects us all as the trickle down will mean that eventually everyone will be fair game. If it was my wife in those pictures I'd hunt down the photographer responsible and gouge his eyes out so he couldn't do it anyone else ever again.

The Royal family have always been reluctant to instigate legal procedings in the past but I do hope they make an exception in this case just to make the point to others that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Unfortunately I suspect they won't and even if they did the fine that can be imposed on the magazine is paltry compared to the potential increase in sales this will bring them.

Society is going to hell in a hand basket :(
Click to expand...
I agree its a total invasion of privacy,she was in a private residence on private ground and someone uses an ultra telephoto to get snaps.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
It would seem that some people on here would consider it reasonable to shove lenses through bathroom windows.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
So you disapprove of someone takings pics someone else half naked without permission?

Now you've lumped street photographers into your list of perverts.
Click to expand...

Just thought that I would amend that for you to accurately portray what I was saying.;)
Yes, I think that I would call them perverts, and if I found that someone was taking pictures of my OH using those methods, then I would suggest that they keep out of my way for their own safety.
 
Tirpitz said:
The way I see it is people wouldn't go to the effort of getting these kind of images if a significant number of the (not branded as peeping Toms) population weren't falling all over themselves to pay to see them in whatever trashy publications satisfy their cravings!

Surely the guy who took it was just supplying a demand?
Click to expand...

So, has it all come down to this:

You can do anything you like, invade people's privacy, offend them and hurt them, just because Joe Bloggs and his chavvy missus can look at some images in a magazine.
If you really think like that then I really would not like to share the same room as you.
 
I had to laugh at the news today, they had the editor of Closer UK Banging on about how wrong this was and people should have privacy, did she not realise that her mag does the same thing but with movie stars, what a hypocrite.

I'mI never sure how much the photos have been setup to bring attention to the person being shot, Diana was a dab hand at setting photo opps up, and then blaming the press for invasion
 
andy700 said:
So, has it all come down to this:

You can do anything you like, invade people's privacy, offend them and hurt them, just because Joe Bloggs and his chavvy missus can look at some images in a magazine.
If you really think like that then I really would not like to share the same room as you.
Click to expand...

Where in there did I say I approved?
I merely suggested that if there were no market for such an image then maybe whoever it was wouldn't have gone after it

Oh & apparently I snore really loudly so you probably wouldn't want to share a room no :)
 
Last edited:
Tirpitz said:
Where in there did I say I approved?
I merely suggested that if there were no market for such an image then maybe whoever it was wouldn't have gone after it

Oh & apparently I snore really loudly so you probably wouldn't want to share a room no :)
Click to expand...

And you don't think that the media create a market by pushing the boundaries and publishing what they would term "edgy" images?
 
andy700 said:
And you don't think that the media create a market by pushing the boundaries and publishing what they would term "edgy" images?
Click to expand...

Yes of course
That was my original point :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top