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

If I was Kate Middleton I would get a German soldier tattooed on each boob.

No chance of the French shooting them then.
 
Coincidentally, her name is an anagram of Naked Tit Model.
 
Beaten by Nick as I was typing!

...Not in that way!
 
Last edited:
The magazine are trying to defend themselves by saying the major issue here should be with the security of the royals, ie. being accessible from a main road by any Tom, dick or harry. To be fair, they have a point.
 
leftcurl said:
The magazine are trying to defend themselves by saying the major issue here should be with the security of the royals, ie. being accessible from a main road by any Tom, dick or harry. To be fair, they have a point.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so they were just proving the fact that the Royals could be easily "sniped" and it wasn't so that they could sell millions of copies of their magazine :lol:
 
Sonriendo said:
Ahhh, so they were just proving the fact that the Royals could be easily "sniped" and it wasn't so that they could sell millions of copies of their magazine :lol:
Click to expand...

You got it :thumbs:

No, I don't agree with what they did, I was just saying that they have a point.
 
Bristolian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
Before all the paps' and news togs clamber on, this type of shot is no different to when shooting a wedding reception speech and the the speaker/listeners break down in tears because of the absence of a loved one, you just don't do it.

The only reason to shoot this type of shot (topless type) is pure greed, it does not benefit anyone apart from the magazine/photographer.

I know news photographer have a job to do but this is far from news. It is now news because the mag are claiming it shows a lack of security, utter nonsense.
 
I don't know why the magazine is called Closer, the camera couldn't have been much further away.
 
tiler65 said:
Before all the paps' and news togs clamber on, this type of shot is no different to when shooting a wedding reception speech and the the speaker/listeners break down in tears because of the absence of a loved one, you just don't do it.

The only reason to shoot this type of shot (topless type) is pure greed, it does not benefit anyone apart from the magazine/photographer.

I know news photographer have a job to do but this is far from news. It is now news because the mag are claiming it shows a lack of security, utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

:clap:Well said.
 
The magazine is partly owned by Marina Berlusconi the daughter of former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, and now they are saying that the images will be published in Italy. The French and Italians absolutely detest our Royal family and would do anything to try to discredit them.

I am not even a royalist, but this kind of thing just highlights what the rest of Europe thinks of us.
 
The entire business is getting media coverage infinitely beyond it's merit. All sense of proportion has been lost.
News has come through of yet another young soldier killed in Afghanistan. It barely got a 5 second reading slot on the news.
 
arclight said:
The entire business is getting media coverage infinitely beyond it's merit. All sense of proportion has been lost.
News has come through of yet another young soldier killed in Afghanistan. It barely got a 5 second reading slot on the news.
Click to expand...

Dont you know sir,its the royals damm it theses young men i supose to die for queen & country,but showing the furture queen boobs thats not on old chap,its need all the headline it can get.


But anit that just the truth :( :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:
simonblue said:
But anit that just the truth :( :cuckoo:
Click to expand...


Not really.

Personally I hope that Closer gets its arse thoroughly kicked in the French courts.
 
simonblue said:
Dont you know sir,its the royals damm it theses young men i supose to die for queen & country,but showing the furture queen boobs thats not on old chap,its need all the headline it can get.


But anit that just the truth :( :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Sure is ............... :thumbs:
 
Tirpitz said:
Yes I often pop down to the newsagents for heroin & Semtex
Click to expand...
Hospitals use Heroin fairly frequently - it's the original trade name for diamorphine, an extremely effective pain reliever.

treeman said:
So according to the Daily Mail article the images were shot from a public road, without questioning any morals, doesn't that make it perfectly legal?
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that French privacy laws prohibit shooting into private property even from the road

NickD said:
Coincidentally, her name is an anagram of Naked Tit Model.
Click to expand...
Nearly wet myself when I read that, sincere thanks!


Now my opinions...

Not sure how much Catherine W really cares, apart from the fact that she's supporting her husband but HE must have such horrible memories of his mother's problems with the press that he wants blood.

Not seen the pictures but after all, she's quite a pretty girl and I should think she has nothing to be ashamed of when she's topless.
 
Latest reports are claiming the pictures were taken "from nearly a mile away"?

Really?

The expectation of privacy, broken by someone with a camera from nearly a mile away, should still apply.

If she is in what she believed to be a private place and is snooped upon in this arms length manner, it is worthy of discussion on all levels.

I hope the photographer is prosecuted in the French courts - he knew he was invading her privacy and was motivated by pure greed.

In some of the shots she is nearly naked, with her bikini bottom pulled down as sun cream is being applied to her back with her back to the camera.

This is a purely private, in every sense of the word, moment between two young people, who thought they were in a private location.

These shots are not in the public interest - they are a gross invasion of privacy.

The photographer should be ashamed of himself - the gutter press at its absolute worst.
 
Last edited:
I must be doing something wrong, I googled "royal tits photo" and all I got was a pic of Charles, Andrew and Edward :shrug: :lol:
 
rhody said:
Latest reports are claiming the pictures were taken "from nearly a mile away"?

Really?

The expectation of privacy, broken by someone with a camera from nearly a mile away, should still apply.

If she is in what she believed to be a private place and is snooped upon in this arms length manner, it is worthy of discussion on all levels.

I hope the photographer is prosecuted in the French courts - he knew he was invading her privacy and was motivated by pure greed.

In some of the shots she is nearly naked, with her bikini bottom pulled down as sun cream is being applied to her back with her back to the camera.

This is a purely private, in every sense of the word, moment between two young people, who thought they were in a private location.

These shots are not in the public interest - they are a gross invasion of privacy.

The photographer should be ashamed of himself - the gutter press at its absolute worst.
Click to expand...

For someone that appears appalled by the photos, you appear to have studied them in detail!
 
tiler65 said:
Before all the paps' and news togs clamber on, this type of shot is no different to when shooting a wedding reception speech and the the speaker/listeners break down in tears because of the absence of a loved one, you just don't do it.

The only reason to shoot this type of shot (topless type) is pure greed, it does not benefit anyone apart from the magazine/photographer.

I know news photographer have a job to do but this is far from news. It is now news because the mag are claiming it shows a lack of security, utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

:agree:
I know others have said similar, and I agree with them.
It's gutter press at it's worst, fuelled by a 'celebrity' and 'trashy mag' culture.
The likes of OK, Hello, Closer etc....and I never fail to remind my wife where he money goes on the very rare occasion she buys them.

It's not news at all.
 
I've kept quite for now, but personally I think that it's disgusting and a complete and utter invasion of privicy, no one no matter who they are even Royals should have to worry about what they do in a private residence, and who ever the photographer is that shot this is clearly an individual who is completely devoid of morality, anything for a quick buck, on the same lines it's legal so it must be okay, and to be honest I think that it's questionable if it's legal at what point does something become stalking, personally I'd ban the person that took this from every holding a camera again, and I don't care if that causes me to suffer the haitred of the Press guys on here, look at it this way, how would you feel about this story if Katherine were your Daughter, Sister or Wife, I know I'd be tracking down who ever too the shot and carrying out a proctological exam with the wide end of there 800mm....

Matt
 
Sorry but it's all down to supply and demand, if people all weren't so Ficking nosy now days there would be no demand and as such no point taking the pictures, everyone kicking off about it is only adding fuel to the fire keeping it in the press and mags which they (mags/papers) love as they will just sell more.

Tbh who really cares she must have done it 100s of times before with her mates I sure somewhere she is in the back ground of someone's picture on a beach with her baps out, or her mates have pics of her etc really why does everyone care so much.

really future queen with baps out is head line news PLEASE give it a rest and me a break there are FAR more important news worthy stories but hey like I said people would rather be nosy and 'outraged' about a photographer taking a pic than the 100s of innocents killed daily.

Celeb culture for you...
 
stormienam said:
Sorry but it's all down to supply and demand, if people all weren't so Ficking nosy now days there would be no demand and as such no point taking the pictures, everyone kicking off about it is only adding fuel to the fire keeping it in the press and mags which they (mags/papers) love as they will just sell more.

Tbh who really cares she must have done it 100s of times before with her mates I sure somewhere she is in the back ground of someone's picture on a beach with her baps out, or her mates have pics of her etc really why does everyone care so much.

really future queen with baps out is head line news PLEASE give it a rest and me a break there are FAR more important news worthy stories but hey like I said people would rather be nosy and 'outraged' about a photographer taking a pic than the 100s of innocents killed daily.

Celeb culture for you...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but there is demand for it so that makes it okay to supply it, in that case of and tell all the drug dealers oh it's okay there is a demand for it so we will turn a blind eye to you supplying it, or it's okay mr bar owners it's okay there is a demand for you to supply under age customers with alcohol as there is demand, or let people get so drunk they die, but it's okay they were demanding it so that's okay, what a cop out of an argument if ever I saw one, the only demand is on the part of the photographer and the publisher, if they didn't take the photo and then publish it there would have been no demand for it because it wouldn't have existed....the demand is there to exploit people in order to line there own pockets and people have been brain washed to think that they must see it....
 
There's no public interest in seeing anyones breasts.....Jesus, they're just breasts.
 
Sorry mate your talking rubbish illegal demand obviously no come now let's not get to high on the soap box here, the photographer did nothing illegal as he was on a public highway.
 
Also if there was no demand for it than anyone one other than the photographer and publisher then why have magazine sales for the mag blown up? Hmm...?
 
viv1969 said:
There's no public interest in seeing anyones breasts.....Jesus, they're just breasts.
Click to expand...

May I refer madam to Hugh Grant in Nottingham Hill? :D
 
stormienam said:
Sorry mate your talking rubbish illegal demand obviously no come now let's not get to high on the soap box here, the photographer did nothing illegal as he was on a public highway.
Click to expand...

stormienam said:
Also if there was no demand for it than anyone one other than the photographer and publisher then why have magazine sales for the mag blown up? Hmm...?
Click to expand...

Well I guess it say's something about a persons moral compass if they can justify such actions, I know I couldn't do that :shake:
 
DemiLion said:
For someone that appears appalled by the photos, you appear to have studied them in detail!
Click to expand...

You are missing the point and muddying the water.

I have seen a few grainy images but I believe there are some 26 pages about to be published.

It's the invasion of privacy I am appalled at and the pandering to the baying mentality of the lowest common denominators in society who think this sort of snooping is in the "public interest".

These photos are no better than the sneaky images perverts take at the seaside.

People have a right to privacy, Royals or otherwise.

I hope the proposed legal action by the Royals through the French courts is successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top