duchess of cambridge sunbathing topless pics

hedonist

cincybearcat wrote:

hedonist wrote:

I mentioned this thread to Danny...he rolled his eyes at me and said, "THIS is what people are worrying about? Royal fuckin TITS?"

Uh huh.

Close to top-breaking-news here this morning!

You might want to watch out. Danny doesn't seem to like boobies. Perhaps a thread about the Royal family jewels would interest him more?

Hey now! He, like you, is an Ohio man.

And he likes boobies just fine.

(he just prefers mine to the royal versions and can't say that I blame him )

Kat

brianlux wrote:

I don't think it's right to take a photograph of anyone without their permission- clothed or naked, public or private. To me it's just that simple.

Also, famous or not famous. It just doesn't matter. The famous are real people too with real personal moments...off-work moments. They know they'll be photographed when working...part of the job then when it's a working event.

dimitrispearljam

all people need their privacy,no matter their name,if are popular,famous,whatever..

but i guess the issue is noone cares about regular people's life but they care alot for celebrities,populal people..

whygohome

If there's a market for it, it will sell.

Once again, the people are to blame.

There's a market for Creed and Nickleback, right?

inlet13

whygohome wrote:

If there's a market for it, it will sell.

Once again, the people are to blame.

There's a market for Creed and Nickleback, right?

Agree with this. As scummy as the paparazzi are, the people who pay them via purchasing or watching the trash are just as bad.

pandora

Strange timing right after Prince Henry :?

hmmm perhaps a new era

whygohome

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

If there's a market for it, it will sell.

Once again, the people are to blame.

There's a market for Creed and Nickleback, right?

Agree with this. As scummy as the paparazzi are, the people who pay them via purchasing or watching the trash are just as bad.

It may also come down to the fact that people need to get laid more.

I mean, tits, really?

mydogmookieblaylock

tanning bed

PJ_Soul

Kat wrote:

brianlux wrote:

I don't think it's right to take a photograph of anyone without their permission- clothed or naked, public or private. To me it's just that simple.

Also, famous or not famous. It just doesn't matter. The famous are real people too with real personal moments...off-work moments. They know they'll be photographed when working...part of the job then when it's a working event.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect not to be in a photo when you're out in public. If that were the case, then no one could ever take any photos. How are you supposed to take photos as a tourist, for example, if no one can get in the shot? Or how could the media ever film or photograph anything to publish, such as store fronts, public events, etc? I say you're in public, you're free game. But once you're on private property without public access, no way.

inlet13

pandora wrote:

Strange timing right after Prince Henry :?

hmmm perhaps a new era

This is why I've been saying "if" she did this by accident throughout the thread.

Maybe she's covering something up. Complete speculation, of course.

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

Strange timing right after Prince Henry :?

hmmm perhaps a new era

Harry

Godfather.

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

If there's a market for it, it will sell.

Once again, the people are to blame.

There's a market for Creed and Nickleback, right?

Agree with this. As scummy as the paparazzi are, the people who pay them via purchasing or watching the trash are just as bad.

did you google it to see the Duchess's ...... com'on tell the truth ...you did huhh

I did but everything was censored


Godfather.

chadwick

inlet13 wrote:

redrock wrote:

If she's walking around NY, she's in a public place, amongst people. Obviously, this woman is making a statement and, I would have therefore thought, seeking the attention (or, if not seeking, surely not trying to be 'private').

The Duchess was on a secluded, private property, going about private business.

Difference.

From what I read this was several hundred meters from a public road. At the very least, she should have known better. It's not like they went into her house. She was outside - in public view. These people will take pictures of anything. She should know better - and if she didn't someone who works for her should have told her. She's a fucking princess, evidently a pretty stupid one "if" she didn't want these out.

I continue to say - she shouldn't be treated differently than any other celebrity. In fact, she's luckier that the court ruled against it - I think we all know if this was a typical celeb it wouldn't have gotten there.

uh... she was sun bathing on a fucking private balcony/terrace type thingamajig. that is isn't prancing around nyfuckingcity.

mydogmookieblaylock

Godfather. wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

If there's a market for it, it will sell.

Once again, the people are to blame.

There's a market for Creed and Nickleback, right?

Agree with this. As scummy as the paparazzi are, the people who pay them via purchasing or watching the trash are just as bad.

did you google it to see the Duchess's ...... com'on tell the truth ...you did huhh

I did but everything was censored


Godfather.

I saw it --- blurry boob shot --- changed my life for sure. But my favorite is the one where Prince whatever is putting sunscreen on her butt cheeks where she is just going to put the swimsuit back over.
good times had by all

PJ_Soul

Godfather. wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

If there's a market for it, it will sell.

Once again, the people are to blame.

There's a market for Creed and Nickleback, right?

Agree with this. As scummy as the paparazzi are, the people who pay them via purchasing or watching the trash are just as bad.

did you google it to see the Duchess's ...... com'on tell the truth ...you did huhh

I did but everything was censored


Godfather.

I haven't and I won't.

chadwick

pandora wrote:

Strange timing right after Prince Henry :?

hmmm perhaps a new era

what has the prince harry done?

i heard from a friend he was buck ass naked partying his lil fanny off in florida. i miss a lot of details as i am tv-less. i hesitated calling details news... i think i was right

chadwick

PJ_Soul wrote:

I haven't and I won't.

like you i refuse to scope her out. at some point we gotta draw the line. and i'm not on the side of peeping into one's life like this. im good w/ playboy or whatever.

inlet13

chadwick wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

redrock wrote:

If she's walking around NY, she's in a public place, amongst people. Obviously, this woman is making a statement and, I would have therefore thought, seeking the attention (or, if not seeking, surely not trying to be 'private').

The Duchess was on a secluded, private property, going about private business.

Difference.

From what I read this was several hundred meters from a public road. At the very least, she should have known better. It's not like they went into her house. She was outside - in public view. These people will take pictures of anything. She should know better - and if she didn't someone who works for her should have told her. She's a fucking princess, evidently a pretty stupid one "if" she didn't want these out.

I continue to say - she shouldn't be treated differently than any other celebrity. In fact, she's luckier that the court ruled against it - I think we all know if this was a typical celeb it wouldn't have gotten there.

uh... she was sun bathing on a fucking private balcony/terrace type thingamajig. that is isn't prancing around nyfuckingcity.

Couple things:

From what I read - it was within public view of a public street, that street was a few hundred meters away. She was outside. I agree she was on a terrace of some sort. But, the point being public view... they could see her if they looked.

Other than that, the girl in NYC is not a princess - yet she's photographed. Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears were too while getting out of a limo, crotch showing. These people are aholes. They exist. And aren't going anywhere.

So ... This exists - and the public doesn't get outraged when it happens to celebrities... in fact THEY BUY THE SHIT UP. That's why these aholes continue to take the pictures. But, now a bunch of people are all upset because it happened to a princess. :oops:

My point - Britany and the like are idiots. We know that. But, Kate she's supposed to be smart. So, now that she's a fucking princess.... She should use that brain inside that skull of hers. Thinking stuff like : these vultures exist - shock, shock. They are everywhere. Her husband's Mom arguably died trying to get away from them. Use some fucking common sense. If you want to be nude, do it indoors. Otherwise, know there's a chance they'll snap a pic of you - they are everywhere. And if they do, don't complain - yeh it sucks, but you're a dope if you didn't know this was the life you were buying into. AND I might add.... many 100,000s of women would gladly change places with her to be a princess and probably wouldn't feel the need to do that sort of thing within public view... many could deal with suntanning outdoors with their top on.

Like I said at the outset - I always liked her and her husband. But, I've lost a lot of respect for her intellect because of this, that is -> "if" she didn't do this on purpose. Which she may have for some reason we don't know about and probably never will.

Anyway, I'm done. That's my take. Like it, or don't.

PJ_Soul

chadwick wrote:

pandora wrote:

Strange timing right after Prince Henry :?

hmmm perhaps a new era

what has the prince harry done?

i heard from a friend he was buck ass naked partying his lil fanny off in florida. i miss a lot of details as i am tv-less. i hesitated calling details news... i think i was right

He was playing sttip pool with some slut he found downstairs, and supposedly one of the sluts tipped off the media, and he was photographed butt naked, groping another naked random girl, while in his hotel suite. The photos were taken through a window. While it bothers me that the photos were taken through a window, I'm not as bugged by this because Harry should probably not be picking up strange girls in Vegas and bringing them back to his hotel to get naked. That's some very indiscreet behaviour on his part. I mean, at least close the fucking drapes when your window overlooks the strip!!

redrock

chadwick wrote:

pandora wrote:

Strange timing right after Prince Henry :?

hmmm perhaps a new era

what has the prince harry done?

i heard from a friend he was buck ass naked partying his lil fanny off in florida. i miss a lot of details as i am tv-less. i hesitated calling details news... i think i was right

Harry is a very different situation. He had been partying for a while with friends, picked up girls, eventually went up to his suite, played strip-pool and one of the girls at the party took photos on her mobile.
So really no comparison to stalker photos taken from a mile away, though it is still a privacy issue. Here there is an obvious breach of trust, lax security (mobiles should have been taken for 'safekeeping' by security present in room) and recklessness on Harry & friends part. It was still very opportunistic and wrong for that girl to sell photos of what was a private party