Kate Middleton Topless

[No6]

That's Rafa Benitez innit?

Definitely has the look of a fat spanish waiter, yes.

PMSL

 

[bobmcfc]

Shameful for them to publish those photos.

Why?

Because she was on a private holiday with her husband and didn't consent. They must have used the fecking Hubble telescope to get those snaps because that place is pretty remote and secluded.

 

[Goo]

Shameful for them to publish those photos.

Why?

Because she was on a private holiday with her husband and didn't consent. They must have used the fecking Hubble telescope to get those snaps because that place is pretty remote and secluded.

I've got to say I have to agree.

A part of me thinks it's a shame a young woman and her husband can't live their lives, relaxing in what they think is privacy. Also the fact that no prior consent was given to the publication.

Another part of me thinks, at the end of the day, you're a royal and you've got to think logically. Don't go anywhere you might get snapped naked. Simple rule really.

I'm not a Royalist drone who will stick up for the royals no matter what, but I think in this case, they've got a point.

 

[johnny on the spot]

Perhaps she should get implants on the state. Seriously, who gives a fuck what her tits look like?

 

[MCC]

nor me.ive got bigger tits then her

You should know by now you can't make such bold claims without backing them up

So pics please

You like??

Rafa has really let himself go.

 

[dannybcity]

Shameful for them to publish those photos.

Why?

Because she was on a private holiday with her husband and didn't consent. They must have used the fecking Hubble telescope to get those snaps because that place is pretty remote and secluded.

I didn't consent to them using tax payers money for their wedding either. You live by the sword...

 

[jma]

Kate Middleton

Any particular reason why the tone of coverage about her been photographed topless is one of "shock, horror and disgust", when all the other 'celebrities' that fall victim to it are generally said to be "deserving of it" and covered in a tone of "Phwoar, have a look at this."

I don't think that anyone should be subject to it, including her. There's no justifiable reason for it. However, if you wanted to, you can mount a much more robust defence for people whose career happens to put them in the public eye being given some protection in their private life, than you can for those who, by dint of being related to someone, accept a ridiculous lifestyle, privilege and being placed on a pedestal but apparently should be treated with more reverence than anyone else.

The tone of prats like Nicolas Witchell, and the contrast of it to similar 'stories' is a bit much, imo.<br /><br />-- Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:13 pm --<br /><br />Sorry, just seen other thread. Sorry

 

[dannybcity]

Re: Kate Middleton

Any particular reason why the tone of coverage about her been photographed topless is one of "shock, horror and disgust", when all the other 'celebrities' that fall victim to it are generally said to be "deserving of it" and covered in a tone of "Phwoar, have a look at this."

I don't think that anyone should be subject to it, including her. There's no justifiable reason for it. However, if you wanted to, you can mount a much more robust defence for people whose career happens to put them in the public eye being given some protection in their private life, than you can for those who, by dint of being related to someone, accept a ridiculous lifestyle, privilege and being placed on a pedestal but apparently should be treated with more reverence than anyone else.

The tone of prats like Nicolas Witchell, and the contrast of it to similar 'stories' is a bit much, imo.

-- Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:13 pm --

Sorry, just seen other thread. Sorry

Applause.

 

[Goo]

Re: Kate Middleton

Any particular reason why the tone of coverage about her been photographed topless is one of "shock, horror and disgust", when all the other 'celebrities' that fall victim to it are generally said to be "deserving of it" and covered in a tone of "Phwoar, have a look at this."

I don't think that anyone should be subject to it, including her. There's no justifiable reason for it. However, if you wanted to, you can mount a much more robust defence for people whose career happens to put them in the public eye being given some protection in their private life, than you can for those who, by dint of being related to someone, accept a ridiculous lifestyle, privilege and being placed on a pedestal but apparently should be treated with more reverence than anyone else.

The tone of prats like Nicolas Witchell, and the contrast of it to similar 'stories' is a bit much, imo.

-- Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:13 pm --

Sorry, just seen other thread. Sorry

Applause.

+1

 

[samharris]

Theres a difference between the person knowing a picture is being taken and not knowing..I would imafgine that if Kate was aware of photographers 3 miles away she would not have been topless...

If a photographer was on Brighton beach randomly taking photos of topless women im sure he would either get a slap from the boyfriend or be called a fucking perv.