Hmmmm, since the “royal family” is completely irrelevant and just a bunch of idle parasites and publicity hounds and have to compete with the Kardashians and Lohans for tabloid space these days, one must at least question if this whole thing wasn’t purposely set up by them. Just saying. As far as peeping at a pair of breasts in the year 2012; big deal. Grow up.
My mama and daddy always taught me that if you don’t want someone to see your private parts, then don’t show them in public for someone to see.
You might be at a private villa, but there are amazing “new” inventions like binocs, cameras with long range lenses, etc. If you don’t want to get caught in the nude outside, stay covered. Do not sue the world for your idiocy.
For pity’s sake,Taking covert and sneaky nude photos of a young woman, whomever she may be, is usually considered pervy. Selling them to specialised magazines is beyond pervy, it’s offensive.And anyone who bought said publications is no different from anyone who views snuff movies.She did not give consent for this. I thought we valued consent.
I had only been in London two days before I saw a Royal. It was Prince Phillip coming out of St. Paul’s. There were pages (or something) with trumpets lining the stairs, some sort of city official wearing his chains of office, and an old man in a dark blue suit. There wasn’t a HUGE crowd, but there were a number of curious onlookers, and we were held maybe 50 yards back as he got into a waiting car with the royal seal and was driven away. Pretty cool, really. Of course, he didn’t flash his tits to the crowd, so I didn’t bother taking a snapshot.
She had an expectation of privacy that was violated, period. I’ve skinny dipped around the world, and never found a naked violent person, or morally corrupt one. Paparazzi are a different story. I say give the security detail Barrett .50’s and let the photography taking a “shot”, receive one in return. The story of Diana is more than enough to shut these cretins down, permanently. If the “celebrity” is at a PUBLIC event, fine, but in expectation of privacy, LEAVE THEM ALONE, ALL OF THEM!
StCleve72 over 11 years ago
Hmmmm, since the “royal family” is completely irrelevant and just a bunch of idle parasites and publicity hounds and have to compete with the Kardashians and Lohans for tabloid space these days, one must at least question if this whole thing wasn’t purposely set up by them. Just saying. As far as peeping at a pair of breasts in the year 2012; big deal. Grow up.
hippogriff over 11 years ago
Dredpiraterobt$: 1977 Wreck Beach BC, and you?
fritzoid Premium Member over 11 years ago
“Some day that royal gutter trash will figure out not to sunbathe topless in public.”
She was at a private villa, and was caught by a telephoto lens. How is that “public”?
schmegs24 over 11 years ago
My mama and daddy always taught me that if you don’t want someone to see your private parts, then don’t show them in public for someone to see.
You might be at a private villa, but there are amazing “new” inventions like binocs, cameras with long range lenses, etc. If you don’t want to get caught in the nude outside, stay covered. Do not sue the world for your idiocy.
Sandy Shore over 11 years ago
For pity’s sake,Taking covert and sneaky nude photos of a young woman, whomever she may be, is usually considered pervy. Selling them to specialised magazines is beyond pervy, it’s offensive.And anyone who bought said publications is no different from anyone who views snuff movies.She did not give consent for this. I thought we valued consent.
fritzoid Premium Member over 11 years ago
I had only been in London two days before I saw a Royal. It was Prince Phillip coming out of St. Paul’s. There were pages (or something) with trumpets lining the stairs, some sort of city official wearing his chains of office, and an old man in a dark blue suit. There wasn’t a HUGE crowd, but there were a number of curious onlookers, and we were held maybe 50 yards back as he got into a waiting car with the royal seal and was driven away. Pretty cool, really. Of course, he didn’t flash his tits to the crowd, so I didn’t bother taking a snapshot.
DavidGBA over 11 years ago
They are just checking out their royal investments. They have every right, they paid for it.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
She had an expectation of privacy that was violated, period. I’ve skinny dipped around the world, and never found a naked violent person, or morally corrupt one. Paparazzi are a different story. I say give the security detail Barrett .50’s and let the photography taking a “shot”, receive one in return. The story of Diana is more than enough to shut these cretins down, permanently. If the “celebrity” is at a PUBLIC event, fine, but in expectation of privacy, LEAVE THEM ALONE, ALL OF THEM!
Call me Ishmael over 11 years ago
“Wink-wink!”
lbatik over 11 years ago
“This can’t be a bad thing because there are worse things” is a complete and utter logic fail.
Sandy, in fact, stated the issue perfectly.
hippogriff over 11 years ago
Are there no young naturists on this site?
gfreeman over 11 years ago
Only Americans say “Eye-talians”. Not a single person in Britain would say that. (I’m British)