Topless photos of Kate Middleton - Page 4

**Joszka** · September 17th, 2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoahegypt

I just can't believe the editor of this magazine thinks it's okay; and should be free of any criticism..?? You'd think of all the countries who might show a little decency, then it would be France.....? considering what happened to Diana while being chased by pap's over there..........!!?? I'm sorry to diss any French members here, but you guys really need to get a grip on yourselves; or more correctly your press/media....!!?? They are making your country look so damn insensative and silly...!!!

Most of reasonable French people (I mean, those who don't read these shitty mags at their hairdressers) even don't know who the hell is Kate Middleton and don't care at all. So, it's still a very large majority.

If I ask to my friends or family, maybe 10 % knows who she is and 100 % think she could be naked on the top of Eiffel Tower wawing the British flag.. it would be same totally un-interesting.
Her communication services know what they're doing, where these "majesties" can be photographied or not and what is a pretended "decency" or not in this fake world of pretended celebrities.
So, who cares ? Not me, sure. And indeed we're mostly here totally "insensative" to these clowns.

And btw, this French magazine, as same as the Italian one ("Chi") that first published these pretended "scandalous" pics, is not French but property of
... Italian ex-1st Minister and still real asshole Berlusconi.

USSNostromo · September 17th, 2012, 09:49 PM

As intrusive and distressing (for her) as they are the images are of such moderately
poor resolution and quality that the salacious nature of them is to a degree
somewhat negated. The Duchess however ought to be relieved in that the more
explicit ones of her briefs and *** were not more "revealing". I can understand
HRH the Duke of Cambridge being furious and doing whatever he can to protect his
wife but I can't help thinking that he is also guilty of culpable neglect in that he
must have been aware how persistently relentless the french paparrazzi are and he
really should have advised her to cover up knowing that they were in France!! which
asks the question....How did they (the papp) know they were there? It's as much a
security as it is a privacy issue.

MrBombastic · September 18th, 2012, 06:41 AM

It's part of the gig. You don't get to be a Royal without sacrifices. She's finding this out now.

haldeman · September 18th, 2012, 07:32 AM

Well, she's shot upin my estimation - especially the news that she was having fag at the airport. You go girl...

visionmaster · September 18th, 2012, 10:51 AM

Injunction agreed with the French courts.

So the cost of publication is up £10k every day they publish.

**MrInBetween** · September 18th, 2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USSNostromo

As intrusive and distressing (for her) as they are the images are of such moderately poor resolution and quality that the salacious nature of them is to a degree somewhat negated.

Absolutely. As someone who's posted some of the images myself, I have to confess that I did so as a public duty and don't derive any personal pleasure from looking at them. I suppose the collector in me just felt I needed to have them, when there seemed to be a possibility that they all might suddenly disappear. Don't laugh - Ruth Jeffery seems to have managed to get all the films of her removed from porn-sharing sites.

USSNostromo · September 18th, 2012, 06:39 PM

I cannot help think that this injunction is going to be somewhat of a toothless judgment in that it may in the short term prevent further more intimate and explicit images being released into the public domain but ultimately they will emerge eventually as it'll be only a matter of time and for both of them to suggest that "Photograph us in private and we'll sue" threat is a dangerous precedent as it will only increase the interest in and demand for more pictures when their usual restraint tactics of..." Say nothing Do nothing.. " has always served them well in the past.

Lester Square · September 18th, 2012, 07:01 PM

The injunction is no more than an mis-fired attempt at trying to cover up the fact that the royal protection guys around them seriously screwed up. The road that the photos were taken, should have (in conjunction with the French police) blocked the road off..

..But maybe Will and Kate thought that one had be covered off, hence why she felt she could uncover. Good job it was a French Papper and not a sniper.

Rather than run to the courts (which does smack of Will trying to score a shedload of points on the French over what happened in a Paris tunnel in 1999) they should have laughed it off, or Kate issued some sort of "Yes, I have breasts and like other women across the world when the suns out, they come out" and that 'may' have calmed this down a lot faster.

I am right in thinking that the unprinted shots 'may' have included full frontals (if they thought they were alone why stop with the bikini top?) - which is probably the reason they acted fast to get a ban?

reginaldwam3 · September 18th, 2012, 07:02 PM

This image quality is so poor she could have just come out and said, "That ain't me, man." Such a statement would have been wholly recognizable as bullshit, but it might well have killed, what has turned into, a media colossus.

Lester Square · September 19th, 2012, 07:04 PM

Would have the been the most obvious line that their press people could have took, Reg - but, they were papped departing the nearest airport to the villa.

Which begs the question again - why did no-one think they if they were spotted at the airport getting into a car/people carrier that someone would find out within 24 hours that they were there - especially as the villa belongs to someone with a direct line to the British monarchy.

September 17th, 2012, 09:49 PM	#32
USSNostromo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: South West England Posts: 342 Thanks: 523 Thanked 7,849 Times in 323 Posts	As intrusive and distressing (for her) as they are the images are of such moderately poor resolution and quality that the salacious nature of them is to a degree somewhat negated. The Duchess however ought to be relieved in that the more explicit ones of her briefs and * were not more "revealing". I can understand HRH the Duke of Cambridge being furious and doing whatever he can to protect his wife but I can't help thinking that he is also guilty of culpable neglect in that he must have been aware how persistently relentless the french paparrazzi are and he really should have advised her to cover up knowing that they were in France!! which asks the question....How did they (the papp) know they were there? It's as much a security as it is a privacy issue. __________________ " No one in space will see you climax "** To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !! Last edited by USSNostromo; September 18th, 2012 at 06:41 PM.. Reason: punctutaion marks removed & word emphasis

September 18th, 2012, 06:39 PM	#37
USSNostromo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: South West England Posts: 342 Thanks: 523 Thanked 7,849 Times in 323 Posts	I cannot help think that this injunction is going to be somewhat of a toothless judgment in that it may in the short term prevent further more intimate and explicit images being released into the public domain but ultimately they will emerge eventually as it'll be only a matter of time and for both of them to suggest that "Photograph us in private and we'll sue" threat is a dangerous precedent as it will only increase the interest in and demand for more pictures when their usual restraint tactics of..." Say nothing Do nothing.. " has always served them well in the past. __________________ " No one in space will see you climax " To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !! Last edited by USSNostromo; September 19th, 2012 at 11:50 AM.. Reason: join & move text

September 18th, 2012, 06:41 AM	#33
MrBombastic Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 123 Thanks: 7,278 Thanked 2,021 Times in 124 Posts	It's part of the gig. You don't get to be a Royal without sacrifices. She's finding this out now.

September 18th, 2012, 07:32 AM	#34
haldeman Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 64 Thanks: 708 Thanked 1,256 Times in 51 Posts	Well, she's shot upin my estimation - especially the news that she was having fag at the airport. You go girl...

September 18th, 2012, 10:51 AM	#35
visionmaster Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 63 Thanks: 1,071 Thanked 228 Times in 48 Posts	Injunction agreed with the French courts. So the cost of publication is up £10k every day they publish.

September 18th, 2012, 07:01 PM	#38
Lester Square Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 66 Thanks: 2,638 Thanked 523 Times in 57 Posts	The injunction is no more than an mis-fired attempt at trying to cover up the fact that the royal protection guys around them seriously screwed up. The road that the photos were taken, should have (in conjunction with the French police) blocked the road off.. ..But maybe Will and Kate thought that one had be covered off, hence why she felt she could uncover. Good job it was a French Papper and not a sniper. Rather than run to the courts (which does smack of Will trying to score a shedload of points on the French over what happened in a Paris tunnel in 1999) they should have laughed it off, or Kate issued some sort of "Yes, I have breasts and like other women across the world when the suns out, they come out" and that 'may' have calmed this down a lot faster. I am right in thinking that the unprinted shots 'may' have included full frontals (if they thought they were alone why stop with the bikini top?) - which is probably the reason they acted fast to get a ban?

September 18th, 2012, 07:02 PM	#39
reginaldwam3 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 3 Thanks: 5 Thanked 173 Times in 3 Posts	This image quality is so poor she could have just come out and said, "That ain't me, man." Such a statement would have been wholly recognizable as bullshit, but it might well have killed, what has turned into, a media colossus.

September 19th, 2012, 07:04 PM	#40
Lester Square Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 66 Thanks: 2,638 Thanked 523 Times in 57 Posts	Would have the been the most obvious line that their press people could have took, Reg - but, they were papped departing the nearest airport to the villa. Which begs the question again - why did no-one think they if they were spotted at the airport getting into a car/people carrier that someone would find out within 24 hours that they were there - especially as the villa belongs to someone with a direct line to the British monarchy.