97 replies to this topic

[Saintslass]

However, where do we draw the line between a bit of arsing about and pee taking and what is genuinely offensive? There was plenty of mickey taking over Prince Harry (and his genetalia) loads. Why should we not have a bit of a joke if the victim of the photos is a woman? Isn't that false and not a little bit patronizing?

Context is all. Harry invited trouble into his hotel room. Kate and William are a married couple who thought they had privacy and neither has shown any propensity towards inviting the media (in whatever form) into their hotel room (or in this instance, a friend's posh pad).

I wonder how any man who was sharing a private time with a woman he loved (as opposed to a woman he just wanted sex with) would view knowing that some unknown bloke had been up a tree pointing a wide angled lense at his partner? I would imagine that unless said man was a sleezebag himself, he would be angry, upset and protective. Just because the husband happens to be royalty does not give loony pervs the right to do their thing freely.

Edited by Saintslass, 16 September 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[marklaspalmas]

You know 70 odd synonyms for boobies???

Is it possible that you have some sort of fixation?

Guilty as charged, m'lud.

[T-Dub]

The noose sounds to be tightening on the pervy snapper

If I was William Id punch the wierdos flippin lights out

What a disgusting way to earn a living

Edited by T-Dub, 16 September 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[Johnoco]

Context is all. Harry invited trouble into his hotel room. Kate and William are a married couple who thought they had privacy and neither has shown any propensity towards inviting the media (in whatever form) into their hotel room (or in this instance, a friend's posh pad).

I agree. I was referring to being labelled as some sort of caveman for making pee taking comments about the size of her thruppeny bits.

[Wiltshire Rhino]

However, where do we draw the line between a bit of arsing about and pee taking and what is genuinely offensive?

There is no line as there will always be someone who will, or wants to, be offended by "a bit of arsing about and pee taking".

Edited by Wiltshire Rhino, 17 September 2012 - 06:12 AM.

[Futtocks]

Interesting to see that there are some publications that actually stoop lower than the British tabloid press.

[Wolford6]

Interesting to see that there are some publications that actually stoop lower than the British tabloid press.

Halfway down the page:

http://www.popbitch.com/board.html

[chuffer]

Halfway down the page:

http://www.popbitch.com/board.html

haha:

"Kate Middleton.......Is an anagram of 'Naked ###### Model' "

[chuffer]

haha:

"Kate Middleton.......Is an anagram of 'Naked T1t Model' "

Edited by chuffer, 17 September 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[Shadow]

The thing is of course, after the shockingly intrusive and discourteous way Carla Bruni was treated on a state visit to this country, and the dignified way she behaved, do we actually have a leg to stand on when it comes to being outraged by the French behaviour?

[ckn]

I agree with Shadow. The same papers leading with pages of faux indignation about Kate are the same ones who are very happy to pay paparazzi money for their dodgy privacy-invading shots of anyone else who is remotely considered a "celebrity". Is there REALLY any moral difference between a dodgy shot of Kate's bits and one of the Beckham's kids every time their mum takes them to the shops?

[Methven Hornet]

Isn't bird the female equivalent of bloke?

I was always told (by women as it happens) that the male equivalent of bird was worm.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Be interesting to see which papers have bought pics from this agency in the past with no issues.

[Wolford6]

Be interesting to see which papers have bought pics from this agency in the past with no issues.

Be interesting to see which papers have bought pics from this agency in the past with no tissues.

[T-Dub]

I agree with Shadow. The same papers leading with pages of faux indignation about Kate are the same ones who are very happy to pay paparazzi money for their dodgy privacy-invading shots of anyone else who is remotely considered a "celebrity". Is there REALLY any moral difference between a dodgy shot of Kate's bits and one of the Beckham's kids every time their mum takes them to the shops?

Yes there is

A photo of a human being in a normal context isnt invasive, a photo catching someone off guard and semi naked on holiday, possibly involving trespass is a wildly different concept. Is anything off limits?

Whats faux about it? How can you tell its faux? I dont believe it is faux - viz Irish Daily Star owner

This lad's mum was hounded to death by paparazzi, now they are embarrassing his wife. Dont people learn?

[T-Dub]

Be interesting to see which papers have bought pics from this agency in the past with no tissues.

One commentator advised that the Italian mag that published the photos also published those of Princess Diana fatally injured in her car wreck

Who would buy that, who would read that?

[Trojan]

_{Has anyone noticed that Kate Middleton is an anagram of naked t i t model?}

[chuffer]

Yep....see earlier post