The Royal Titties

[Conaxthewarrior]

So whats the big problem with the all the news channels censoring these pictures of those royal titties I ask myself. Can it be the UK is so old fashioned that nipples are blured out from these photos so that the general public can't choose wether or not they should look at'em?
If it was any other womans nipples - no problem - no one would think anything of it. So enough of the candidness lads, here's the unedited pics - wadya think?

[Larry-G]

dont go uploading those photos here unless you feel like covering the legal bill for it.

as to the point of the thread as far as i am concerned it's a clear cut case of voyeurism and the trash that took the photos should be locked up for it.

[pooface]

As Phoenix says, please do not upload the photos here. Anyone who wants to see them will Google and find out in a flash...

As for the legal case they're making, then I think they should stop moaning. They are in the public lime light after all... They should not even risk being if they don't want to risk the photos being taken...

Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio using Tapatalk 2

[Rob van der Does]

Indeed: 'voyeurism ' is the sole and only word that springs to my mind in this whole affair.
And their are plenty sites fulfilling one's 'need' for that :rolleyes:

[Conaxthewarrior]

Fair reply gents. My intent was aimed at criticism of cencorship for the masses (which i belive theres too much of in the Uk) and not to generally offend.

[Larry-G]

Fair reply gents. My intent was aimed at criticism of cencorship for the masses (which i belive theres too much of in the Uk) and not to generally offend.

I know your intentions were for the good, but we have to consider the legal ramifications that could befall us if we were to host such photos on this site.

[basilyoung]

yep, cencorship is rife in this country, and the rich and famous can hide behind it, but your example, was a bit wide of the mark, if that was your daughter/wife being photo,d with out there knowledge, and being sold on to a porn mag or paper, or better still if you had caught him, I think you would batter the bar steward

[judge]

I'm far from a royalist, but scum who hide in bushes taking long range shots of anybody in a private setting to earn £££ need to be stopped. This ****er should be fined or jailed for voyeurism.

[Conaxthewarrior]

yep, cencorship is rife in this country, and the rich and famous can hide behind it, but your example, was a bit wide of the mark, if that was your daughter/wife being photo,d with out there knowledge, and being sold on to a porn mag or paper, or better still if you had caught him, I think you would batter the bar steward

I simply took a current news affair as an example intending to emphasize the widely accepted inbalance of what is called the freedom of the press on the one hand, while news censorship of the mass population is also "acceptable"on the other.
These were not photos threatening national security, everyone could understand if such photos were censored and I agree the photos were taken without the permission of those concerned but it has to be asked what right has a society got that prides itself in being the home of democracy yet allows such widespread censorship?
Another example, also by chance royal, was the recent Prince Harry's naked swimming video - shown on national tv blured out in part...the list goes on.
Lastly, I expect if it was my son or daughter someone candidly took photos of , any published photos most certainly wouldnt be cencored , but then again there wouldnt be as great an interest as there is when royalty is involved. Taking such photos without the permission of the concered is illegal in the uk but if everyone can access them on the internet anyhow, then where are we and what is required to counteract all this? More censorship and surveilance of the internet perhaps? Back to square one.

[Conaxthewarrior]

I know your intentions were for the good, but we have to consider the legal ramifications that could befall us if we were to host such photos on this site.

Ok I shouldnt have posted the photos , just my way of getting "directly" to the point. Respects to the forum guys, you all do a good job here.

[Conaxthewarrior]

As it happens, the Danish tabloid Se og Hør (See and Hear) has today published the photos of these royal titties and , as I live in this country, I bought a copy to see how the paper went about its uncencored publication of them, in contrast to the massive editing seen in the UK.
The editor wrote (my translation)
"Our readers like to follow the lives of both the Danish and Uk's royals in every detail. I'm therefore proud that Se og Hør has aquired the rights to publish photos of Great Britians future queen topless.
The whole world is presently talking about these photos while only a few of the population has actually seen them.
Se og hør has always seeked to entertain and satisfy our readers curiosity and so it is very relevant to us when the future queen of England goes topless and freely shows her breasts towards a public highway. These photos have been published in Sweden, Finland,Holland,Belgium, Germany, Italy and some other countries." Cheif editor Kim Henningsen.
So theres an example of freedom of the press and open cencorship if ever there was.
The photos came in an extra section titled "The forbidden photos" , using the uk's cencoring & cover up as an attractor. Thirty pictures in all, about ½ showing naughty bits - the rest, just uninteresting everyday boring family holiday snaps.
A further thought, if the photos have already been published in all these countries listed earlier, what good does it do obtaining a ban in france alone? Seems like the classic closing of the barn doors after the horse has bolted.:confused:

[Mr. Mister]

The editor wrote (my translation)
"Our readers like to follow the lives of both the Danish and Uk's royals in every detail. I'm therefore proud that Se og Hør has aquired the rights to publish photos of Great Britians future queen topless.
The whole world is presently talking about these photos while only a few of the population has actually seen them.
Se og hør has always seeked to entertain and satisfy our readers curiosity and so it is very relevant to us when the future queen of England goes topless and freely shows her breasts towards a public highway. These photos have been published in Sweden, Finland,Holland,Belgium, Germany, Italy and some other countries." Cheif editor Kim Henningsen.
So theres an example of freedom of the press and open cencorship if ever there was.
The photos came in an extra section titled "The forbidden photos" , using the uk's cencoring & cover up as an attractor. Thirty pictures in all, about ½ showing naughty bits - the rest, just uninteresting everyday boring family holiday snaps.
A further thought, if the photos have already been published in all these countries listed earlier, what good does it do obtaining a ban in france alone? Seems like the classic closing of the barn doors after the horse has bolted.:confused:

Not strictly the case.. Is it.. ??

I aint seen the photos.. Nor do i have any real desire to.. But as far as i am aware.. She was in what was supposed to be a private area.. With the photographer using one of his fancy lenses from 100`s of yards away..

Something wrong somewhere along the line.. as the girl wants to sunbath topless.. ( In private with her husband ) and finds thats she is in the papers all over the world a few days after.. Scum photographers..

[basilyoung]

my views are simple, and unchanged

scum bags taking univited photo,s in a private situ, nothing to do with cencorship, and claiming copyright?? yes its all over the net, but it does,nt make it right, as for "no interest" in non hi profile peeps goes, like for example your wife/daughter perhaps, that might be true, in your opinion, but I wonder what they would think

in the end, the person that took the photos, is guilty of voyourism, and needs sorting big time

the only weak defence of these actions is, it could have been a gun, so the big question is, where was the security??

[Conaxthewarrior]

Ok I must agree. the photos were cheepo and really a lot to do about nothing. Focusing soley on the "naughty" aspect (avoiding the censorship theme), these pics look like somthing from the Benny Hill show and with so much porn freely available on the net thesedays, people who want to "satisfy" themselves should go there instead. Admittidly, its a pity for the couple their hols were runined this way but it'ss true that where theres royaliy about, the paparazzi will surley follow.
Ps Just thrown the mag out.

[frankblueking]

I'm far from a royalist, but scum who hide in bushes taking long range shots of anybody in a private setting to earn £££ need to be stopped. This ****er should be fined or jailed for voyeurism.

I guess I am a royalist but whether I am or not is not the point, these scum hide in bushes and take pictures for one reason only, to make profit at the expense of others. They respect no one and resort to underhand methods to compromise people. Lock them up and throw the key away. This has nothing to do with freedom of the press!!
:mad::mad::mad:

[Conaxthewarrior]

I guess I am a royalist but whether I am or not is not the point, these scum hide in bushes and take pictures for one reason only, to make profit at the expense of others. They respect no one and resort to underhand methods to compromise people. Lock them up and throw the key away. This has nothing to do with freedom of the press!!
:mad::mad::mad:

A lawyer I saw on BBC news commenting on this affair said that in France it's not illegal to take "snooping" photos so long as they are taken on or from a public road there. So even if the French police had stopped the photograher(s), they could'nt arrest them. If it was within the UK they most certainly would have been arrested for breach of the peace and the photos erased.
As to it being or not being a freedom of the press matter, the editor of Se og Hør thinks it is his freedom to publish them while the danish tv news reported the story showing the photo's cencored, so the freedom to do or not to do is clearly being excersised here.
My original rant was because the uk reporting of all this is bias towards censoring (the photos being striped out over the naughty bits).

[pooface]

Where do we stop with the freedom thing tho. There's been countless times where people have been snapped in private places (even within the uk), but because it's not a celebrity, there's no complaint from other people...

I couldn't care whether or not they're published, but I do get fed up that because it's the royals, they think that they should have whatever they want ... Other thing I hate the idea of, is how much tax payers money has been spent trying to get the courts to stop further publishing of photos?!

[frankblueking]

Where do we stop with the freedom thing tho. There's been countless times where people have been snapped in private places (even within the uk), but because it's not a celebrity, there's no complaint from other people...

I couldn't care whether or not they're published, but I do get fed up that because it's the royals, they think that they should have whatever they want ... Other thing I hate the idea of, is how much tax payers money has been spent trying to get the courts to stop further publishing of photos?!

You may be more exercised if your family was being attacked!!!!
I would be.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: