If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Lawyers seek injunction over Kate Middleton topless photos, apparently unclear on how the internet works   (foxnews.com) divider line 175
    More: Interesting, Kate Middleton, civil cases, La Repubblica, Joe Webb, injunctions, St. James  
•       •       •

7492 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Sep 2012 at 5:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-16 04:27:53 PM
how hard is it for famous people to get: don't whip out your titties if you don't want to see them on the internets

no number of lawsuits can put your top back on
 
2012-09-16 04:32:27 PM
Honey, if you don't want pictures of your titties taken don't go out on a balcony topless. The pictures were taken from a public road, not from some guy "invading your privacy". How much privacy can you expect standing outside with your titties flapping in the breeze?
 
2012-09-16 04:32:44 PM
Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.
 
2012-09-16 04:43:24 PM
The US and England could go to war over this.
Pity. For them.
 
2012-09-16 04:45:54 PM

Walker: Honey, if you don't want pictures of your titties taken don't go out on a balcony topless. The pictures were taken from a public road, not from some guy "invading your privacy". How much privacy can you expect standing outside with your titties flapping in the breeze?

Not quite big enough to be flapping.
 
2012-09-16 04:46:20 PM
The palace will seek damages from the publisher, which is owned by former Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi.

I find this hilarious.

TommyymmoT: Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.


It's called the Internet
 
2012-09-16 04:54:34 PM
The lawyers know all about the internet, but they also know all about 'billable hours'
 
2012-09-16 05:01:07 PM

bojon: Walker: Honey, if you don't want pictures of your titties taken don't go out on a balcony topless. The pictures were taken from a public road, not from some guy "invading your privacy". How much privacy can you expect standing outside with your titties flapping in the breeze?
Not quite big enough to be flapping.


You know what I mean.
 
2012-09-16 05:03:19 PM
I fapped in the breeze once.

/wait...what?
 
2012-09-16 05:11:11 PM
More like flapjacks, AMIRITE!??
 
2012-09-16 05:17:43 PM

xiaodown: More like flapjacks, AMIRITE!??


I'd pour syrup on those flapjacks.

/sorry Brits, no disrespect intended
//but your princess is hot....
 
2012-09-16 05:22:48 PM

ArkAngel: The palace will seek damages from the publisher, which is owned by former Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi.

I find this hilarious.

TommyymmoT: Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.

It's called the Internet


I just did a quick GIS. I'll look into it more some other time. I'm busy right now.
 
2012-09-16 05:33:31 PM

whidbey: The US and England could go to war over this.
Pity. For them.


Wasn't it a French magazine/newspaper that first broke the images?

Also I'm having trouble finding the identity of the paparazzi that was after Princess Diana when she died, but it was in France so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it was French paparazzi.

I don't think it's the US the British should go to war with over this sort of thing.
 
2012-09-16 05:55:13 PM
So, will British partisans burn down the French Embassy in retribution?
 
2012-09-16 05:57:42 PM

pecosdave: whidbey: The US and England could go to war over this.
Pity. For them.

Wasn't it a French magazine/newspaper that first broke the images?

Also I'm having trouble finding the identity of the paparazzi that was after Princess Diana when she died, but it was in France so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it was French paparazzi.

I don't think it's the US the British should go to war with over this sort of thing.


The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and News of the World.

Link
 
2012-09-16 06:02:06 PM
What hypocritical oafs. Brits have placed CCTV cameras on every corner to monitor the public, and they shiat themselves when someone invades the Royal family's privacy in a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Sorry, assholes, but your privilege only goes so far.
 
paj
2012-09-16 06:03:33 PM
Why is having topless pictures of yourself a huge deal? Oooo, she removed a strip of fabric! Prudes.
 
2012-09-16 06:04:10 PM
 
2012-09-16 06:04:33 PM

scathing1: What hypocritical oafs. Brits have placed CCTV cameras on every corner to monitor the public, and they shiat themselves when someone invades the Royal family's privacy in a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Sorry, assholes, but your privilege only goes so far.


Quoted for brilliance.

Also, they weren't that spectacular. The pics or the boobs, at that. Blurry distance shot that could really be anyone.
 
2012-09-16 06:06:12 PM

basemetal: xiaodown: More like flapjacks, AMIRITE!??

I'd pour syrup on those flapjacks.

/sorry Brits, no disrespect intended
//but your princess is hot....


She is a rather good looking woman. I'm sure her breasts are nice, but we'll never know from the pictures taken at that distance.
 
2012-09-16 06:06:13 PM

Demetrius: I fapped in the breeze once.

/wait...what?


It's so nice out... I think I'll leave it out.
 
2012-09-16 06:06:55 PM
They would get a lot more mileage and a lot less notoriety over it if they would act as if it were no big deal and to admonish the press with "please stop doing this kind of stuff. Really? Guys... it isn't kindergarten anymore. Grow up. Sometimes people are naked. Deal with it."
 
2012-09-16 06:07:09 PM

omeganuepsilon: Also, they weren't that spectacular.


You expected Roman candles?
 
2012-09-16 06:08:13 PM
I think Id rather see nude pics of Pippa Middletons royal arse
 
2012-09-16 06:08:38 PM
Meh. Half the world's population have them.
 
2012-09-16 06:09:55 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: basemetal: xiaodown: More like flapjacks, AMIRITE!??

I'd pour syrup on those flapjacks.

/sorry Brits, no disrespect intended
//but your princess is hot....

She is a rather good looking woman. I'm sure her breasts are nice, but we'll never know from the pictures taken at that distance.


Clean your contact lenses.

Kate has nothing to be ashamed of.
 
2012-09-16 06:10:15 PM

Walker: Honey, if you don't want pictures of your titties taken don't go out on a balcony topless. The pictures were taken from a public road, not from some guy "invading your privacy". How much privacy can you expect standing outside with your titties flapping in the breeze?


It was a public road half a mile away, and France also has pretty strict privacy laws, although it sounds like the fines aren't enough to prevent a magazine from publishing these photos anyway.
 
2012-09-16 06:10:55 PM

whidbey: The US and England could go to war over this.
Pity. For them.


I'm going to get a chocolate frappé and join the flash dance crowd at the embassy.
 
2012-09-16 06:12:13 PM

ArkAngel: The palace will seek damages from the publisher, which is owned by former Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi.

I find this hilarious.

TommyymmoT: Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.

It's called the Internet


0_0

Bwahhahahahaahah!
 
2012-09-16 06:14:01 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: basemetal: xiaodown: More like flapjacks, AMIRITE!??

I'd pour syrup on those flapjacks.

/sorry Brits, no disrespect intended
//but your princess is hot....

She is a rather good looking woman. I'm sure her breasts are nice, but we'll never know from the pictures taken at that distance.


That's so very true.
 
2012-09-16 06:15:17 PM

ArkAngel: The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and News of the World.


So
www.notashamed.org.uk, elliottneep.files.wordpress.com, and upload.wikimedia.org 

Never thought a rock band would have gotten involved.
 
2012-09-16 06:15:22 PM

Strobeguy: I think Id rather see nude pics of Pippa Middletons royal arse


The royal buttocks are not on display to the general public, and especially not to the commoners.
 
2012-09-16 06:15:45 PM
imageshack.us


Nice ass, though.
 
2012-09-16 06:16:13 PM
Oh look, boobs, never seen those before.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn
 
2012-09-16 06:16:14 PM

Strobeguy: I think Id rather see nude pics of Pippa Middletons royal arse


More so than Harry's harry bum.
 
2012-09-16 06:16:29 PM
Don't fap into the wind. Or tug on Superman's cape.
 
2012-09-16 06:18:26 PM
So the world's most infamous family of welfare cheaters are going to learn first-hand about the Streisand Effect. Wah-farking-wah.
 
2012-09-16 06:18:32 PM
They know they're not getting these pics off the tubes.

It's about preventing future pictures. Make the paparazzi and especially the publishers think twice about doing something similar again.
 
2012-09-16 06:21:57 PM

Strobeguy: I think Id rather see nude pics of Pippa Middletons royal arse


THIS
 
2012-09-16 06:22:02 PM

12349876: They know they're not getting these pics off the tubes.

It's about preventing future pictures. Make the paparazzi and especially the publishers think twice about doing something similar again.


The only thing that would make paparazzi think twice is if we started summary drawing and quartering of anyone caught within 10,000 yards of a celebrity with any type of recording device.

Even then I doubt there'd be much success.
 
2012-09-16 06:22:27 PM

ElLoco: They would get a lot more mileage and a lot less notoriety over it if they would act as if it were no big deal and to admonish the press with "please stop doing this kind of stuff. Really? Guys... it isn't kindergarten anymore. Grow up. Sometimes people are naked. Deal with it."


Most likely, it would then be edited and relooped with 'deal with it' memes and 'people are naked.' all over the internet - youtards giggling like schoolgilrls over such insipid content. Eventually, you'll get that neuter whiteknighting it to epic levels, crying that you should 'leave them alone!'
 
2012-09-16 06:23:17 PM

black_knight: So the world's most infamous family of welfare cheaters


The True Cost of the Royal Family


/Summary - The UK actually makes £160 million in profit from the Windsors
 
2012-09-16 06:25:06 PM

scathing1: What hypocritical oafs. Brits have placed CCTV cameras on every corner to monitor the public, and they shiat themselves when someone invades the Royal family's privacy in a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Sorry, assholes, but your privilege only goes so far.


Sigh. There are not "cameras on every corner" in the UK. And most of the ones that are there are owned by the public, not the state.
 
2012-09-16 06:30:44 PM

black_knight: So the world's most infamous family of welfare cheaters are going to learn first-hand about the Streisand Effect. Wah-farking-wah.


They're paid as diplomats and representative of the English government in an advertorial sense.

/ In addition, they're the cornerstone of British heritage. Without the royal family, Britain simply loses a major part of their identity especially in comparison to the other European countries.
 
2012-09-16 06:31:47 PM

Snapper Carr: black_knight: So the world's most infamous family of welfare cheaters

The True Cost of the Royal Family


/Summary - The UK actually makes £160 million in profit from the Windsors


Bull. The royals are also supposed to pay for various parts of te civil government. If the Civil List act wasn't agreed to by the next monarch, that monarch would be bankrupt almost instantly. The deal gives to elected government more power in exchange for paying for things the royals are supposed to pay for and paying royals a salary.
 
2012-09-16 06:35:52 PM

scathing1: What hypocritical oafs. Brits have placed CCTV cameras on every corner to monitor the public, and they shiat themselves when someone invades the Royal family's privacy in a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Sorry, assholes, but your privilege only goes so far.

 
2012-09-16 06:40:22 PM

OtherLittleGuy: So, will British partisans burn down the French Embassy in retribution?


And the German embassy and maybe a Cinnabon for good measure.
 
2012-09-16 06:40:44 PM

scathing1: One place to view said pictures.


Another place to view said pictures
(my blog. I'm shameless click whore, click an ad or buy something from Amazon while you're there and I might arrange for someone to give you a handy - no gender or attractiveness guarantees)
 
2012-09-16 06:43:08 PM

wrs1864: Snapper Carr: black_knight: So the world's most infamous family of welfare cheaters

The True Cost of the Royal Family


/Summary - The UK actually makes £160 million in profit from the Windsors

Bull. The royals are also supposed to pay for various parts of te civil government. If the Civil List act wasn't agreed to by the next monarch, that monarch would be bankrupt almost instantly. The deal gives to elected government more power in exchange for paying for things the royals are supposed to pay for and paying royals a salary.


Well, they could take their shiat and go home.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-09-16 06:44:29 PM
Print, not internet, is what I understand the injunction to be targeting.

According to BBC coverage today, this will likely end up with the publisher making an apology and paying the couple. Nobody will go to jail. So basically she'll get paid for posing topless but come across as a victim rather than a woman of questionable morals.
 
2012-09-16 06:47:31 PM
Yeah, they're mournful.

/Pippa is hotter
//Blimey!
 
2012-09-16 06:48:31 PM
Damn! I'm 50+ years old and a former mechanic. I don't even change a flat tire if I can help it...let alone change the oil.
 
2012-09-16 06:48:32 PM

scathing1: What hypocritical oafs. Brits have placed CCTV cameras on every corner to monitor the public, and they shiat themselves when someone invades the Royal family's privacy in a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Sorry, assholes, but your privilege only goes so far.

 
2012-09-16 06:49:21 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!! wrong thread...sorry bout that...
 
2012-09-16 06:54:24 PM

TommyymmoT: Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.


Grainy telephoto lens shots of a couple of somewhat saggy A's. Not sufficient to get all injunctiony about. Google irish times topless kate worked a few days ago
 
2012-09-16 06:56:23 PM

scathing1: What hypocritical oafs


Isn't the "Hypocritical Oaf" something to do with doctors?
Or Dr. Will Smith?
 
2012-09-16 06:56:54 PM

Strobeguy: I think Id rather see nude pics of Pippa Middletons royal arse


I know I would.

/ assman
 
2012-09-16 06:59:35 PM
Hi, I didn't know about this, and I don't care about Kate Middleton. Rest assured, though, I'll find those pics, and I'll save them, if to prove nothing other than that the internet is forever.
 
2012-09-16 07:00:37 PM
She's quite fit. The BA was more remarkable than the bewbs, IMHO.
 
2012-09-16 07:02:23 PM
i was going to make my same old gripe about not taking pics you do not want to get out but it doesn't apply here.

the paparazzi needs to be prosecuted for criminal trespass.

I refuse to call people who take photos of celebs for sale to magazines and etc Photographers.
 
2012-09-16 07:02:27 PM
Royal boobs, whoopee. She's still human, just like all of us. Not a big deal, if they'd stop freaking out then it wouldn't escalate into a mess.
 
2012-09-16 07:03:19 PM

wrs1864: Snapper Carr: black_knight: So the world's most infamous family of welfare cheaters

The True Cost of the Royal Family


/Summary - The UK actually makes £160 million in profit from the Windsors

Bull. The royals are also supposed to pay for various parts of te civil government. If the Civil List act wasn't agreed to by the next monarch, that monarch would be bankrupt almost instantly. The deal gives to elected government more power in exchange for paying for things the royals are supposed to pay for and paying royals a salary.



Not for nearly 200 years

"On the accession of William IV in 1830, the sum voted for the Civil List was restricted to the expenses of the Royal Household, removing any residual responsibilities associated with the cost of the civil government. This finally removed any link between the Sovereign and the cost of the civil government. The name 'Civil List' remains, however."

It's simple math - 200 million in revenue from income from the Windsor's land holdings minus 40 million for upkeep of the royal family = 160 million.


That's doesn't include tourism and other difficult to quantify benefits of having a living symbol of the nation.
 
2012-09-16 07:03:32 PM

grimlock1972: i was going to make my same old gripe about not taking pics you do not want to get out but it doesn't apply here.

the paparazzi needs to be prosecuted for criminal trespass.

I refuse to call people who take photos of celebs for sale to magazines and etc Photographers.


Pictures taken from a public street when you're outside in plain view showing your goods is not trespassing.
 
2012-09-16 07:04:56 PM
Keep It Moving

Nothing To See Here
 
2012-09-16 07:04:57 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-16 07:06:58 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: grimlock1972: i was going to make my same old gripe about not taking pics you do not want to get out but it doesn't apply here.

the paparazzi needs to be prosecuted for criminal trespass.

I refuse to call people who take photos of celebs for sale to magazines and etc Photographers.

Pictures taken from a public street when you're outside in plain view showing your goods is not trespassing.


True enough still does not excuse the fact they sold them for profit. if the shots had been kept to the person who took them then fine, but that is not the case.
 
2012-09-16 07:09:20 PM

OtherLittleGuy: So, will British partisans burn down the French Embassy in retribution?


The only reasonable response, certainly.
 
2012-09-16 07:09:53 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: grimlock1972: i was going to make my same old gripe about not taking pics you do not want to get out but it doesn't apply here.

the paparazzi needs to be prosecuted for criminal trespass.

I refuse to call people who take photos of celebs for sale to magazines and etc Photographers.

Pictures taken from a public street when you're outside in plain view showing your goods is not trespassing.


You have a very flexible concept of "in plain view."
 
2012-09-16 07:10:28 PM
I'm no fan of the work-shy Middleton leech or her flat-arsed, spanner-faced sister, but she wasn't in a public place (or on a balcony). Being beside a pool at a private home half a mile from the nearest road is not public. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think the big fuss is being made because her husband's mother was killed while being chased by paps and they want to make it clear that a repeat of the same is not acceptable.
 
2012-09-16 07:10:40 PM

Snapper Carr: w"On the accession of William IV in 1830, the sum voted for the Civil List was restricted to the expenses of the Royal Household, removing any residual responsibilities associated with the cost of the civil government. This finally removed any link between the Sovereign and the cost of the civil government. The name 'Civil List' remains, however."


RIght, the civil list acts are what keeps the royals from being on the hook for parts of the civil government. You remove that act, and the previous status quo returns. It is just a lot easier for the UK gov to pay for things directly, rather than pay the royals, who would then pay for parts of the government.
 
2012-09-16 07:13:22 PM
Yeah, lets put the toothpaste back in the tube.
 
2012-09-16 07:13:45 PM

Walker: Honey, if you don't want pictures of your titties taken don't go out on a balcony topless. The pictures were taken from a public road, not from some guy "invading your privacy". How much privacy can you expect standing outside with your titties flapping in the breeze?


Taken from a public road with what appears to be a 600m lens in mediocre light at ISO 12400. Fark the paparazzi.
 
2012-09-16 07:16:03 PM

ChubbyTiger: Taken from a public road with what appears to be a 600m lens in mediocre light at ISO 12400. Fark the paparazzi.


If the photog had really been using a 600-meter lens, Kate could have just batted the lens away.

//knows what you meant
 
2012-09-16 07:16:47 PM
I read something earlier today that this has more to do with the fact she is seen smoking in some of the unpublished pics and she's rumored to be pregnant since she stopped drinking a while ago.
 
2012-09-16 07:25:26 PM

Xploder: Damn! I'm 50+ years old and a former mechanic. I don't even change a flat tire if I can help it...let alone change the oil.


And yet, somehow it works in here.
 
2012-09-16 07:27:08 PM

pecosdave: ArkAngel: The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and News of the World.
So
[www.notashamed.org.uk image 386x130], [elliottneep.files.wordpress.com image 350x122], and [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x220] 
Never thought a rock band would have gotten involved.


Well, that band name -- considering that she will presumably one day be that same thing.
 
2012-09-16 07:29:50 PM
See that house in the distance? that road is the vantage point of the photographer. She was in a private house, and should have some expectation of privacy. you shouldn't have to worry about a photographer over 1 mile away.

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-09-16 07:34:39 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Xploder: Damn! I'm 50+ years old and a former mechanic. I don't even change a flat tire if I can help it...let alone change the oil.

And yet, somehow it works in here.


Yeah, I noticed that after I posted...stupid yet funny.
 
2012-09-16 07:38:41 PM
It seems like some kind of vindictive streak, the common man wants to see the richest and most famous people dragged through the mud so they don't have to feel so sad and pitiful in their own lives. Yes, she is anatomically the same as most every other woman on the planet. Now we know for sure. If my life was interesting enough that people could afford to follow me around just on the off chances of catching me doing something worth taking a picture of, well, I don't know what I'd do, probably order out a lot more.
 
2012-09-16 07:42:21 PM
Interesting Fact: Kate Middleton is an anagram of 'Naked Tit Model'.

Found at jessicaennisbum.co.uk
 
2012-09-16 07:47:30 PM

thelunatick: See that house in the distance? that road is the vantage point of the photographer. She was in a private house, and should have some expectation of privacy. you shouldn't have to worry about a photographer over 1 mile away.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x286]



Actually you SHOULD worry about just that if you are the Princess of England and you are outside naked.

They are owed nothing.
 
2012-09-16 07:48:57 PM
royalexhibitions.files.wordpress.com

^LGT museum
 
2012-09-16 07:54:02 PM

Snapper Carr: black_knight: So the world's most infamous family of welfare cheaters

The True Cost of the Royal Family


/Summary - The UK actually makes £160 million in profit from the Windsors


that seems like a lot of bunk. Whoever came up with that number should get a job balancing the books for the US government
 
2012-09-16 07:57:48 PM

jmr61: thelunatick: See that house in the distance? that road is the vantage point of the photographer. She was in a private house, and should have some expectation of privacy. you shouldn't have to worry about a photographer over 1 mile away.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x286]


Actually you SHOULD worry about just that if you are the Princess of England and you are outside naked.

They are owed nothing.


Considering the cost of the British royals vs amount of work they're expected to do, you'd think that the lot of them would get naked for you on command and do a little dance.
 
2012-09-16 08:00:53 PM

MoeSzyslak: I read something earlier today that this has more to do with the fact she is seen smoking in some of the unpublished pics and she's rumored to be pregnant since she stopped drinking a while ago.


So... smoking while pregnant only "counts" if one is caught?
 
2012-09-16 08:02:44 PM
The internet is forever.
 
2012-09-16 08:04:22 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: omeganuepsilon: Also, they weren't that spectacular.

You expected Roman candles?


I expected a cloud of blue jays flying in front of them, blocking my view. She's a princess. I didn't think anybody ever saw their tits.
 
2012-09-16 08:05:00 PM

chuckufarlie: Snapper Carr: black_knight: So the world's most infamous family of welfare cheaters

The True Cost of the Royal Family


/Summary - The UK actually makes £160 million in profit from the Windsors

that seems like a lot of bunk. Whoever came up with that number should get a job balancing the books for the US government


You're right.

The actual number is closer to 200m

"The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £7.0 billion, with urban properties valued at £5.179 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £240.2 million, as at 31 March 2012."

"The grant for the 2012/13 financial year has already been set at £31m but for 2013/14, when the new formula begins, it is estimated to be worth £36m."

Here


Here
 
2012-09-16 08:06:59 PM

UseLessHuman: It seems like some kind of vindictive streak, the common man wants to see the richest and most famous people dragged through the mud so they don't have to feel so sad and pitiful in their own lives.


It's not that. It's far more simple. She's hot and an extremely rare form of utterly unattainable, people want to see her naked. A lot of folks, myself included, would have a good chuckle at the royal family destroying itself, but that's not what's going on here.

I don't think many of the people who want to look at the royal tits actually wish her any harm, psychological or otherwise.


Strobeguy: I think Id rather see nude pics of Pippa Middletons royal arse


Pippa Middleton ain't royal. Just sayin!
 
2012-09-16 08:14:29 PM
The Streisand Effect is one of my most favorite phenomenon. Let's see where it leads us this time.
 
2012-09-16 08:16:57 PM

beroff: MoeSzyslak: I read something earlier today that this has more to do with the fact she is seen smoking in some of the unpublished pics and she's rumored to be pregnant since she stopped drinking a while ago.

So... smoking while pregnant only "counts" if one is caught?


You can't deny it to the public if there's photographic evidence.
 
2012-09-16 08:28:44 PM
Who?
 
2012-09-16 08:31:42 PM

Lipspinach: scathing1: What hypocritical oafs

Isn't the "Hypocritical Oaf" something to do with doctors?
Or Dr. Will Smith?


*GROAAAANNNNN*
 
2012-09-16 08:31:51 PM
Something about this story is suspicious. It's the combination of that she's out in the open/when they must have intense security..the image quality is very poor..plus being so close to the Harry photo scandal.

I do realize that the shots were taken from a distance - but you'd be surprised how clear you can get from a great distance with consumer cameras these days, let alone pro.

I admit I don't know a reason why the Royals would want these out there - perhaps some psychology involved..I don't know.

But I can tell something is fishy.
 
2012-09-16 08:37:01 PM
oh just roll with it you farking royal prudes
 
2012-09-16 08:41:17 PM
The Royal family should take their ball and go home. If the Brits don't want them, they can go live on their wealth in perputity. Oh wait, until someone dies and their government taxes them into a second death.
 
2012-09-16 08:43:13 PM

zvoidx: Something about this story is suspicious. It's the combination of that she's out in the open/when they must have intense security..the image quality is very poor..plus being so close to the Harry photo scandal.

I do realize that the shots were taken from a distance - but you'd be surprised how clear you can get from a great distance with consumer cameras these days, let alone pro.


The (lack of) image quality is understandable. At the distance involved, what we're seeing is only a small, cropped portion of the total image. The two subjects wouldn't near fill the frame at that distance, even with a 600mm lens.

Also, unlike shorter lengths, where most of the paparazzi use f/2.8 or faster lenses, the biggest aperture you can get on a 600mm lens is f/4.0, which is a full stop "slower" than an f/2.8 (and even a 600mm f/4 is still a $13k lens). That's why the photographer had to bump the ISO up to 12,400. I don't know if he's shooting Canon or Nikon, but in either case, some graininess and noise is to be expected at that ISO. And even at max aperture and high ISO, I'll bet the shutter speed still wasn't very fast, so the focus is soft because the subjects weren't completely still.
 
2012-09-16 08:46:59 PM

whidbey: The US and England could go to war over this.
Pity. For them.


There is only one group of people that care less about the dignity of the Royals than the Americans. That group is the British.

Albeit it's not so much that we don't care as that we laugh at the idea that any of them but Elizabeth even knows how to spell 'dignity'.
 
2012-09-16 08:47:15 PM
Eh, they were taken from a super long distance from the road in front of a private estate. One should have the expectation of privacy in that instance.
 
2012-09-16 08:48:18 PM

TommyymmoT: Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.


They were taken from half a mile away. Forget it.

Majick Thise: The lawyers know all about the internet, but they also know all about 'billable hours'


Not all the photos are out there yet. An injunction might stop them from being released.

There's also the issue of deterrence. Nail these guys to the wall and there won't be as much of a market for such photos the next time around.
 
2012-09-16 08:48:27 PM
The Royal family seems to be pretty useless anyway, the least they can do is get naked for the amusement of the rest of us. If I were leaching off my country and living in a palace and called everyone subjects, I'd feel obligated to pull my junk out when asked.
 
2012-09-16 08:56:41 PM

paj: Why is having topless pictures of yourself a huge deal? Oooo, she removed a strip of fabric! Prudes.


This.

Woah, blurry A cup boobs!!!!

fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap --> expected behavior from a 12 year old, or your typical farker
Eew, how scandalous! --> expected behavior from a fat bitter middle aged she-beast
 
2012-09-16 08:58:03 PM
I think the Royal Family is upset about the photos. Kate, on the other hand, is young, attractive and she knows it. I don't think she minds at all.
 
2012-09-16 08:58:58 PM
i46.tinypic.com

Kate topless
 
2012-09-16 09:00:10 PM
Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.
 
2012-09-16 09:06:42 PM
I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.
 
2012-09-16 09:08:18 PM

Dead for Tax Reasons: how hard is it for famous people to get: don't whip out your titties if you don't want to see them on the internets

no number of lawsuits can put your top back on


Exactly. If you're a member of the royal family, you should assume that the only time you can be sure there are no photographers stalking you is when you're in a small room with four walls.
 
2012-09-16 09:08:54 PM

ScottRiqui: zvoidx: Something about this story is suspicious. It's the combination of that she's out in the open/when they must have intense security..the image quality is very poor..plus being so close to the Harry photo scandal.

I do realize that the shots were taken from a distance - but you'd be surprised how clear you can get from a great distance with consumer cameras these days, let alone pro.

The (lack of) image quality is understandable. At the distance involved, what we're seeing is only a small, cropped portion of the total image. The two subjects wouldn't near fill the frame at that distance, even with a 600mm lens.

Also, unlike shorter lengths, where most of the paparazzi use f/2.8 or faster lenses, the biggest aperture you can get on a 600mm lens is f/4.0, which is a full stop "slower" than an f/2.8 (and even a 600mm f/4 is still a $13k lens). That's why the photographer had to bump the ISO up to 12,400. I don't know if he's shooting Canon or Nikon, but in either case, some graininess and noise is to be expected at that ISO. And even at max aperture and high ISO, I'll bet the shutter speed still wasn't very fast, so the focus is soft because the subjects weren't completely still.


Also consider that if someone can take a "shot" of them with a camera, then so could a sniper.
They must have extremely sophisticated security for those two.

Security wasn't aware that someone was pointing a camera at them from a distance and that Kate was topless and in someone's "scope"? Find that difficult to believe.
 
2012-09-16 09:12:55 PM
AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.

because little girls don't dream of becoming checkout clerks
 
2012-09-16 09:14:38 PM

TommyymmoT: Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.


I wouldnt exactly call them orbs.

www.erench.com
 
2012-09-16 09:17:35 PM
@Snapper

Maybe so, but everything one of the inbreds from that family visit my country, it is on my dime! We fly them over, pay for the security, food, transportation, and fly them home again.

If that is not an example of FREELOADING, I am not sure what is!
 
2012-09-16 09:18:12 PM

Gothnet: UseLessHuman: It seems like some kind of vindictive streak, the common man wants to see the richest and most famous people dragged through the mud so they don't have to feel so sad and pitiful in their own lives.

It's not that. It's far more simple. She's hot and an extremely rare form of utterly unattainable, people want to see her naked. A lot of folks, myself included, would have a good chuckle at the royal family destroying itself, but that's not what's going on here.

I don't think many of the people who want to look at the royal tits actually wish her any harm, psychological or otherwise.


Strobeguy: I think Id rather see nude pics of Pippa Middletons royal arse

Pippa Middleton ain't royal. Just sayin!


Maybe not but her arse is!
 
2012-09-16 09:21:27 PM
What is the big deal...I am sure NASA or the CIA have better pics anyway....They would need a good lens too, they are A cups at best!
 
2012-09-16 09:22:56 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: omeganuepsilon: Also, they weren't that spectacular.

You expected Roman candles?

I expected a cloud of blue jays flying in front of them, blocking my view. She's a princess. I didn't think anybody ever saw their tits.


Kinda like when Snow White took a bath? That'd make a good photoshop contest.
 
2012-09-16 09:25:03 PM

mikewadestr: Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.


I'm sure she does and good for you.
 
2012-09-16 09:26:44 PM

AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.


At least they actually might have a chance with the grocery clerk, and she's probably less snooty and demanding to boot.
 
2012-09-16 09:29:02 PM

AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.


Because, as already proven, there's a better chance you get to see this one's tits.
 
2012-09-16 09:34:25 PM
Dear Kate,

As much as I would love to see your Royal Titties, I feel that someone should tell you that no place out doors, no matter how secluded, is truly public. So if you do not want a bunch of perverts waking off to your Royal Titties then keep them covered up whenever you are outside! Really, it is that simple. I know it must be great feeling the warm sun on your Royal Titties, but if you expose them to the Sun then someone from The Sun (or some other rag) might just snap a picture of your Royal Titties. And once those Royal Titties of yours are on the internet there is simply no way to ever get them back. So, please, for your own sake, cover up the Royal Titties.

Sincerely,
Mock26.
 
2012-09-16 09:36:51 PM

belhade: AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.

Because, as already proven, there's a better chance you get to see this one's tits.


That and the check out clerk at my local grocery is an Iraqi man in his late fifties.
 
2012-09-16 09:37:00 PM

zvoidx: ScottRiqui: zvoidx: Something about this story is suspicious. It's the combination of that she's out in the open/when they must have intense security..the image quality is very poor..plus being so close to the Harry photo scandal.

I do realize that the shots were taken from a distance - but you'd be surprised how clear you can get from a great distance with consumer cameras these days, let alone pro.

The (lack of) image quality is understandable. At the distance involved, what we're seeing is only a small, cropped portion of the total image. The two subjects wouldn't near fill the frame at that distance, even with a 600mm lens.

Also, unlike shorter lengths, where most of the paparazzi use f/2.8 or faster lenses, the biggest aperture you can get on a 600mm lens is f/4.0, which is a full stop "slower" than an f/2.8 (and even a 600mm f/4 is still a $13k lens). That's why the photographer had to bump the ISO up to 12,400. I don't know if he's shooting Canon or Nikon, but in either case, some graininess and noise is to be expected at that ISO. And even at max aperture and high ISO, I'll bet the shutter speed still wasn't very fast, so the focus is soft because the subjects weren't completely still.

Also consider that if someone can take a "shot" of them with a camera, then so could a sniper.
They must have extremely sophisticated security for those two.

Security wasn't aware that someone was pointing a camera at them from a distance and that Kate was topless and in someone's "scope"? Find that difficult to believe.


I'm pretty sure the shared portion of the Venn diagram that contains "people who really want to shoot Kate Middleton" and "people who can make an 800m killshot and know where she is" is vanishingly small.

People who want to sell pictures of her tits and have a camera? Much larger.

I have not a shred of tinfoil for this particular issue.
 
2012-09-16 09:38:14 PM
 
2012-09-16 09:39:21 PM
Forgot to say especially in England, where I'm pretty sure damn near 100% of those who could make the shot served in the military and wouldn't care to.
 
2012-09-16 09:41:20 PM

AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.


In all fairness, I'd like to see her tits too.
 
2012-09-16 09:44:43 PM
The (currently) sexiest Kate Middleton picture:

img002.lazygirls.info 

These blurry pieces of crap don't change that.
 
2012-09-16 09:46:23 PM
Meh. Half the world's population have them.


More than half. I've got em myself.

/ War's the papparazzi?
// I'll sell pix of em cheep!
/// ne1?
 
2012-09-16 09:52:57 PM

Snotnose: Meh. Half the world's population have them.

More than half. I've got em myself.

/ War's the papparazzi?
// I'll sell pix of em cheep!
/// ne1?


BIE

EIP
 
2012-09-16 09:56:36 PM

Spiralmonkey: I'm no fan of the work-shy Middleton leech or her flat-arsed, spanner-faced sister, but she wasn't in a public place (or on a balcony). Being beside a pool at a private home half a mile from the nearest road is not public. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think the big fuss is being made because her husband's mother was killed while being chased by paps driven around by an alkie and they want to make it clear that a repeat of the same is not acceptable.


FTFY
 
2012-09-16 09:57:08 PM

thelunatick: See that house in the distance? that road is the vantage point of the photographer. She was in a private house, and should have some expectation of privacy. you shouldn't have to worry about a photographer over 1 mile away.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x286]


If you're rich, famous and hot you should worry about satellites.
 
2012-09-16 09:58:46 PM
Yah, you are NOT going to get all those feathers back into the pillow, I don't care who you are.
 
2012-09-16 10:06:50 PM

austin_millbarge: TommyymmoT: Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.

I wouldnt exactly call them orbs.

[www.erench.com image 762x392]


I must witness them myself.
Do be a good chap and summons her to my bed chambers at once.
 
2012-09-16 10:07:12 PM

Jim_Callahan:

There is only one group of people that care less about the dignity of the Royals than the Americans. That group is the British Irish.

 
2012-09-16 10:11:11 PM

Fark Rye For Many Whores: [royalexhibitions.files.wordpress.com image 425x448]

^LGT museum


The Holy Hand Grenade?
 
2012-09-16 10:14:55 PM

Walker: Honey, if you don't want pictures of your titties taken don't go out on a balcony topless. The pictures were taken from a public road, not from some guy "invading your privacy". How much privacy can you expect standing outside with your titties flapping in the breeze?


I dont care about royals but

"The couple was photographed via long lens from more than a kilometre away"

is not quite her hanging them off a balcony in the street now is it?
 
2012-09-16 10:27:09 PM
Whats the big deal? Hubby was right next to her.
 
2012-09-16 10:30:47 PM
Imho, you haven't lived until you've had balcony sex in a high rise.
 
2012-09-16 10:34:00 PM
The whole thing is totally asinine:

1. That the Royals are upset about it.
2. That anyone would take a picture from half a mile away of a girl's breasts.
3. That anyone would PAY for such a picture, ensuring that someone would in fact take such a shot.
4. That anyone would pay for a publication carrying such pictures, ensuring that the publisher would publish them and also enabling 2 & 3.
5. That attorneys would cause a brouhaha by trying to quash the pics, thus ensuring people will pay for the magazine, enabling 2 & 3.

I mean, really, people. The ones who buy this crap are just as "guilty" as the dorks who sell it and the imbeciles who snapped it.
 
2012-09-16 10:37:08 PM

TheDumbBlonde: mikewadestr: Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.

I'm sure she does and good for you.


Hell, I have her beat, and I'm 43 years old!
 
2012-09-16 10:52:39 PM

Littleturtle: TheDumbBlonde: mikewadestr: Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.

I'm sure she does and good for you.

Hell, I have her beat, and I'm 43 years old!


You know we need proof.
 
2012-09-16 10:53:05 PM

Gyrfalcon: The only thing that would make paparazzi think twice is if we started summary drawing and quartering of anyone caught within 10,000 yards of a celebrity with any type of recording deviceall of them everywhere.


With minor modifications to your plan, I could totally be on board. Legit journalists? Crucial to a healthy society. Scum-sucking paparazzi leeches? No reason to keep them alive.
 
2012-09-16 10:56:47 PM

UseLessHuman: It seems like some kind of vindictive streak, the common man wants to see the richest and most famous people dragged through the mud so they don't have to feel so sad and pitiful in their own lives.


What mud? The shocking revelation that she has breasts?
 
2012-09-16 11:04:31 PM
she has a great ass/
 
2012-09-16 11:11:25 PM

mikewadestr: Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......and in 30 years, Kate is still going to be looking great. Cause her old man will have the money for the BEST surgery....

Looked decent in the photos I saw. Ask any girl with big knockers what a pain in the back they are.
 
2012-09-16 11:30:15 PM

Spiralmonkey: I'm no fan of the work-shy Middleton leech or her flat-arsed, spanner-faced sister, but she wasn't in a public place (or on a balcony). Being beside a pool at a private home half a mile from the nearest road is not public. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think the big fuss is being made because her husband's mother was killed while being chased by paps and they want to make it clear that a repeat of the same is not acceptable.


Lol "spanner-face". I thought I was the only one who thought Pippa a very plain girl, who no one would look at twice at if she didn't have a famous relative.
 
2012-09-16 11:53:41 PM
Here's how the Internet works: I'm in-port in CA. Farkettes, I'm looking at you, I'll be here all week. Don't let me down.

/EIP
 
2012-09-16 11:56:38 PM

Mugato: The Royal family seems to be pretty useless anyway, the least they can do is get naked for the amusement of the rest of us. If I were leaching off my country and living in a palace and called everyone subjects, I'd feel obligated to pull my junk out when asked.


forum.idle-games.com
 
2012-09-17 12:04:59 AM

CrispFlows: Without the a royal family, Britain simply loses a major part of their identity especially in comparison to the other European countries.


Corrected.

They're all equally related anyway, so it doesn't really matter which one currently occupies the place.
 
2012-09-17 12:06:36 AM
So some no name English women are okay to objectify and exploit on Page 3, but hands off the Duchess' tits?
 
2012-09-17 12:11:20 AM

scathing1: One place to view said pictures.


Fark just got royally served!
Looks like your membership just went up sir.
AMIRITE?!
 
2012-09-17 12:12:48 AM

gadian: Eh, they were taken from a super long distance from the road in front of a private estate. One should have the expectation of privacy in that instance.


When you're the personification of the British Empire, perhaps your expectations of privacy are diminished by being one of the most specifically public people on the planet.
 
2012-09-17 12:23:41 AM

Gyrfalcon: 12349876: They know they're not getting these pics off the tubes.

It's about preventing future pictures. Make the paparazzi and especially the publishers think twice about doing something similar again.

The only thing that would make paparazzi think twice is if we started summary drawing and quartering of anyone caught within 10,000 yards of a celebrity with any type of recording device.

Even then I doubt there'd be much success.


so if one were to use binoculars and manually sketch the image as an artist...
or simply run the pic through a sketch filter...
 
2012-09-17 12:54:58 AM
The gun is always loaded...
 
2012-09-17 01:01:16 AM

Mugato: The Royal family seems to be pretty useless anyway, the least they can do is get naked for the amusement of the rest of us. If I were leaching off my country and living in a palace and called everyone subjects, I'd feel obligated to pull my junk out when asked.


Yeah, generating something like £175 million in income for the Government is really leaching off of society. (The Civil List produces nearly £200 million and the Royal Family gets something like 25% of that.) Sure, in the grand scheme of things £175 million is chump change, but the Royal Family pretty much pays for itself. Not to mention the fact that a visit from the Queen to a foreign country can generate a ton of good will and help smooth the way for treaties and such.
 
2012-09-17 01:05:24 AM

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: The gun is always loaded...


So is the camera.
 
2012-09-17 01:08:23 AM

StevieKo: Gyrfalcon: 12349876: They know they're not getting these pics off the tubes.

It's about preventing future pictures. Make the paparazzi and especially the publishers think twice about doing something similar again.

The only thing that would make paparazzi think twice is if we started summary drawing and quartering of anyone caught within 10,000 yards of a celebrity with any type of recording device.

Even then I doubt there'd be much success.

so if one were to use binoculars and manually sketch the image as an artist...
or simply run the pic through a sketch filter...


No, the latter means you still took the photo.

But, if you can do the binoc/sketch then more power to you.
 
2012-09-17 01:09:20 AM

MoeSzyslak: I read something earlier today that this has more to do with the fact she is seen smoking in some of the unpublished pics and she's rumored to be pregnant since she stopped drinking a while ago.


drinking in public. she's a skank who hooked 'the big one'. there's nothing princessy or regal about her. her and camilla should get along fabulously.
 
2012-09-17 01:16:51 AM

Gyrfalcon: StevieKo: Gyrfalcon: 12349876: They know they're not getting these pics off the tubes.

It's about preventing future pictures. Make the paparazzi and especially the publishers think twice about doing something similar again.

The only thing that would make paparazzi think twice is if we started summary drawing and quartering of anyone caught within 10,000 yards of a celebrity with any type of recording device.

Even then I doubt there'd be much success.

so if one were to use binoculars and manually sketch the image as an artist...
or simply run the pic through a sketch filter...

No, the latter means you still took the photo.


No sir, you don't get our stock footage!
You've no proof and no right!
I drew that!
Sue me! :X
 
2012-09-17 01:22:33 AM

Occam's Disposable Razor: The (currently) sexiest Kate Middleton picture:


I have to agree. Nice legs!
 
2012-09-17 01:42:53 AM

Gyrfalcon: 12349876: They know they're not getting these pics off the tubes.

It's about preventing future pictures. Make the paparazzi and especially the publishers think twice about doing something similar again.

The only thing that would make paparazzi think twice is if we started summary drawing and quartering of anyone caught within 10,000 yards of a celebrity with any type of recording device.

Even then I doubt there'd be much success.


I agree the paparazzi are scum and would be hard to convince, but if they knew they would be unable to sell those photos to the publishers with deep pockets they might change their minds. That's why I said ESPECIALLY the publishers. They're the easier ones to convince and maybe that effect would "trickle down"
 
2012-09-17 02:00:43 AM

Snapper Carr: It's simple math - 200 million in revenue from income from the Windsor's land holdings minus 40 million for upkeep of the royal family = 160 million.


It's not at all clear that the Windsors would be entitled to those holdings if the monarchy was dissolved. At the very least the government would be entitled to collect taxes on those 200m in revenues, which they currently do not; that wouldn't make up 100% of the difference, but it would be a decent chunk of change. And in all likelihood a significant portion of those holdings would simply be assumed by the government -- for example, "all salmon fishing in Scotland" doesn't sound like the sort of thing it's in the best interest of the people to let an individual control.
 
2012-09-17 02:02:13 AM
imageshack.us
imageshack.us
I hate small blurry pictures.
 
2012-09-17 03:01:51 AM

grimlock1972: Keizer_Ghidorah: grimlock1972: i was going to make my same old gripe about not taking pics you do not want to get out but it doesn't apply here.

the paparazzi needs to be prosecuted for criminal trespass.

I refuse to call people who take photos of celebs for sale to magazines and etc Photographers.

Pictures taken from a public street when you're outside in plain view showing your goods is not trespassing.

True enough still does not excuse the fact they sold them for profit. if the shots had been kept to the person who took them then fine, but that is not the case.


How hard is it to not get naked in public?
 
2012-09-17 03:15:11 AM

OtherLittleGuy: So, will British partisans burn down the French Embassy in retribution?


Youre assuming british partisans have maps. They are likely to just hit the German embassy and call it a day.
 
2012-09-17 03:29:06 AM

OtherLittleGuy: So, will British partisans burn down the French Embassy in retribution?


Brits may be weird, but even they are not willing to deal with the smell of burnt hair and melted cheese that would ensue.
 
2012-09-17 03:45:55 AM

12349876: Gyrfalcon: 12349876: They know they're not getting these pics off the tubes.

It's about preventing future pictures. Make the paparazzi and especially the publishers think twice about doing something similar again.

The only thing that would make paparazzi think twice is if we started summary drawing and quartering of anyone caught within 10,000 yards of a celebrity with any type of recording device.

Even then I doubt there'd be much success.

I agree the paparazzi are scum and would be hard to convince, but if they knew they would be unable to sell those photos to the publishers with deep pockets they might change their minds. That's why I said ESPECIALLY the publishers. They're the easier ones to convince and maybe that effect would "trickle down"


So, revise my suggestion to drawing & quartering the publishers? I'm not seeing a downside, honestly.
 
2012-09-17 06:24:34 AM

Mock26: Mugato: The Royal family seems to be pretty useless anyway, the least they can do is get naked for the amusement of the rest of us. If I were leaching off my country and living in a palace and called everyone subjects, I'd feel obligated to pull my junk out when asked.

Yeah, generating something like £175 million in income for the Government is really leaching off of society. (The Civil List produces nearly £200 million and the Royal Family gets something like 25% of that.) Sure, in the grand scheme of things £175 million is chump change, but the Royal Family pretty much pays for itself. Not to mention the fact that a visit from the Queen to a foreign country can generate a ton of good will and help smooth the way for treaties and such.


Eh, people go to see the buildings and the artifacts. It's not like the family is out signing autographs. They could kick their ass out and it would still be the same tourist trap it is today.
 
2012-09-17 08:10:27 AM

Majick Thise: The lawyers know all about the internet, but they also know all about 'billable hours'


You seem to think that the barristers were trying hard to push the royal family toward litigation, and the Queen was hesitant at first, only to cave into pressure by some shark with a clever ad on the sides of buses.
 
2012-09-17 09:45:00 AM
Blurry photos of some pretty unspectacular boobies. Bigger concern would be that that could have been a sniper instead of a woman with a camera.
 
2012-09-17 10:53:53 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: how hard is it for famous people to get: don't whip out your titties if you don't want to see them on the internets

no number of lawsuits can put your top back on


Done in one.

/need some eyebleach for Kate's topless photos
//please post below
 
2012-09-17 02:14:50 PM

Mugato: Mock26: Mugato: The Royal family seems to be pretty useless anyway, the least they can do is get naked for the amusement of the rest of us. If I were leaching off my country and living in a palace and called everyone subjects, I'd feel obligated to pull my junk out when asked.

Yeah, generating something like £175 million in income for the Government is really leaching off of society. (The Civil List produces nearly £200 million and the Royal Family gets something like 25% of that.) Sure, in the grand scheme of things £175 million is chump change, but the Royal Family pretty much pays for itself. Not to mention the fact that a visit from the Queen to a foreign country can generate a ton of good will and help smooth the way for treaties and such.

Eh, people go to see the buildings and the artifacts. It's not like the family is out signing autographs. They could kick their ass out and it would still be the same tourist trap it is today.


The money from the Civil List is not generated by tourists visiting England but from the property owned by the Royal Family. So if they could kick their ass out all of the revenue generated by that property suddenly reverts back to the Royal Family and the government is out £200 million.
 
2012-09-17 04:51:24 PM
i1100.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 06:45:23 PM

Mock26: The money from the Civil List is not generated by tourists visiting England but from the property owned by the Royal Family. So if they could kick their ass out all of the revenue generated by that property suddenly reverts back to the Royal Family and the government is out £200 million.


Who's to say they should get to keep all of this land if, for instance, we were to kick them out?

Seriously. Drop 'em a couple of mil between them (and that's generous) and let them fend for themselves, all the rest is property of the nation.
 
2012-09-17 07:17:28 PM

otto the bull: [imageshack.us image 440x1500]
[imageshack.us image 503x1500]
I hate small blurry pictures.


You know who else hated small blurry pictures?

c0181321.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com
 
2012-09-17 07:49:06 PM

indylaw: Majick Thise: The lawyers know all about the internet, but they also know all about 'billable hours'

You seem to think that the barristers were trying hard to push the royal family toward litigation, and the Queen was hesitant at first, only to cave into pressure by some shark with a clever ad on the sides of buses.


Not at all. But I bet there wasn't even one of the royal litigators who said 'Ya know, those pics were out of focus and at a great distance, really poor pics maybe we should just ignore it'
 
2012-09-18 02:09:27 AM

Gothnet: Mock26: The money from the Civil List is not generated by tourists visiting England but from the property owned by the Royal Family. So if they could kick their ass out all of the revenue generated by that property suddenly reverts back to the Royal Family and the government is out £200 million.

Who's to say they should get to keep all of this land if, for instance, we were to kick them out?

Seriously. Drop 'em a couple of mil between them (and that's generous) and let them fend for themselves, all the rest is property of the nation.


And who is to say that they would not?
 
2012-09-19 08:18:09 AM

Mock26: And who is to say that they would not?


Err, the people and government of the county that supports them?

Not quite sure I understand why you think that they should be allowed to keep it all, being as it's been gained simply through position and paid for by everyone else.
 
Displayed 175 of 175 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report