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  
•       •       •

7494 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Sep 2012 at 5:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report