Kate's tits

«1

Comments

  • Quite rightly this invasion of privacy is being condemned. Even by anti royalists like me. She has tits. Big deal.
  • Totally wrong whoever owns the t**s but also a little naive, lets hope she learns, the good thing is the British press seem to have resisted or ave been scared off. Only snag is its news now and will likely grow. Poor girl will be looking over her shoulder everywhere and I sympathise with her.
  • The Onion

    Where can I download those photos, look at them once, shrug, and never care about them again?

  • get your tits out for the cameras?

  • She was in the grounds of a chateau that had been rented out for the Roayls. The photo was taken with a telephoto lens at a distance of about 1000 metres. A definate invasion of privacy. The only problem is that if she can be photographed from 1000 metres, then a terrorist with a high powered sniper rifle would have no trouble bumping her off. Whoever is in charge of her security needs to take note.

  • I thought we were talking about kk's tits here.  If so, then I don't see what the problem is given that she doesn't have any.  or so I have heard.

  • I was shocked to find out that it is Belusconi's publshing empire that is publishing the pictures. Shocked that the Italian PM would allow it and shocked that it seems that a madia mogul can become PM. Something is clearly wrong in Italian politics.



    She has tits. They are very small and strangely fuzzy and blurred.
  • Isn't it illegal to take the pictures in the first place?

    If I peeked over the garden fence and started snapping away at my neighbour ( female) sunbathing topless I'd get arrested.
  • I think it depends whether you are in a public place Millsy, and whether you could reasonably expect people to see you

  • Rickster wrote (see)

    The only problem is that if she can be photographed from 1000 metres, then a terrorist with a high powered sniper rifle would have no trouble bumping her off.

    Good point, and equally an SAS sniper placed on the roof of the royals' building could have taken out the photographer. Just an idea.

     

  • I think it just goes to show there are no lengths to which people wont go to make money, and there are some people such as the Royals, who deserve their privacy more than others. She was naive to think she wouldnt be photographed, but you forget she is still just like us and does do very human things, like exposing yourself when on a beach.

    I hope the film, the photos, all get burned and never see the light. There is no way of justifying the right to show those images.

  • If I recall correctly, she first attracted William's eye by showing a fair bit of flesh.

    Just sayin' ...

  • They shouldn't be, but how bloody stupid do you have to be to go topless in the first place. I mean who would possibly be interested in photos of that!! FFS common sense sort of doesn't seem to be a common enough sense it seems.
  • Muttley wrote (see)

    If I recall correctly, she first attracted William's eye by showing a fair bit of flesh.

    Just sayin' ...

    That was HER choice. Slightly different.

    I think these photos were a bit much.

  • Rickster wrote (see)

    She was in the grounds of a chateau that had been rented out for the Roayls. The photo was taken with a telephoto lens at a distance of about 1000 metres. A definate invasion of privacy. The only problem is that if she can be photographed from 1000 metres, then a terrorist with a high powered sniper rifle would have no trouble bumping her off. Whoever is in charge of her security needs to take note.

    Did you think before you typed this?

     1000 metres...just think when she does public walk abouts she must be 1 or 2 metres from the crowd....bet her security should lock her up out of sight.....why make it difficult and shoot her at 1km when you can get that close?

  • No professional would kill her from 5 yards - have you never read Day of the Jackal ?  

  • A kill-shot from 1,000 is very difficult to make.

  • You sound like an expert! image

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Tits! so what, even I have tits. Now that we're on the subject of public exposure what about  breast feeding in public? what does, 'I know my rights, I have choices mum say'? "what's wrong with it, its natural", to quote Steve Martin," yea , so's mastubation, do that in public and see where its gets you". My own take on this was when someone my wife once associated with kept rattling on about the video they took of their babies birth. Sod that I said , how about the video of the conception?

  • OMG. Not paranoid or owt but for a minute there I wondered what social event I'd been papped at.



    Then I figured I may have been "captured" tucking them into my ankle socks but NEVER hung out on the line.
  • Kate Middleton is an anagram of NAKED TIT MODEL.

    True dat.

  • Who cares, i can't understand why anyone would want to buy a magazine just to look at her t**s just not interested.

    Just nipping ou to buy the sun ( page 3 mmm)

  • popsider wrote (see)

    No professional would kill her from 5 yards - have you never read Day of the Jackal ?  

    Im sorry but have you seen Leon?

    "The rifle is the first weapon you learn how to use, because it lets you keep your distance from the client. The closer you get to being a pro, the closer you can get to the client. The knife, for example, is the last thing you learn."

  • I cant find Kates tits anywhere...and Ive got her topless pics in front of me image

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.