look like 2 poached eggs hanging from nails, not impressed at all.
look like 2 poached eggs hanging from nails, not impressed at all.
I'm gonna let 'em know that Dolemite is back on the scene! I'm gonna let 'em know that Dolemite is my name, and fuckin' up motherfuckers is my game!
Freedom of press won't hold a foot in this case.
It's still illegal to invade a private secluded place and take pictures without someone's consent and post it in a magazine.
---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 12:24 PM ----------
Do you really think they gonna put royals at dangerous front lines and risk their lives?
You must be pretty naive to even believe Harry could be a hero because he won't even get a chance to be one for his own safety.
Oh come on. She got her top off and acts surprised when somebody managed to snag a photo?
If she was topless in a place that could be seen easily by a camera lens without going to extremes, I see no problem with it.
By going to extremes I mean having to use a 60000x zoom lens or helicopter, something along those lines.
Apply blizzards model to any other subscription service,you'd be outraged:
Netflix adds no new movies for a year, you click a new movie, there's a $5 fee.
You're in an accident, click your onstar button, but there's an addition $20 fee for them to help.
You turn on your tv only to find all you get are the infomercial channels. Every other show is pay per view.
See how dumb that model is?
86 years old and still has over 500 appointments per year. That is over two a day, not including weekends. How many 86 year olds do you know that are still working 21 years after most people have retired?
---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 03:02 PM ----------
The camera in question would have had something like an 800mm focal length super-telescopic lens.
Something like the black camera in this picture:
Last edited by Butler to Baby Sloths; 2012-09-16 at 01:03 PM.
is that 10k Per Picture ?
if so it makes me wonder how many hundreds of photo's where taken.
On top of that there are Court and lawyer cost's. You really think the royals will have some back street lawyer who charges £75 and hour ? Try having a team of Lawyers costing Several thousand an hour.
Either way it's not about the money, its about invading someones privacy. on private land I would expect privacy from anyone, never mind some "journalist / Photographer" from over half a mile away.
Would rather look at better boobs myself.
Also this whole 'freedom' nonsense is used as an excuse so very often as to deride it. The reason so few people these days have respect for freedom of speech is because its most common usage is as a defence to being a prick.
Paladin Bash has spoken.
The photos were taken from their Honeymoon. They were on a privately owned Island, in a Royal Chateau. In order to get these pictures you had to be tresspassing.
Now, personally I don't care because topless pictures of a beautiful women isn't something I am going to complain about, but she was enjoying her honeymoon, and the entire world was told to leave them alone. Not to mention she is our future Queen, and I think it is a little disrespectful to release these images now of all times, considering she is on a tour of Asia to mark the Diamond Jubilee.
Addition: This whole "Freedom of Speech" card is being overused like the Racism card. You can't just cry about Racism / Freedom of speech when you're caught doing something you're not meant to be doing. If you abuse it, you'll lose it.
I have seen worlds bathed in the Makers' flames. Their denizens fading without so much as a whimper. Entire planetary systems born and raised on the playground is where i spent mosta my days, Chillin out, maxin', relaxin' all cool,An' all shootin some B-ball outside of the school,When a couple o' guys who were up to no good, Started makin' trouble in my neighbourhood, I got in one little fight and my mum got scared, She said 'You're movin with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air!'
From what one can read the photographer didn't invade the private property. He has taken the photos from a public road that is easily accessible to everyone which makes parts of the private property public. Paparazzi know the laws exactly and a lot of lawyers agree that it's perfectly fine. But it's the royal family and Kate is considered the new Diana so for a big part of the society it's a sacrilege and they want punishment even if the photographer hasn't broken a law but lawyers might be able to bend it enough to punish him.
Which is illegal under French laws. And they were in France.
No it doesn't.which makes parts of the private property public
No, they just know they'll be paid more than the fines. And what imaginary lawyers?Paparazzi know the laws exactly and a lot of lawyers agree that it's perfectly fine.
Also I've posted this in another thread before, but here's the roads those photographs are taken from. This shows why the "visible from public roads" lie you fell for is outrageous. Again, you can barely see the building itself. This violates all reasonable expectations of privacy.
Last edited by semaphore; 2012-09-16 at 01:33 PM.
Given the effort the photographer went to to actually attain the shots it is quite clear this is beyond freedom of the press and actually an invasion of privacy, the guys like a mile away and shooting pics? clearly he knows he shouldn't be there.
All I can think of when I saw the pics was "Oh! pardon my tits."