Topless Kate Pics: Are We Being 'Denied'?

[Kerosene]

I will declare immediately that I do not buy so called raunchy magazines etc of naked young ladies, even if I do find the sight very attractive.

Let's face it, there is an absolute frenzy throughout the world, including many in the UK, for tittilating (no pun) snaps of beautiful female celebrities.

Sexist? Maybe. True? Yes. There's normally very few rules - if any - and magazines are virtually given carte blanche to flout any laws of decency in order to satisfy the demand. I include the UK in this from what I've seen.

So why don't our editors just employ the old press mantra, i.e. "Publish and be damned!" just because Kate has married an heir to the throne? Does she not merely come into "celebrity" catalogue, and is therefore 'fair game'?

Or is she suddenly transformed into an 'untouchable' for having married into royalty? Let's face it, had it been Anne or Camilla, apart from any photographer being unhinged in the first place, no one would have batted an eyelid (or opened it) would they?

***PS: Yes, I'm well aware of the 'privacy' / 'intrusion' / 'royal' arguments***

[sir.prize]

AOG - is that you on the right of the picture? Sitting under the tree doing . . .ermmm what exactly?

[CurlyLox]

''Remember the scandal 4 years ago when a servant was alleged to have performed a gay sex act on a minor member of the royal family? Everyone knew his identity except for people in Britain without internet access. ''

Everyone except me ;-[

So who was it then???????????????????

[Ellipsis]

Perhaps a better analogy for this case was the "Diana Gym Photos" of 1993, less than 20 years ago ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk...d_2515000/2515739.stm

You may recall that the gym owner set up a two way mirror with cameras on the other side. A direct intrusion of privacy, even though it was in a public place - his gym.

Bear in mind that less than four years later, Diana died while being chased by photographers ... some of whose first reaction to the accident was to take pictures of her dying/dead body. In France. Is it any wonder her son William is seething?

[weecalf]

Will kate sue ,kate will sue ,will sue kate it could go anyway

[lcg]

op....no. i had a good look on the internet. such a fuss over so little x :)

[maggiebee]

Yawn

[joggerjayne]

Well, we are hardly being denied.

kate middleton topless . co .uk

... seems to have come online, with a selection of photos.

I wonder who registered that??

[lcg]

i was looking forward to a good ogle and was sorely disappointed. nowt much to get so excited about.

[DTCwordfan]

no laundry bill for you then, lcg?

[lcg]

fraid not....both mr kicker and i appreciate the bustier lady. imho....if she didn't want to be papped, she shouldn't have gone outside. silly woman. privacy aside, she was still out there for the papping. maybe she wanted to be 'caught'?

[joggerjayne]

Steady on, DT !

[DTCwordfan]

sorry, I couldn't resist the jibe! Yes you are right lcg, but then they thought that they had privacy and it sounds like the cameraperson went to some lengths to get the shots - beyond the call of normal duty, so to speak.......and there have been, apparently, some "intimate" shots, whatever that term means

[joggerjayne]

"intimate" = winkie

[DTCwordfan]

to me the worst shot is William rubbing suntan oil in her tush, her bikini bottoms pulled well and truly down. Bet he enjoyed it.....

[Ellipsis]

Check out the photo at the bottom of this article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164

It shows the view from the road.

[Ellipsis]

Here's a direct link to the view from the road:

http://news.bbcimg.co...hateau_dautet_624.gif

[lcg]

is aalright dt.....wasn't offended in the least. Im a broad minded lass (as you can tell!!!!) x