General Chat

ChAoTic

Report

15 Sep 2012 09:57




Groundbreaking news!!!!!!

Woman has breasts



*** Disclaimer ....all women but none named Muffy have ........just saying thats all ***

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

I quite agree Shirley.

:-)

My view is that knowing they were going on this tour its probable that she didn't want to show white lines from where she had been sunbathing . Going topless meant there were no tell tale lines.

Being on holiday in a private house that they must have thought was secluded meant they had their guards down . Whats wrong anyway bathing topless if that,s what you want to do .She was with her hubby and not being brazen in any way. Its disgraceful to me that paparazzi can invade just for monetary gain cos that's all it is.

William must be very angry as he must think it was the press that caused his mums death .

Throw the law at em all I think cos its just a way of money earning with no thought for anyone's feelings

Bob I agree with you wirh regards the media muppets publising the whereabouts of Harrys tour of duty however I strongly disagree with about kate, if she wants to get her tits out in private then so be it leave the young royals alone by god they promise to do so finally after the dealth of Diana but by christ are they making up for it tenfold now....

Janet :-D :-D

I soon left banking and went into retail, my chosen career. But it wasn't much different there. All management (Fruit & Veg, Butchery, Non Foods) were men. The senior woman was called the Bookkeeper, and were usually over 40 and single. And could swear as well as any.

Bookkeepers earned about a third of what the Manager earned and looked after the cash office and the ladies who worked on the tills. No Manager could survive unless he had a good and loyal bookkeeper.

I know it is off thread a bit, but my son asked me to help him with a school history project about 15 years ago. About the 1950's. Do you know anything about the 1950's dad?

Why was Princess Margaret not photoed topless all those years ago in Mustique? Would people not have wanted to see those photos? Was there not a market for them? I cannot belive there was not loads of opportunity for people to take photos of her as she relaxed and sunbathed.

Anyway, I live less than 10 miles from AnnCardiff and have managed to get a good photo. And the Rhondda Leader seem interested :-D :-D

Quite agree John & let´s face it a topless Kate on a private holiday with her husband is not the same woman who will become queen in possibly 20 years time or more.

John that brings back memories. I went for an interview in 1963 at Lloyds and fortunately I was ten shillings across when I was given a list of about twenty items to add up in my head.

I am so glad that I didn't get that job although I had to wait another 3 years before I got my chosen career-j

I think there should be a" Review" of the "Royal Protection Squad" they seem to have been very Lax in their job just recently on Two Occasions. Perhaps they are becoming too Blazae about it.Time for a change meybe. also the photographer was "Female" Peepng Thomasina, or just a greedy moneygrabbing sleezbag? **M**.

Janet How times have changed. When I started as a bank clerk in 1963, I was 17 and the women had to call me "Sir". I had to call them by their first name, some of them 30 years older than me. And I remember Barclays (another bank - I was with National Provincial) being the first bank to have women on their counters. The only bank to take that "gamble" until about 1964.

And in 1971, a colleague recruited 12 trainees to eventually manage non-food outlets for a major retail company. He recruited 10 WASPs and then a black boy and a girl. He selected on the basis of merit. The Senior Training Officer (then in his 50's) told him he was out of order. That these 12 trainees would all be expected to manage people and deal with customers soon. And our customers would not take a young lady or a black person seriously in a management position. And that he would be wasting the company's money training them.

That sounds so ridiculous today, but it was an opinion shared by very many of the Senior Training Officer's generation.

And my opinion of a topless Kate in 1971 is probably very different to my opinion now. In those days, women were not allowed to show their breasts unless they were the wrong sort. And Kate seems a very nice girl indeed, whatever your views about royalty. :-)

When some people are accused of abuse one of the phrases that is sometimes used is 'humiliating their victim' which I think applies to Kate and William.

This isn't necessarily anything physical as in the case of a serious crime but to the victim who may have just been going about their daily life unaware of the interest they were causing .

In the past for some women it might be a coarse verbal remark which had to be accepted as the norm. Some behaviour 50 years ago when I was young would not be acceptable nowadays and quite rightly so. When I was interviewed for a job in the mid 60's I was actually asked if I could cope with dealing with men, that is how bad things were then. In some respects nothing has changed only the goal posts. Nudity has taken over from crudity but the desire to humiliate remains the same.-jl

PP Just watched Andrew Marr this morning interviewing John Major. John Major said how good it was that the British press would not touch these photographs and that, in his opinion, the photographer was a Peeping Tom. And we consider that a crime.

I just cannot understand why Price Charles shows most of his bits quite often (and I would if I had a body like his at nearly 64 years of age). Yet his sons, wives and girlfriends are not expected to behave like young people.

It was 1980 when I first saw topless in Spain on holiday. I was shocked, disturbed etc. But went back 5 years later and if you kept your kit on you looked out of place.

I think, on reflection, that a criminal Peeping Tom has obtained private photographs, has not asked the person for permission to take or sell them, and has then sold them for greed. Someone should be prosecuted by French police, surely, and their bank account should be frozen.

I think society has changed somewhat and now royals seem to be on a par with celebs., and also act like them.
Therefore, why should they be treated any differently.
If they want to be treated with respect, then they should act accordingly.!!
I have no sympathy whatever for them.
They are human beings as is everyone, no better, no worse.

Sue

We live in a totally different world now. If Queen Victoria had shown us her ankle, we would have been horrified.

Most of us have daughters who will probably have been photographed topless on holiday. We may tut tut, but it happens. As an old friend said to me as he was dying (aged 87) and kept pushing off his bedclothes to the shock of anyone walking past in the corridor. I came into this world with no clothes and I shortly have to present myself to my Lord with no clothes.

It seems to be something that is generating money from all this huffing and puffing. And Richard Desmond entering the fray to protect Kate is the biggest laugh I have had today. Next will it be Peter Stringfellow?

Teresa,
if she was just plain old Kate Middleton there likely wouldnt be any "fuss" but she isnt!


she is likely to be our next Queen
and as such she should take care of what she does, where she does it and be aware of who might be watching.

Irish Daily Star have decided to publish these Kate photos.

"Company chairman Richard Desmond said: "I am very angry at the decision to publish these photographs and am taking immediate steps to close down the joint venture.""

Thank goodness there are such honourable men like Richard Desmond to protectthe dignity of our Royals. Unless anyone knows anything detrimental about Mr Desmond :-| :-|

I think anyone who draws money from the taxpayer or the Duchy of Cornwall should have a set of tasteful photos taken in the buff as part of the deal. Then any income raised from TV and newspapers could offset what we are paying

I was not interested in Fergie in buff, nor am I in Kate - unless Kate has got 3 or 4 and not the usual two.

But I would like to see the Duchess of C***wall in the buff. In fact, we should insist... ;-)

Nnnn :-D 1911 census :-D

i have just been talking to one of my neighbours about the subject
and her hubby said
if we would like him to take a look he would

for research reasons only lol i bet he would ;-) ;-)

Maybe as a non-Royalist, I do see them as ordinery people. Just with a different job'

If they are doing their job well, and not breaking the law. nothing else (of their behaviour) is of concern to me.

But they are not ordinary every day people. I agree that they should be able to do what they want in private, but due to the position they hold it is expected that they know what would happen if they decide to disrobe when there may be the remotest possibility that they could be photographed. I bet they wished they hadn't, no matter how much they feel they should be able to.

I am not a royalist. But I don't see anything wrong with what Kate did. If the press are allowed to get away with is are we to expect photos of what this couple get up to inside their holiday home?

If Kate had gone to a nudist beach, or shopped in Aldi wearing a see through shop, then she shouldn't be surprised at seeing her photo in the papers.

But this couple were on private property.

I don't understand the point of view that she should keep her clothes on. Why? Is she to bathe wearing clothes.
She isn't a nun, hasn't made any oath or promise (as far as I am aware) to remain clothed for the rest of her life.

Or perhaps this mag/rag is trying to prove or disprove, David Icke's theory about Royalty!!!