It's crazy that the media would go so low as to publish these photos, but the reality is that when you're in the spotlight such as they are, they are going to get exposed on all fronts in the life, whether it be public or private. Still nevertheless, it's stupid and childish that even photographers can't even show some restraint.
I don't agree with anyone's privacy being invaded, but if she had not been a member of the royal family would the British tabloids have gone ahead and published? Also, this comes at a time when the objectification and sexualisation of women in such newspapers is being investigated by the Levenson enquiry. These publications have consistently denied any wrong in such images. If this is true, then there is nothing wrong with these photos either.
1. It was a private location 2.Private images being captured, sold and published all over the world without consent or care. 3 it's recklessness and it could be you on the loo or wiping your backside or pictures of your children. 4 This is not in the public interest as it's just poor quality peek-a-boo titilatsion to sell publications and make profit by exploration of innocent people, in a private moment. 5 It shows holes in security as the camera could have been a sniper rifle.
AAHHHH REMINDED ME CHILDREN'S FOLK STORY BOOK "THE KING WHO WEARS NOTHING"... NOW THE WHOLE FAMILIARS' STARBUCK.KING.HAM&CHEEZY INCLUDING LADY DI DI ALSO NEWDITISTS WAHAHAHAHA ALL IN ONE PLACE - FC UK PARIS
Royalty is a falsehood, couldn't care less.Funny it was the French who did it.
It's crazy that the media would go so low as to publish these photos, but the reality is that when you're in the spotlight such as they are, they are going to get exposed on all fronts in the life, whether it be public or private. Still nevertheless, it's stupid and childish that even photographers can't even show some restraint.
I don't agree with anyone's privacy being invaded, but if she had not been a member of the royal family would the British tabloids have gone ahead and published? Also, this comes at a time when the objectification and sexualisation of women in such newspapers is being investigated by the Levenson enquiry. These publications have consistently denied any wrong in such images. If this is true, then there is nothing wrong with these photos either.
Why can't she just keep her damn clothes on!?
I love you Ms.Middleton !
1. It was a private location
2.Private images being captured, sold and published all over the world without consent or care.
3 it's recklessness and it could be you on the loo or wiping your backside or pictures of your children.
4 This is not in the public interest as it's just poor quality peek-a-boo titilatsion to sell publications and make profit by exploration of innocent people, in a private moment.
5 It shows holes in security as the camera could have been a sniper rifle.
Everyone is entitled to privacy, she was sunbathing at a privately rented villa, not on some public beach. Use your common sense!
they had no right, people need to mind there business.
what...the...f**k
Well the English do they do pay for them to live so
Link please? j/k lol
now Prince Harry got a break, its Kate's turn.
AAHHHH REMINDED ME CHILDREN'S FOLK STORY BOOK "THE KING WHO WEARS NOTHING"... NOW THE WHOLE FAMILIARS' STARBUCK.KING.HAM&CHEEZY INCLUDING LADY DI DI ALSO NEWDITISTS WAHAHAHAHA ALL IN ONE PLACE - FC UK PARIS