Kate topless photos carried in Irish Daily Star tabloid

notnumber

Scumbag newspaper..I certainly dont want to see these photos and Im
ashamed that an Irish newspaper has decided to publish these photos in a greedy attempt to make a few bob..Im not pro -royal but I dont think Kate deserves this ...Boycott this rag!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19611407

PogMoThoin

It's just another pair of boobs, nothing you won't see on page 3. It certainly won't get me buying the Sun

4zn76tysfajdxp

I'm really not surprised.

Ally Dick

I'm delighted. She shouldn't have taken her top off while she was outdoors. William should have more sense, and warned her not to

dharn

has anybody posted them on the interweb yet

Millicent

Skye Salmon Cologne wrote: »

I'm really not surprised.

Oh God, they've gone so far they've started to satirise themselves. Yes, that's really what the men and women of Ireland died for in 1916 -- the right to print nudey pictures of monarchs. FFS!

SEPT 23 1989

It would have been a nice gesture to our neighbours not to publish them

Corruptedmorals

Ally Dick wrote: »

I'm delighted. She shouldn't have taken her top off while she was outdoors. William should have more sense, and warned her not to

It was taken with long lens, have you seen how far back the photographer was? She wasn't at a pool or beach! She does not deserve this.

Chavways

Skye Salmon Cologne wrote: »

I'm really not surprised.

Christ.

melekalikimaka

I can't find Kate Middleton's tits anywhere.

And I've seen the pictures!

I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only one who doesn't give a damn.

Chuck Stone

What part of 'hounded forever more by the paparazzi' did she not understand?

The fawning over that couple is stomach churning.

My name is URL

Fcuk sake.. why do people care? We live in a society where celebrity culture rules. Don't blame the tabloids for printing shit like this... blame the dribbling masses that gobble it up.

Chavways

Ally Dick wrote: »

I'm delighted. She shouldn't have taken her top off while she was outdoors. William should have more sense, and warned her not to

They were in a private villa and the photographer was hiding in a bush a couple of hundred metres away. They should have at least some privacy.

Millicent

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only one who doesn't give a damn.

Seriously, you'd swear they were the only pair of boobs on the planet. FFS! Does anyone else genuinely give a crap?

wilkie2006

Ah, fook her. If someone wants to whore themselves to the media - whether they're an actor, a musician or any other media personality - they should expect this sort of stuff. Famous people generate an income from being famous - for reducing themselves to a product.

If you don't want your dirty laundry in the papers then fook off and get a job stacking shelves in Tesco.

allthedoyles

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

It was taken with long lens, have you seen how far back the photographer was? She wasn't at a pool or beach! She does not deserve this.

A long camera lens , but it could easily have been a rifle lens .

These monarchs need to realise how public they are and are targets .

squod

She'll be hangin' with Britney and Paris next.

mikom

My mothers sheepdog/collie mix has better tits tbh.

Millicent

Could we all maybe show a little more class than The Star, all the same, and not be commenting on what Kate Middleton's breasts look like?

wilkie2006

allthedoyles wrote: »

A long camera lens , but it could easily have been a rifle lens .

These monarchs need to realise how public they are and are targets .

Jaysus, the words of Gareth Keenan?

Zaph

Funny how the writer of that statement in the Star conveniently forgets that the paper is half owned by a British company. They're not quite as Irish as they like to make out, but it's still a rag regardless of who owns it.

gara

I really don't understand the outrage over this. The paparazzi have been violating people's privacy for aeons -is Kate Middleton more deserving of privacy than somebody else?

mathepac

Chavways wrote: »

They were in a private villa and the photographer was hiding in a bush a couple of hundred metres away. ...

Whose bush provided the cover?

Chavways wrote: »

... They should have at least some privacy.

Why? They foster the celeb culture when it suits their objectives; they can't have their cake and eat it as well, the cake that is, not the bush.

notnumber

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It would have been a nice gesture to our neighbours not to publish them

exactly let the french publish them..,.,think about it would you like your wifes tits being perved on by millions??..famous or not unless consent is given it completely wrong to publish these photos.

NegativeCreep

I like these photos. I shall bookmark the site page I found them on... For research purposes of course.

celt262

notnumber wrote: »

exactly let the french publish them..,.,think about it would you like your wifes tits being perved on by millions??..famous or not unless consent is given it completely wrong to publish these photos.

Yeah but do people really give a **** i see boobs every day of the week and they are just another pair.

Sound of Silence

They hypocrisy of British and Irish tabloids is truly astounding.

They print all manner of sh*te all year round, but the moment a pair of Royal nipples are flashed they fall over themselves to maintain their supposed decency.

I say print the damn pictures. If the British taxpayer is footing the bill for these Royal trips, they may as well have access to the Holiday Snaps.

Chuck Stone

( . Y . )

mikom

notnumber wrote: »

think about it would you like your wifes tits being perved on by millions??..famous or not unless consent is given it completely wrong to publish these photos.

Would you let your wife sunbathe topless knowing that paps are dying to photograph you?

Would you let your wife sunbathe topless knowing that paps are dying to photograph you in France where your mother died in a car crash whilst being chased by photographers?
.
.

notnumber

celt262 wrote: »

Yeah but do people really give a **** i see boobs every day of the week and they are just another pair.

Well if Kate does'nt mind then yes its fine..

NegativeCreep

celt262 wrote: »

notnumber wrote: »

exactly let the french publish them..,.,think about it would you like your wifes tits being perved on by millions??..famous or not unless consent is given it completely wrong to publish these photos.

Yeah but do people really give a **** i see boobs every day of the week and they are just another pair.

Lucky you

celt262

notnumber wrote: »

Well if Kate does'nt mind then yes its fine..

She should have kept her top on if she cared, they would do anything to get pics of her.

ejmaztec

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Ah, fook her. If someone wants to whore themselves to the media - whether they're an actor, a musician or any other media personality - they should expect this sort of stuff. Famous people generate an income from being famous - for reducing themselves to a product.

If you don't want your dirty laundry in the papers then fook off and get a job stacking shelves in Tesco.

If it weren't for her dirty laundry being in the wash, she might have had something to wear.

mathepac

Millicent wrote: »

Could we all maybe show a little more class than The Star ...

After Hours, The Star and the poxy mini-Royals in the same thread and you ask for a display of class? Get real for feck's sake, that combination is about as classless (in every sense of the word) as you'll get on boards.ie

syklops

Ally Dick wrote: »

I'm delighted. She shouldn't have taken her top off while she was outdoors. William should have more sense, and warned her not to

She was at a private villa.

EclipsiumRasa

notnumber wrote: »

Scumbag newspaper..I certainly dont want to see these photos and Im
ashamed that an Irish newspaper has decided to publish these photos in a greedy attempt to make a few bob..Im not pro -royal but I dont think Kate deserves this ...Boycott this rag!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19611407

I don't understand why anyone is flipping out.

They're breasts. This is not the end of the bleeding world.

She's a royal, which is basically a traditional figurehead thing that's sentimentality has decided to keep. So basically she's famous for being famous and little different to many other irrelevant celebrities that exist to move tabloids off newsagents' shelves.

If you want to have something worth complaining about or a cause worth fighting for go join Amnesty International or something actually useful that has a history of making a real difference.

Bitching about this non-issue flavour-of-the-month moral panic is pathetic.

dr.bollocko

My name is URL wrote: »

Fcuk sake.. why do people care? We live in a society where celebrity culture rules. Don't blame the tabloids for printing shit like this... blame the dribbling masses that gobble it up.

This.

If you must discuss this tedious non-story I would suggest doing it in the celeb and showbiz forum.