Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #507961

    Now let’s be really clear.

    For the avoidance of doubt I believe in informed consent totally. I also believe in the Kate’s right to walk down Wandsworth High Street wearing nothing more than a bit of perfume if she so desires.

    I am a real liberal – if Harry wants to play hide the funny shape with ten girls dressed as Nazis and a large Swedish bisexual man – and have it all filmed by an 85 year old grandmother with a penchant for watersports – then I am all for it. As long as everyone is having fun and consents.

    The bit I am bothered about is that normal members of the public, with what are regarded as sensitive jobs, cannot do the above. You know – the “I’m not having a pervert like that looking after my children” stuff.

    God clean fun – yes, but a bit embarrassing when you are the Queen or in Prince who is still line line for the throne.

    The people taking the pictures are scum, but the Royals need to grow up. Other people have the same problems, but are less well paid, can be sacked and live less glamorous lives.

    Any more of this and they are going to start looking like spoiled, privileged children……..

    #507962

    @momentaryloss wrote:

    Now let’s be really clear. . . . . Any more of this and they are going to start looking like spoiled, privileged children……..

    NOOOOOOOOOOO!

    Say it ain’t so!

    #507963

    @wordsworth60 wrote:

    @momentaryloss wrote:

    Now let’s be really clear. . . . . Any more of this and they are going to start looking like spoiled, privileged children……..

    NOOOOOOOOOOO!

    Say it ain’t so!

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    #507964

    #507965

    @wordsworth60 wrote:

    Now that is just too good.

    :lol:

    #507966

    Should the photographer be put in prison though? :roll: It’s all a bit silly.

    #507967

    No the editor should…. thats all of the gossip mags editors btw :lol:

    #507968

    @terry wrote:

    Should the photographer be put in prison though? :roll: It’s all a bit silly.

    Only a crime evidently if she could not be seen from a public place without a telesope or similar.

    Probably over the top for him/her to go to prison, but I think it is accepted that the mag wont reveal its source.

    #507969

    It used to be the case that the Royals had to have sex with one another in public.

    Well, they had to have a couple of attendants in early modern times (16th century). I think it was to ensure that they wre actually doing it, so that the babies could be verified.

    Louis the Fourteenth even had someone hold his potty while he relieved himself. The Gentleman then had to empty the potty of its Royal contents – and not over the Royal head, as they were the days before topless French Royals.

    Not sure whether the last task is performed for our Royals, but I’m pretty certain the former has long gone, and the Ladies of the Bedchamber are a purely ceremonial post.

    I think…. :?

    #507970

    @momentaryloss wrote:

    . . . Only a crime evidently if she could not be seen from a public place without a telesope or similar. . . .

    Is that in British law, or French law?

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 41 total)

Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!