Posts

Sir? - i like the sound of that

Just a bit more charity work and you never know .....

Ian Botham - he did the advert where if you ate 3 shredded wheat you where "super human"

Tut some things just dont translate over to South Africa

But you are basically saying no-one deserves to have a private life if they are "publically" funded.

Everyone needs an element of privacy no matter what their circumstances.


How would you feel if someone did find out about your personal details or used a long range lens to get this info and then you woke up to find them splashed across the internet or some crappy tabloid newspaper that doesnt care whether they have the correct full details

So you have no issues with people invading your private life, raiding your bins for personal information and wading through intimate parts of your life?

No matter what the circumstances or who funds the Royal Family wasnt the purpose of the thread i was raising an ethical issue of the paparazzi and if Kate was right to go topless in the first place

I had 3 just like beefy did !!!!!

Absolutely nothing - its peaceful

Making the most of it - Steve is back Monday

Im sure by now you will all of heard the news that some low life in France has published topless pics of our future Queen.

Royal Officials are horrified as probably most of the decent UK population, long lens photography should be abolished and as for the paparazzi each one should be publically shot, even better hung, drawn & quartered!

Just throwing this comment out there though - one obviously expects privacy and no-one should have that privacy invaded with a long lens camera, but why on earth would she go topless in the first place? I would have thought she would have acted more responsibly. ( that of course is assuming these pics are genuine!)

Maybe a price hike with a discount for paying in advance