Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Kate Middleton & William "Wanted" Topess Shots To Happen
53 views
Skip to first unread message
Turk182
Sep 14, 2012, 6:00:14 AM9/14/12
to
If you don't want a glass of water to fall on the floor, you place it
in the centre of the table. If you to some extent want the drama of
the glass falling on the floor, you place it on the very edge of the
table.
With all the royals know about press attempts to film them, they will
have know that there was, at the very least, a chance that Kate would
be photographed topless. They enabled it.
The fact that it has happened has elevated William and particularly
Kate to becoming even bigger news. Kate steps into Diana territory
and now has gained a status separate from the royals. She has etched
her name into the public psyche at an entirely different level.
If Kate ever ditches William, she will be absolutely sure that her
future financial prospects have been massively boosted.
The line that has been crossed is the line that divides royal-ness and
becomes human-ness. You can always fake human-ness by trips to
disabled school, but the day you show your breasts, you really have
joined the human race - it is the bursting of a fake legend of
respectability, because at the end of the day, she was only doing what
most young women do these days - big deal.
At an unconscious level, the royal couple would have wanted this.
Wills is now bigger than daddy, and Kate is now even giving Wills mum
a run for her money. Young people need to do this to grow up. They
are ambitious – how high is high enough!
Turk182
in the centre of the table. If you to some extent want the drama of
the glass falling on the floor, you place it on the very edge of the
table.
With all the royals know about press attempts to film them, they will
have know that there was, at the very least, a chance that Kate would
be photographed topless. They enabled it.
The fact that it has happened has elevated William and particularly
Kate to becoming even bigger news. Kate steps into Diana territory
and now has gained a status separate from the royals. She has etched
her name into the public psyche at an entirely different level.
If Kate ever ditches William, she will be absolutely sure that her
future financial prospects have been massively boosted.
The line that has been crossed is the line that divides royal-ness and
becomes human-ness. You can always fake human-ness by trips to
disabled school, but the day you show your breasts, you really have
joined the human race - it is the bursting of a fake legend of
respectability, because at the end of the day, she was only doing what
most young women do these days - big deal.
At an unconscious level, the royal couple would have wanted this.
Wills is now bigger than daddy, and Kate is now even giving Wills mum
a run for her money. Young people need to do this to grow up. They
are ambitious – how high is high enough!
Turk182
Turk182
Sep 14, 2012, 6:03:17 AM9/14/12
to
Mel Rowing
Sep 14, 2012, 6:26:08 AM9/14/12
to
On Sep 14, 11:00 am, Turk182 <digitalradi...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you don't want a glass of water to fall on the floor, you place it
> in the centre of the table. If you to some extent want the drama of
> the glass falling on the floor, you place it on the very edge of the
> table.
Do you know, until you mentioned it, I have never ever in my life
> If you don't want a glass of water to fall on the floor, you place it
> in the centre of the table. If you to some extent want the drama of
> the glass falling on the floor, you place it on the very edge of the
> table.
thought of doing such a daft thing dliberately though I am famous for
knocking pints of beer over people. I get so demonstrative when I talk
you see!
> With all the royals know about press attempts to film them, they will
> have know that there was, at the very least, a chance that Kate would
> be photographed topless. They enabled it.
enormous private grounds. They hadn't counted on the long lens. There
is most definitely a privacy issue here which I understand they are
persuing. If they do I would hope they secure damages that will
benefit their favourite charities considerably. There can be no
question of a public interest here.
White Spirit
Sep 14, 2012, 6:34:44 AM9/14/12
to
On Friday, September 14, 2012 11:00:14 AM UTC+1, Turk182 wrote:
> With all the royals know about press attempts to film them, they will
> have know that there was, at the very least, a chance that Kate would
> be photographed topless. They enabled it.
She should have taken a leaf out of South Yorkshire Police's book - they like covering up.
> With all the royals know about press attempts to film them, they will
> have know that there was, at the very least, a chance that Kate would
> be photographed topless. They enabled it.
abelard
Sep 14, 2012, 6:35:11 AM9/14/12
to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>They were in fact sat on the balcony of a private house set in
>enormous private grounds. They hadn't counted on the long lens. There
>is most definitely a privacy issue here which I understand they are
>persuing. If they do I would hope they secure damages that will
>benefit their favourite charities considerably. There can be no
>question of a public interest here.
steaming trillions want to see the royal tits....
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>They were in fact sat on the balcony of a private house set in
>enormous private grounds. They hadn't counted on the long lens. There
>is most definitely a privacy issue here which I understand they are
>persuing. If they do I would hope they secure damages that will
>benefit their favourite charities considerably. There can be no
>question of a public interest here.
maybe they're not commoner's tits....
some people hide in bushes for hours just for a single glance
of a great tit...
everyone needs a hobby in these days of ever disappearing work
Message has been deleted
abelard
Sep 14, 2012, 6:38:53 AM9/14/12
to
Turk182
Sep 14, 2012, 8:03:53 AM9/14/12
to
didn't count on a "long lens" is like calling the fire brigade and
being surprised when you see them bring a hose.
Turk182
Turk182
Sep 14, 2012, 8:05:41 AM9/14/12
to
Yorkshire police will one day have to explain why the let thousands of
people be robbed over 10 years by Ted Evans (ex-magistrate) at Haworth
without any investigation.
Turk182
Turk182
Sep 14, 2012, 8:06:13 AM9/14/12
to
On Sep 14, 11:35 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
>
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
>
Turk182
Turk182
Sep 14, 2012, 8:08:00 AM9/14/12
to
On Sep 14, 11:37 am, Ishvara <ishv...@nospam.com> wrote:
> LOL. A few folk might mutter that Kate has showed that she's not really
> royal, but the Saxe-Coburg und Gotha parasites and their hangers-on can
> rely on the feudal media, including the BBC, to blame the French. The
> French realise that they made a mistake getting rid of their royals, you
> see, and they envy our imported kraut monarchy.
>
> The worst thing about the incident is that someone got that close to
> them and didn't blow their brains out with a sniper rifle.
Maybe they KNEW the photogrpahers (as opposed to snipers) were there!
Did you mean feudal or feral press.
Turk182
> royal, but the Saxe-Coburg und Gotha parasites and their hangers-on can
> rely on the feudal media, including the BBC, to blame the French. The
> French realise that they made a mistake getting rid of their royals, you
> see, and they envy our imported kraut monarchy.
>
> The worst thing about the incident is that someone got that close to
> them and didn't blow their brains out with a sniper rifle.
Maybe they KNEW the photogrpahers (as opposed to snipers) were there!
Did you mean feudal or feral press.
Turk182
saracene
Sep 14, 2012, 8:44:07 AM9/14/12
to
> There can be no
> question of a public interest here.
I'm interested to see what her tits are like. Anyone got a working
> question of a public interest here.
link?
Message has been deleted
Mel Rowing
Sep 14, 2012, 11:12:04 AM9/14/12
to
On Sep 14, 2:00 pm, Ishvara <ishv...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Quite right. Our taxes and inflated living costs will be pampering them
> like no other tits in the country. Let's see what we're getting for our
> money.
Your taxes Ishy?
> like no other tits in the country. Let's see what we're getting for our
> money.
Your taxes Ishy?
White Spirit
Sep 14, 2012, 11:42:52 AM9/14/12
to
On Friday, September 14, 2012 11:35:10 AM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
> steaming trillions want to see the royal tits....
> maybe they're not commoner's tits....
To be honest, it's a lot of fuss over nothing...
> steaming trillions want to see the royal tits....
> maybe they're not commoner's tits....
Basil Jet
Sep 14, 2012, 2:09:40 PM9/14/12
to
and as soon as I typed "Kate" the auto-complete gave me "Kate Bush".
White Spirit
Sep 14, 2012, 6:09:27 PM9/14/12
to
On 14/09/12 19:09, Basil Jet wrote:
> The public nosiness is unstoppable. I just googled for "Kate Topless"
> and as soon as I typed "Kate" the auto-complete gave me "Kate Bush".
Heheh :)
> The public nosiness is unstoppable. I just googled for "Kate Topless"
> and as soon as I typed "Kate" the auto-complete gave me "Kate Bush".
Turk182
Sep 15, 2012, 5:18:06 AM9/15/12
to
altogether more important in the following respect.
A proportion of the British people desire as much royal news as they
can get and they accept this artificial diet in it's exceedingly force-
fed form, even though all coverage is completely biased, artificially
managed, and delivered in a child's storybook format.
Royal news is faked. It is fantasy, imagination, based on press
release and utterly fails the genuine balance test. The BBC is
servile and outdated in it's utter 'managed' news hi-jacking style,
but in particular, it is complicit in an ongoing fraud on the scale of
the PR illusion of any of the notorious dictators in the world. The
BBC PR excesses as seen during Olympics coverage, is the kind of
manipulation (though not on that scale) that the BBC achieve with
royal news almost every day of the year. Still - the addicts love
it. These are the people who as children, needed a story to be read
to them every night and never really got out of the habit - the truth
would be unbearable for them.
There are others amongst us, who while not minding a certain amount of
royal news, are made to feel quite sick when it takes on the appalling
degree of saccharin laden grovelling fake-ness that the BBC is famous
for. When you see the BBC at work on a royal story, you realise that
this is not an impartial broadcaster, rather a PR arm of Buckingham
Palace. Evidence of happy-gas inhalation is evident on the faces of
all news readers. (If it was a baby, you may think it had wind!)
The public's proclaimed 'love' for a royal, could never be achieved
without the hours of expensive and representative psychological
conditioning that the BBC pressure-feeds us with. We are groomed to
believe, that even though a royal may be a nasty piece of work, that
they are a supremely wonderful, kind, god-like, flaw free, and
immaculate being.. Any attempt to challenge this sycophantic, servile
notion within BBC ranks, is crushed at the earliest thought. The
truth will NOT appear via the BBC and many other media in the UK hang
on to their licences by following this protocol.
The country pays a heavy price for this ongoing fairy story of
fiction. The royals are paid staggering fees for their 'contract' and
enjoy enormous freedoms, holidays and time of their own that we are
simply not told about.
I am not against the idea of the royals individually or collectively,
but I feel that the level of fragile, faked and unreal reporting
employed, is nothing short of brainwashing.
So Kate gets her tits out, in an area where a long-range lens could
easily have been placed - silly woman. And what has this given us?
It's given us the sight of a nicely average pair of boobs, a pretty
woman, and a couple showing warmth and tenderness in a way that is
REAL and unmanaged - that's all! This act was not part of the multi-
(perhaps) billion pound PR machine, so the royals lost 'control' of
the story briefly - what a breath of fresh air.
Grow up royals. Get a life. We tolerate so much falseness in you
name, that we are entitled to a bit of truth just occasionally. If
you don't like it, cover up your tits and willies on public and
private land and keep the majority of your sexy frolics for the
bedroom.
Turk182
Dave
Sep 15, 2012, 6:54:32 AM9/15/12
to
I thought now it is seen as bad form to blame the victim.
Message has been deleted
abelard
Sep 15, 2012, 7:37:16 AM9/15/12
to
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:13:31 +0100, Ishvara <ish...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>On 2012-09-15 11:54, Dave wrote:
>> In England voyeurism is a offence and you are put on the sex
>> offenders register. I don't know the law in France.
>
>If the silly bitch wanted the protection of English law she should have
>stayed in England.
>family of spongers she has attached herself to.
the real 'outrage' is that people may start to believe that
royal tits are not 'special'
where would royal authority go if the peasants started to
believe that princesses weren't magic?...
one glance of a royal tit cures all ills...look at the amazing
effects two of them are having already...
wrote:
>On 2012-09-15 11:54, Dave wrote:
>> In England voyeurism is a offence and you are put on the sex
>> offenders register. I don't know the law in France.
>
>stayed in England.
>
>> I thought now it is seen as bad form to blame the victim.
>
>The "victims" are the British taxpayers who pay to pamper her and the
>> I thought now it is seen as bad form to blame the victim.
>
>family of spongers she has attached herself to.
the real 'outrage' is that people may start to believe that
royal tits are not 'special'
where would royal authority go if the peasants started to
believe that princesses weren't magic?...
one glance of a royal tit cures all ills...look at the amazing
effects two of them are having already...
abelard
Sep 15, 2012, 7:52:58 AM9/15/12
to
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Turk182
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>The public's proclaimed 'love' for a royal, could never be achieved
>without the hours of expensive and representative psychological
>conditioning that the BBC pressure-feeds us with. We are groomed to
>believe, that even though a royal may be a nasty piece of work, that
>they are a supremely wonderful, kind, god-like, flaw free, and
>immaculate being.. Any attempt to challenge this sycophantic, servile
>notion within BBC ranks, is crushed at the earliest thought. The
>truth will NOT appear via the BBC and many other media in the UK hang
>on to their licences by following this protocol.
so you must be first in the queue cheering murdoch for
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>The public's proclaimed 'love' for a royal, could never be achieved
>without the hours of expensive and representative psychological
>conditioning that the BBC pressure-feeds us with. We are groomed to
>believe, that even though a royal may be a nasty piece of work, that
>they are a supremely wonderful, kind, god-like, flaw free, and
>immaculate being.. Any attempt to challenge this sycophantic, servile
>notion within BBC ranks, is crushed at the earliest thought. The
>truth will NOT appear via the BBC and many other media in the UK hang
>on to their licences by following this protocol.
working so hard to expose them for the dysfunctional and thick
family that they are...
Dave
Sep 15, 2012, 8:14:34 AM9/15/12
to
On Saturday, 15 September 2012 12:13:33 UTC+1, Ishvara wrote:
> On 2012-09-15 11:54, Dave wrote:
> On 2012-09-15 11:54, Dave wrote:
> > I thought now it is seen as bad form to blame the victim.
This is a general statement.
>
>
>
> The "victims" are the British taxpayers who pay to pamper her and the
> family of spongers she has attached herself to.
Envy doesn't solve problems: you seem to be following the divided and ruled strategy.
>
>
> The "victims" are the British taxpayers who pay to pamper her and the
> family of spongers she has attached herself to.
I used to worry about my 65p/year, then I realised it all adds to GDP and the economy generally. If people only had things they needed there would be a lot less wealth for everyone.
Message has been deleted
Andy Wainwright
Sep 15, 2012, 12:02:59 PM9/15/12
to
>
> Turk182
>
My missus is called Kate, and her ex Will. He was a pyscho, maybe
there's some weird quantum connection going on and those who reckon
Wills is the antichrist are right...
Basil Jet
Sep 16, 2012, 12:32:32 AM9/16/12
to
I think Kate was lucky, usually when the French want to see royalty
topless they use a guillotine.
topless they use a guillotine.
Turk182
Sep 16, 2012, 4:37:38 AM9/16/12
to
On 15 Sep, 12:52, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Turk182
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Turk182
>
reasons I now limit my intake of news from TV and Tabloid - I treat it
with a huge pinch of salt.
I have grown (at last) to realise just how the public and truth are
kept apart. The internet is is danger, becuase politicians want to
control our thinking.
Turk182
0 new messages