The Sun, too, sees no hypocrisy in supporting the duke and duchess\’s bid to sue the photographer responsible for snapping Kate\’s chest in a Sun Says editorial – just a couple of pages after printing a picture of Kelly, 22, from Daventry with her own breasts exposed. Online the newspaper has a host of scantily clad women for readers to pore over, such as Georgia Salpa in a bikini, Maria Fowler \”flashing her cleavage\”, and Kelly Brook posing for a new calender.
One group of women has said \”Why, yes, sure, you can put a picture of my nekkid titties in your newspaper\”.
Another woman has not given such assent.
The message it seems, is clear – it\’s fine to print pictures of half naked women, as long as they are not heading for the throne.
Idiot.
Yes, utter idiot. But then again, the totalitarian left has no concept of free choice for individuals, so maybe he really doesn’t understand the difference.
How long would it take me to find photos that the Sun has run that were taken in exactly the same way – by intrusion on someone else’s privacy when they had every reason to think they were alone? Didn’t the Sun once crash a Church funeral to get some pictures?
There is hypocrisy here but the conclusion is wrong. The Sun does not give a damn about the privacy of the Royals. They are simply doing what they always do and running with the lynch mob. The public is angry and so the Sun is just as angry. Had the public not cared, the Sun would have shown us her tits without a qualm.
Of course this debate will get more interesting once papers start routinely using drones as small as a humming bird to intrude into people’s homes and properties.
‘The Sun, too, sees no hypocrisy in supporting the duke and duchess’s bid to sue the photographer responsible for snapping Kate’s chest in a Sun Says editorial…’
How come I missed Kate’s chest in the editorial?
And I see the Grauniad’s run out of honorific capitals again.
come come, Tim – didn’t the Sun run those revealing picures of the sainted Lady Di?
Tim and SMFS are both right. The Sun’s behaviour is completely and utterly hypocritical, but Martinson is too stupid to work out why.
“.. for readers to pore over, ..”
With their sweaty palms, I assume.
As usual the “Guardian is wrong about everything” but for me there is a hypocrisy here. Not page three girls as they get paid, but most tabloids are full of other scantily clad celebrities and they have no qualms about publishing these photos. I’m sure certain celebs actively encourage it to increase profile, I’m also sure it really pisses others off just the way it did the royals.
Really the only reason to read the Daily Mail is cus its the cheapest English language newspaper abroad and cus its website is full of b-list celebs in Bikinis. I don’t have a clue who Vanesa Hudgens is but I’ve probably seen her almost naked more than a few ex girlfriends.
What MakajazMonkee said. The tabloids who are deploring the topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge (which are indeed a thoroughly scummy piece of prurience, and not at all newsworthy) are the same newspapers who gleefully print photos of young female celebs where an unfortunate gust of wind has revealed a little more than they intended, or those taken by photographers who crouch on the floor to take photos up the skirts of young ladies getting out of the back of cars (an activity which would get anyone else arrested).
Whilst I grant that certain celebs encourage that kind of thing to boost their popularity, I can’t help thinking that we’d all be better off if the press would just stop doing it and eport actual news instead.