http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=48121 The NewsBiscuit Community en-US Wed, 22 May 2013 00:14:38 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=48121#post-138413 Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:13:48 +0000 HIGNFY 138413@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Yes, of course....it's all about sales. </p> <p>How ironic The Sun taking the supposed moral high ground.</p> <p>I haven't even attempted to search for the photographs of these tits. Not gay but really not at all interested in a skinny girls cleavage or nipples (or lack of) - anyway, my hands are full right now dealing with the"tits" who populate your site. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=48121#post-138374 Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:10:10 +0000 JohnA 138374@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I've seen the photos and frankly I'd like to punch the photographer. I'm no supporter of the Royal Family but ffs these paparazzi need a camera inserted where the sun don't shine. With the telephoto lens attached. And the lens cap. And the flash.</p> <p>Oh and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19608872">bullshit defence</a> from the Sun:</p> <p><blockquote>The Sun told its readers in an editorial that it would not be publishing the pictures, which it said "no decent British paper would touch with a bargepole".</p> <p>It explained that, although it had recently published pictures of Prince Harry naked, this was a different situation, because the duchess had every expectation of privacy as she was on a private holiday in a private chateau as opposed to inviting strangers to a hotel suite.</p> <p>"Nor is there the slightest public interest in publishing this set of intimate pictures in such circumstances," it added.</blockquote></p> <p>Let me translate:</p> <p>1. The Prince Harry photos were taken by someone to sell.<br /> 2. Prince Harry had a clear reasonable expectation of privacy in a private room in a private hotel. In Las Vegas.<br /> 3. The photos contained no evidence of anything illegal or remotely constitutionally important.<br /> 4. The Sun (prop: R Murdoch) calculated it would sell more newspapers. That was the "public interest"<br /> 5. The latest inquiry into the deaths of 96 people at Hillsborough is published showing that the South Yorkshire Police had conspired to alter statements and intimidate witnesses into changing testimony in order to deflect the true responsibility from its own officers.<br /> 6. The Sun (prop: R Murdoch, editor: K MacKenzie) had printed those lies created by the SYP as "The Truth" (1989)<br /> 7. The editor Kelvin MacKenzie then apologized after Rupert Murdoch told him to but admitted in 2008 that he didn't mean the apology and that he believed the lies told by the Police.<br /> 8. Oops. The South Yorkshire Police got called for witness tampering and the manipulation of evidence of a serious crime (2012)<br /> 9. The Sun then properly apologizes for the lies it told that tarnished the fans who died, their families and the fans who survived for more than a decade.<br /> 10. Some scumbag with a long telephoto lens takes pictures of William and Kate sunbathing and applying suntan lotion. Kate was topless. In France.<br /> 11. They had a reasonable expectation of privacy. In France. Or indeed anywhere.<br /> 12. The photos contained no evidence of anything illegal or remotely constitutionally important.<br /> 13. The Sun declined to publish those pictures as it would be "not in the public interest"<br /> 14. "Not In The Public Interest" meaning "we'll sell many fewer newspapers if we did" </p>