Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I wasn't as interested in trying to find the "wang" as you but is that a reason to be cross with me?

I find your interest in me, and your replies to my posts, more baffling than anything else.

Um, I was in this thread well before you showed up. You sound a bit like Mark David Chapman yelling to John Lennon "stop following me!"

saxitoxin wrote:Um, I was in this thread well before you showed up. You sound a bit like Mark David Chapman yelling to John Lennon "stop following me!"

I'm not the one posting pictures of naked young men on the internet here.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Um, I was in this thread well before you showed up. You sound a bit like Mark David Chapman yelling to John Lennon "stop following me!"

I'm not the one posting pictures of naked young men on the internet here.

guilty as charged -->

Why are so many Brits offended when their royal patronage is ridiculed?

Why are so many Brits reluctant to point out the injustice when the royal family prohibits the media from reporting factual information about one of their family members?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why are so many Brits offended when their royal patronage is ridiculed?

Why are so many Brits reluctant to point out the injustice when the royal family prohibits the media from reporting factual information about one of their family members?

I thought they couldn't print the pictures; I did not know there was a prohibition against reporting. Both seem draconian, but I'd be more concerned about the reporting than the pictures.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why are so many Brits offended when their royal patronage is ridiculed?

Why are so many Brits reluctant to point out the injustice when the royal family prohibits the media from reporting factual information about one of their family members?

I thought they couldn't print the pictures; I did not know there was a prohibition against reporting. Both seem draconian, but I'd be more concerned about the reporting than the pictures.

Not really- they can print the pictures, but then you piss off the royal family and don't get access to other stuff.

Then there's the standard privacy laws, which get enforced more strongly if you have money, and are less concerning if you can publish them and make money anyway.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why are so many Brits offended when their royal patronage is ridiculed?

Why are so many Brits reluctant to point out the injustice when the royal family prohibits the media from reporting factual information about one of their family members?

I thought they couldn't print the pictures; I did not know there was a prohibition against reporting. Both seem draconian, but I'd be more concerned about the reporting than the pictures.

It's been reported and the photos have been printed by The Sun.

I don't think the Royals can prohibit the printing but only make a plea: in this case to protect Harry's privacy by not printing the pictures. They also said that ultimately, the choice on whether to print or not, was down to the editor.

Whatever happens to The Sun's editor because of this will depend on their ability to prove that printing pics of a naked prince 'arry was in the public's interest (see Leveson).

What is certain is:- a) Harry is an idiot
b) The Queen will not be pleased

mandyb wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why are so many Brits offended when their royal patronage is ridiculed?

Why are so many Brits reluctant to point out the injustice when the royal family prohibits the media from reporting factual information about one of their family members?

I thought they couldn't print the pictures; I did not know there was a prohibition against reporting. Both seem draconian, but I'd be more concerned about the reporting than the pictures.

It's been reported and the photos have been printed by The Sun.

I don't think the Royals can prohibit the printing but only make a plea: in this case to protect Harry's privacy by not printing the pictures. They also said that ultimately, the choice on whether to print or not, was down to the editor.

Whatever happens to The Sun's editor because of this will depend on their ability to prove that printing pics of a naked prince 'arry was in the public's interest (see Leveson).

What is certain is:- a) Harry is an idiot
b) The Queen will not be pleased

Not exactly- most newspapers complied. The Sun printed a recreation pic with a couple of lookalike interns.

Symmetry wrote:

mandyb wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why are so many Brits offended when their royal patronage is ridiculed?

Why are so many Brits reluctant to point out the injustice when the royal family prohibits the media from reporting factual information about one of their family members?

I thought they couldn't print the pictures; I did not know there was a prohibition against reporting. Both seem draconian, but I'd be more concerned about the reporting than the pictures.

It's been reported and the photos have been printed by The Sun.

I don't think the Royals can prohibit the printing but only make a plea: in this case to protect Harry's privacy by not printing the pictures. They also said that ultimately, the choice on whether to print or not, was down to the editor.

Whatever happens to The Sun's editor because of this will depend on their ability to prove that printing pics of a naked prince 'arry was in the public's interest (see Leveson).

What is certain is:- a) Harry is an idiot
b) The Queen will not be pleased

Not exactly- most newspapers complied. The Sun printed a recreation pic with a couple of lookalike interns.

Most complied but not for fear of the Palace.
The Sun did publish the real thing yesterday. http://www.channel4.com/news/sun-publis ... d-pictures

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why are so many Brits offended when their royal patronage is ridiculed?

Why are so many Brits reluctant to point out the injustice when the royal family prohibits the media from reporting factual information about one of their family members?

I thought they couldn't print the pictures; I did not know there was a prohibition against reporting. Both seem draconian, but I'd be more concerned about the reporting than the pictures.

Not really- they can print the pictures, but then you piss off the royal family and don't get access to other stuff.

Then there's the standard privacy laws, which get enforced more strongly if you have money, and are less concerning if you can publish them and make money anyway.

Ah, okay. That makes more sense and makes me less angry.

mandyb wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why are so many Brits offended when their royal patronage is ridiculed?

Why are so many Brits reluctant to point out the injustice when the royal family prohibits the media from reporting factual information about one of their family members?

I thought they couldn't print the pictures; I did not know there was a prohibition against reporting. Both seem draconian, but I'd be more concerned about the reporting than the pictures.

It's been reported and the photos have been printed by The Sun.

I don't think the Royals can prohibit the printing but only make a plea: in this case to protect Harry's privacy by not printing the pictures. They also said that ultimately, the choice on whether to print or not, was down to the editor.

Whatever happens to The Sun's editor because of this will depend on their ability to prove that printing pics of a naked prince 'arry was in the public's interest (see Leveson).

What is certain is:- a) Harry is an idiot
b) The Queen will not be pleased

That's a bit of a soft interpretation.

Newspapers will be sued, not by a private party, but by the State itself and using the resources of the State, which are unlimited as the State is the source of money. The State (the monarchy) will be able to request the newspapers be punished by the State's media regulator, Press Complaint Commission. The State's own media - which has a broadcasting pseudo-monopoly - will be requested by the State (the monarchy) not to print the photos (and has complied - the BBC has showed blacked out photos of the Sun's front page). It's a corrupt legal system in which the State has the ability to punish private parties through institutions it creates. Similar to the Queen being immune from trial because she has created all the courts.

One of the most groundbreaking documentaries of the last thirty years - Unlawful Killing - was only shown once and never released on the internet after the Supreme Ruling Family smashed it. It's been nearly a decade since the reports of Charles raping his male servants as punishment emerged and still newspapers are too fearful to deny the Supreme Ruling Family's "request" that no reports be published (these were text reports - not photos).

The Sun provided some historical context about how reports of the Ruling Family are sanitized for peasantry:

Harry’s great-great uncle Edward VIII was embroiled in a love affair with Mrs Simpson, an American divorcée still married to her second husband, in the 1930s.

Yet while the rest of the world could read about the relationship, British newspapers were silent.

Imported US magazines which carried details of Wallis, or showed her with Edward, had pages scissored out of them before they could go on sale in Britain.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... z24U2c4RSn

It's emerged even more scandalous photos - and now video - of Harry are being shopped around. And now Hustler porn empire chief Larry Flynt may be planning to purchase some of them. This is great news; it is where the Ruling Family belongs - on the cover of Hustler.

In a telephone interview, publicist Max Clifford said he had been called by two American women who claim they were in the prince's hotel room in the U.S. last week. Clifford, a savvy operator famous for negotiating kiss-and-tell interviews, said the women "said they had lots of interesting things: pictures, video, that kind of thing."

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainm ... z24U3GxElg

The medieval style restrictions on ridiculing the High Lords of All Creation are, of course, not unique to the UKGBNI. All of the Queen's cousins make sure they are beyond criticism as well -

SPAIN - Two Spanish cartoonists have been found guilty of offending the royal family and fined 3,000 euros (£2,100) each.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7092866.stm

DENMARK - Greenpeace activists who brazenly strutted past police, the intelligence service and bodyguards to demonstrate as heads of state congregated for a royal dinner at the UN COP15 climate summit, are to be charged with lèse majesté (offending the dignity of the Monarch).

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/ECE12 ... jest-case/

NETHERLANDS - A 17-year old journalist and a cameraman from internet magazine Spunk were arrested on Dam square in Amsterdam on Tuesday evening, on charges of insulting queen Beatrix.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2 ... for_in.php

Kate Middleton caught with her top off and showing bush in a French magazine photo spread. Rumors are that it is not William whose back she's oiling up.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2 ... ne-On-Sale

I love how "Oh my God" is in English and everything else is in French.

Mon Dieu!

Also it's worth looking at the uncensored photos.

Got sort of a weird, blurry image boner.

Army of GOD wrote:Also it's worth looking at the uncensored photos.

Got sort of a weird, blurry image boner.

Better break-out the kleenex, then AoG -

MILAN (Reuters) - An Italian gossip magazine plans to publish on Monday a special edition dedicated to topless pictures of the wife of Britain's Prince William, its editor said, defying risks of legal action.

Chi Editor in Chief Alfonso Signorini said the special edition would include a 26-page reportage with topless pictures of the duchess, including some unpublished shots of her vacation with Prince William, second in line to the British throne.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... eros-typos

saxitoxin wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Also it's worth looking at the uncensored photos.

Got sort of a weird, blurry image boner.

Better break-out the kleenex, then AoG -

MILAN (Reuters) - An Italian gossip magazine plans to publish on Monday a special edition dedicated to topless pictures of the wife of Britain's Prince William, its editor said, defying risks of legal action.

Chi Editor in Chief Alfonso Signorini said the special edition would include a 26-page reportage with topless pictures of the duchess, including some unpublished shots of her vacation with Prince William, second in line to the British throne.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... eros-typos

nice