Prince Harry: The Royal Arse

[Si Hunt]

So none of us could resist sneaking a look at websites where Prince Harry was pictured "in the nud" during a pretty interesting looking private party at Vegas, for research purposes only, of course.

Dissapointingly, the Royal Bollocks arn't on display, but there is one picture of him "cupping" and another of his fatless cheeks while in a naked hug with an unidentified female. It's just all work, work, work for those tireless Royals.

But is this acceptable behaviour for the 3rd in line to the throne? Is this a little undignified? Or should we let the lad have his fun? It's 1980 Auntie Vanessa!

Si.

[SiHart]

Everyone seems to have forgotten the old adage... what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

28 year old man gets naked in private hotel room with girls shocker!

[Si Hunt]

It's quite literally never happened before.

Si.

[Stuart Wallis]

It happened to me last week! I'm not royalty though, so the tabloids ain't interested.

[Dirk Gently]

You're not 28 either!

[Matthew T]

He has a very nice arse!

And it's not without precedent - there are nuddy pics of Charles, Andrew and William out there too.

[Si Hunt]

Yes but we don't care about them cos they're gross gross gross gross.

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Well William's not too bad but he's married now.

[Si Hunt]

I think both the princes got their looks from their Dads.

Si.

[Stuart Wallis]

God help 'em!

You're not 28 either!

Hold on, I'm just trying to work out when I was!

This could take some time...

[Si Hunt]

The Sun's hilarious justification for printing the pictures this morning:

The photos have potential implications for the Prince's image representing Britain around the world. There are questions over his security during the Las Vegas holiday. Questions as to whether his position in the Army might be affected. Further, we believe Harry has compromised his own privacy.

How does him being naked in a hotel room raise "questions over his security"? Why not just tell the truth - they wanted to sell some papers and they knew lots of people would buy the paper to see pictures of his bum?

Si.

[MinaHarker]

The Sun's hilarious justification for printing the pictures this morning:



How does him being naked in a hotel room raise "questions over his security"? Why not just tell the truth - they wanted to sell some papers and they knew lots of people would buy the paper to see pictures of his bum?

Si.

It's not a breach in security that he got naked - its a breach that someone he didn't really know entered his hotel room and took intimate pictures.

[Jason Thompson]

The Sun's 'justification' is a load of hose poo, and they know it. They are just conniving gits who want to sell papers. All that bollocks about public interest and so on is just so much manure. At best, the story raises the issues they mention. The pictures do not, and there is no justification whatsoever for publishing them except to publicly further embarrass Prince Harry.

Worse still is their claim that it is somehow 'perverse' that they are not allowed to publish something that is already widely available online for free. Hardcore pornography is freely available online. Should the Sun complain that they are not permitted to publish it just because we can get it elsewhere anyway?

Bottom line: they are pond scum who care not a jot for respect and privacy of anyone, nor the rules and regulations they work under, just so long as they can sell papers and make a profit.

And just to illustrate their 'lowest common denominator' status, they even came up with a crappy 'pun' headline that doesn't even work. 'Heir it is'?! Please! Do you think their linewriter even knows that it's pronounced like 'air'?

[MinaHarker]

Don't hold back, Jason - go on, say what you really think.

[Jason Thompson]

I just hate the way they use 'public interest' as an excuse. Sorry, what is the 'public interest' issue raised by naked celebrity pictures? What is the 'public interest' raised by celebrity sex lives? What is the 'public interest' in showing pictures of dead people? Or the bath where Whitney Houston died? Or, as a rather more serious example, of publishing names and pictures of people accused of crimes before any conviction is obtained?

Why don't they just admit it's just the same cheap, voyeuristic tendency that makes shows like Big Brother so popular? Why waste their time and energy trying to make themselves out to be doing some public service? No-one buys that crap and they know it.

[Anthony Williams]

I just hate the way they use 'public interest' as an excuse. Sorry, what is the 'public interest' issue raised by naked celebrity pictures? What is the 'public interest' raised by celebrity sex lives? What is the 'public interest' in showing pictures of dead people? Or the bath where Whitney Houston died? Or, as a rather more serious example, of publishing names and pictures of people accused of crimes before any conviction is obtained?

Why don't they just admit it's just the same cheap, voyeuristic tendency that makes shows like Big Brother so popular? Why waste their time and energy trying to make themselves out to be doing some public service? No-one buys that crap and they know it.

[Wayne]

I'm no fan of the royals, but why is this even considered "news"?

I just hate the way they use 'public interest' as an excuse. Sorry, what is the 'public interest' issue raised by naked celebrity pictures? What is the 'public interest' raised by celebrity sex lives? What is the 'public interest' in showing pictures of dead people? Or the bath where Whitney Houston died? Or, as a rather more serious example, of publishing names and pictures of people accused of crimes before any conviction is obtained?

Why don't they just admit it's just the same cheap, voyeuristic tendency that makes shows like Big Brother so popular? Why waste their time and energy trying to make themselves out to be doing some public service? No-one buys that crap and they know it.

Completely agree.
But sadly, a large cross-section of the general public appears to be interested in this sort of shallow tittle-tattle. Tabloid sales figures offer incontrovertible proof of this, unfortunately.

But much as i detest Murdoch and The Scum, I'm not a big fan of the public in many respects. Many of them don't seem to be fit to vote on anything more important than Big Brother or X Factor.

[Si Hunt]

Here here Jason!

I tell you why they published those pictures. Because people started saying that the Leveson Enquiry was restricting what the press could publish, and they are so arrogant they couldn't bare (no pun intended) to be seen to be being told what to do. That suddenly override the moral high ground of being seen to respect the Royals privacy.

Sun arrogance. They have learned nothing.

Si.

[Dirk Gently]

I hope the Sun goes the way of The News of the World.

[MinaHarker]

One thing that has been lost in the furore is that the day before The Sun published these pictures of Harry, they also published pictures of Tony Nicklinson's body being removed from his house by undertakers with his wife in the background. I think that's worse, and I'm surprised there hasn't been an outcry.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Of course it's worse. In fact the Prince Harry stuff is really nothing more than the usual "celebrity bonk-fest" story that we see all the time. If you don't want your cock all over the internet then don't invite 15 complete strangers with camera phones up to your hotel room and have sex with them. I'm pretty sure that if all the papers had just published the photos straight away, like all the international ones did, then no-one would have thought anything "bad" had been done. It's only because there was this strange, self-imposed couple of days grace that the story has taken on this extra "evil journos" dimension.

If this were Angus Deayton or someone like that, and the photos had been published the next day, who amongst us would have been tutting and blaming the gutter press? Invading someone's privacy is one thing, but if someone very much in the public eye basically throws his clothes and his privacy out of the window to have some drunken fun that's very much something else, and NOT reporting it just because he's our royalty is almost worse.