http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19608872

Lol at the Mail's response, when they print pics of kids and tell you how photographic 'subjects' are feeling

For the love of... THEY'RE JUST NIPPLES.
1. Why are they being printed?
2. Why is anyone remotely interested?

It's the after-effects of Leveson, basically. Same as the recent Harry 'story'.

In other news, over 50% of the population have boobs. *

* Figures may be inaccurate due to flat chested women and/or fat blokes with manboobs

I've always been confused over the issue of censorship and breasts. In the past, I though anything more than cleavage was a no-no but it seems these days that you can put stickers over a topless woman's nipples, and stick her on the cover of a magazine that can then be shown on display in newsagents and supermarkets. This is compunded by the fact that men have nipples and these are not censored.

And anyone can buy The Sun and look a page 3 unhindered anyway.

This whole Kate issue is becoming hilarious, we're at the point now where:

1) They will be printed everywhere but the United Kingdom
2) Everyone in the United Kingdom who gives a [LIFTED] will have seen them online anyway.

So, let's get this straight (and worded in a way that will keep the legal folk happy).

Photos of a Prince playing, err, strip billiards in mixed company can be printed in the British press. Photos were take surreptitiously, and no doubt leaked without consent. That's OK.

Photos of a Princess sunbathing topless with her husband can't be printed. Again, the pictures taken surreptitiously. If the picture I saw on Twitter today is indeed an accurate one of the location of the photographer in relation to the building, that would have to be some mahoosive lens to pick up details like nipples.

I also believe that the laws of privacy in France are much tighter than they are in the UK - eg photographing a private space from a public one is illegal. If so, there could be a criminal case to answer as well. That's clearly for the legal people to decide.

I am more alarmed by the firestorm building up over this than the actual idea of a semi-nude royal. I certainly understand William's concern that the press will be chasing her like they did his mother, and I hope he's got the clout to protect her. I think that's the real root of this story, certainly in this country.

I think in France if you are on private property you do have privacy rights. So that could mean the end of the French magazine financially. The italian magazine is another matter.

So for personal satisfaction you are classed as a pervert, but for money you are classed as a photojournalist. There has to be something wrong there!

But if you sell the, to be photojournalist, and she was underage, then you are guilty of providing paedophile ring with content.