To be a bit shocked that Daily Mail are publishing naked pics of Orlando Bloom's child?

[SilverMoo]

Ummm, just perusing the DM website and was shocked that they have naked pics of his child (minimally pixelated) .... I would be absolutely distraught and livid if it was me... AIBU to think this is a step too far, even for the DM?

here

I have just read that article.. distraught and livid over a bare bottom of a toddler on the beach??? really??

YANBU.

They are on a public beach and they are both famous. I think that if they were uncomfortable with the idea I think they would of put bottoms on him.

Why would you be pissed off? It's a child without pants hardly shocking. Both me and my dsis used to be entirely starkers on the beach as toddlers and I can't see the big deal.

Someone alert the church elders!!!! There is a toddler with a bare bottom in a photograph! I repeat there is a toddler with a bare BUM!

Will no one think of the children?!

It's more the fact it's been published in a tabloid for all to see than the fact it's a toddlers bum

YABU to be shocked - it's the DM, so doesn't surprise me one bit! But YANBU to think they shouldn't.

I wouldn't be happy with someone taking photos of my naked child then publishing them

Awwww it's a cute wee squishy bum.

Yeah but if you were famous you'd probably be more careful and put bottoms on him.
They must know that they're likely to be papped.

WI don't think anyone would be happy if it was their child would they. The bare bum ones are ok really but the pixelated genitals ones are very odd.

That child would probably be pissed off if those photos are still floating around when he's 16. :o

I think those are cute photo's not at all offensive.

My DC go naked on the beach, it's not something I have a problem with. I would however feel it unacceptable for a stranger to take photos of my naked children and publish them, it would really upset me, even if I was famous.

They aren't offensive, but very samey. one would have done TBH.

Cute pics

Nothing offensive IMO. If you are in a public place anyone can take a picture of you. They then own that image and can do anything legal they wish with it

I wouldn't like it but they must be v Ok with it as the chances of them but being photographed were slim!

My first thought was actually "bet they are potty training"

The person who took this photo did so with a zoom lense from a long way away.

If this couple had realised that they were being watched then they might have all wanted to cover up. But then again, they might not.

We shouldn't assume that these pics were taken with consent

Miranda Kerr is always in the paper, clearly prepared for the photographs.

Does she care for the privacy of her Son should be the question.

You're so offended that you linked them so even more people could be offended OP?
It's a small child on a beach, that is all.

"My DC go naked on the beach, it's not something I have a problem with. I would however feel it unacceptable for a stranger to take photos of my naked children and publish them, it would really upset me, even if I was famous."

Yes, but if you were famous, and didn't want a stranger taking a photo of your naked children, you would think "hang on I'll just put little Johnnie's swimming costume on him. I don't want the paps taking his photo whilst he's naked."
But you're not famous so no one is going to want to take little Johnnie's photo. He can run around as naked as he likes!

In a public place consent is not needed