IS THIS CHARLOTTE CHURCH NAKED?

Check out these pictures and let me know what you think

http://snipurl.com/6u6i
from JoeUser Forums
Recently I downloaded some pictures using Kazaa and came across some nude pictures of Charlotte Church. I’m aware of the fact that any photographer, from a distance, can take nude pictures of famous people. If a woman is on a beach, for example, someone might get a topless picture of her while she sunbaths. This certainly is a mean and unscrupulous thing to do.

I did not think that Charlotte Church would blatantly pose naked for anyone. She has good parents and I’m sure they would not allow her to behave in such a disgusting manner. I’m sure Charlotte has a bit of teen rebellion in her and probably gets a bit out of line at times, but her parents would never let things get out of hand. About a year ago, for example, she was infatuated by a certain guy who was in trouble with the law more times than you would approve of. Charlotte’s parents forbade her to see him again and put an end to that situation very quickly.

When you are a famous young girl like Charlotte, you will be watched by the press very carefully. Any little imperfect thing you do will be blown up 10 fold in the tabloids. Charlotte is a good person and she does a lot of charitable work. But the evil liberal press will be watching her to see if they can find anything bad to gossip about.

Check out these pictures on my website and tell me what you think. I have determined that the pics are fake. I would appreciate any comments that anyone has about this.

RECENT PICTURES
blogging
25,172 views 70 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think they're fake, Marvin.

Who's to say you didn't fabricate them yourself? (I'm pulling your leg, chum, don't take offence)
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not pulling your leg. You are pretty lucky that you didn't just happen to come across any full-frontal/genital nudity and show us those either. You do realize that her current age of 18 is only just that of legal age. Since her birthdate lists her as being born in February of 1986, and that there is a great probability that those photos were taken prior to that date, you would actually be considered redistributing child pornography. The fact that her butt cheeks are actually reddened in the photo could prove to be incriminating as well. Check out current US law on Child Pornography and see how close you are to being applicable to being guilty hereLink.
It might be a good idea to take it down. I'm sure she, or any of her representatives at Sony Music wouldn't appreciate you taking advantage of some mean and unscrupulous person's photographs and redistributing them here at Joeuser. Neither would her parents.

Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not pulling your leg. You are pretty lucky that you didn't just happen to come across any full-frontal/genital nudity and show us those either. You do realize that her current age of 18 is only just that of legal age. Since her birthdate lists her as being born in February of 1986, and that there is a great probability that those photos were taken prior to that date, you would actually be considered to be redistributing child pornography. The fact that her butt cheeks are actually reddened in the photo could prove to be incriminating as well. Check out current US law on Child Pornography and see how close you are to being applicable to being guilty here> Link.
It might be a good idea to take it down. I'm sure that she, or any of her representatives at Sony Music wouldn't appreciate you taking advantage of using some mean and unscrupulous person's photographs and redistributing them here at Joeuser. Neither would her parents.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Those pics are fake. There are a lot of fake nude pics of female celebrities on the internet. NickyG is right that this is close to being child porn, even if the pics are fake.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Marvin, I think you're a little obsessed with Charlotte Church

Anyway, they're fake and you're doing her a great disservice by passing them around the net.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

KarmaGirl...

Now why would i be obsessed? Shes just a kid.

Yes, passing them around the net is not a good thing to do. Thats why I put up the reason why they are clearly fake.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's still not good enough, Marvin. Even showing photos, that in your opinion, are fake, and are electronically altered still doesn't change the fact that you are REDISTRIBUTING them. The fact that you say she's just a kid, is the issue here, not if they are fake or real. Passing them around to agree that they are fake doesn't really make a difference.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm a little ticked that you linked Shutterfly with porn. I love shutterfly, and don't think it should be used for THAT purpose.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's no honor among thieves and no decency among perverts.

Marvin still probably doesn't think he did anything wrong.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also the unaltered photos are copyrighted and the posting of them on Shutterfly is a violation of copyright law. The altered photos are ripped from the unaltered and are therefore a violation of copyright too. You should just delete those photos from Shutterfly and delete this thread.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ooohhh, Marvin! You broke the law!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the prophet of doom has turned into a smut peddler. GCJ
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
A nice guy like me would never do anything like that.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry about the nasty pic. I cropped one of the pictures at the website. I forgot about children, etc. who might find the website. Please accept my apologies.

Marvin
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
And yet, the bare buttocks remain. (Presumably, the bare breasts have been relegated to his private collection.)
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure I am.......... if you know me in my neighborhood, you would like me. I always treat people very good.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

This also should have been marked as "includes adult content" as it does since it links to those pictures.  (please take that as a warning)

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I always treat people very good.


As long as they're not gay or catholic....
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, the gay and catholic thing isn't too bad. Now, christianity would be against not loving all but disliking the actions of those people is ok. Oh, and I didn't check out the pictures because I really am a nice guy Marvin

Capt. over and out! ™
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure I am.......... if you know me in my neighborhood, you would like me. I always treat people very good.
End of quote



So you are saving all your bigottry and nastiness to spout off here on a basically anonymous forum.....would your neighbors be surprised about the "REAL" you?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
dharmagrl.........I work with people every day. I treat them all respectfully. I'm sure there are a lot of catholics I meet. and even an accassional gay. I work with all of them well.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
debidoll.......... simply giving an opinion about homos does not mean I treat them with any disrepect in person. I would prefer not know who they are. My beliefs about homos generally are Christian opinions. But when I work with people on a day to day basis, I keep my opinions to myself.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why would you feel the need to display a link to nude pictures of someone you apparantly "respect"?? In my honest opinion, I think you're a tiny bit WEIRD. By the way, I also didn't look at the pictures. Why would you want to??!