Candice Swanepoel

[Schemer]

1 hour ago, *Luna* said:

I highly doubt you’d like to be followed around 24/7 - I don’t think the idea of lots of paparazzi following you with camera’s in your face while you’re hanging out with family or even just running errands would be something to look forward to.

 

Candice is not being followed around 24/7 and no one has stuck camera in her face. At least I don't see any of the shots that were taken from a close range.

 

1 hour ago, *Luna* said:

Also Candice sharing pictures of her children on social media is her decision. She gets to choose what she wants to post and what not. Just because she posts pictures of het children doesn’t automatically mean it’s not weird for someone to film her + her kids without them knowing that.

 

It's still a public place and people have right to take photos of her. That same rule applies for me and for you. When you are in public, your privacy stays at your home.

 

You guys are more upset by this than Candice, I bet.

[*Luna*]

1 hour ago, Schemer said:

 

Candice is not being followed around 24/7 and no one has stuck camera in her face. At least I don't see any of the shots that were taken from a close range.

 

 

It's still a public place and people have right to take photos of her. That same rule applies for me and for you. When you are in public, your privacy stays at your home.

 

You guys are more upset by this than Candice, I bet.

Upset? Lol says who? You seriously can’t convince me that you’d like to have anyone (even people who aren’t paparazzi) film you all day long without your permission, follow you around “just because” and take pictures of you. Imagine you’re standing at the register with your groceries and the person behind you just keeps taking pictures of you without stopping. Flash here flash there, then a little video because according to you privacy doesn’t mean anything when you’re out in public. That’s just ridiculous and you know people wouldn’t appreciate it at all and neither would you. You’d also ask the person to stop or atleast ask them why they feel the need to do that. 

[Isabell]

23 minutes ago, *Luna* said:

Upset? Lol says who? You seriously can’t convince me that you’d like to have anyone (even people who aren’t paparazzi) film you all day long without your permission, follow you around “just because” and take pictures of you. Imagine you’re standing at the register with your groceries and the person behind you just keeps taking pictures of you without stopping. Flash here flash there, then a little video because according to you privacy doesn’t mean anything when you’re out in public. That’s just ridiculous and you know people wouldn’t appreciate it at all and neither would you. You’d also ask the person to stop or atleast ask them why they feel the need to do that. 

Waiting for that all day long footage 

[medicenevs]

It wasn't that deep...

[angelcandicebra]

6 hours ago, MissPadilla said:

 

If she did it Vogue maybe is keeping it for next year but is kind of strange if they do that.

The only reason (if she actually made the video) that they could save for next year is if she's involved in some big project that hasn't yet been revealed (and talks about it in the video). Which I personally doubt. So I don't think there's any video, sadly. 

[Schemer]

1 hour ago, *Luna* said:

Upset? Lol says who? You seriously can’t convince me that you’d like to have anyone (even people who aren’t paparazzi) film you all day long without your permission, follow you around “just because” and take pictures of you. Imagine you’re standing at the register with your groceries and the person behind you just keeps taking pictures of you without stopping. Flash here flash there, then a little video because according to you privacy doesn’t mean anything when you’re out in public. That’s just ridiculous and you know people wouldn’t appreciate it at all and neither would you. You’d also ask the person to stop or atleast ask them why they feel the need to do that. 

 

1) She wasn't being followed the whole day.

 

2) No one was taking photos right behind her.

 

1 hour ago, *Luna* said:

 Flash here flash there, then a little video because according to you privacy doesn’t mean anything when you’re out in public.

 

It's not according to me, it's according to the law. Learn what the privacy is, learn what public places are and then argue.

[Syria]

^ Being followed all day or not or having photos taken from right behind you or from 50 feet away is irrelevant from a legal point of view. And I don't see anybody here arguing about it being legal or not, just that it's disrespectful, which it is.

[MissPadilla]

1 hour ago, angelcandicebra said:

The only reason (if she actually made the video) that they could save for next year is if she's involved in some big project that hasn't yet been revealed (and talks about it in the video). Which I personally doubt. So I don't think there's any video, sadly. 

 

It would be a good thing if she did a cover + editorial for them promoting Tropic of C and talked about spring collection but knowing Vogue it won't happen as long as Priyanka, Kendall, Hailey and Hadids will be around. Vogue is nowdays whoever is relevant for tabloids. The Vogue Spain of January is so simple and unknown faces with slow low key editorials for example and US was boring as fuck all 2018...

[*Luna*]

2 hours ago, Schemer said:

 

1) She wasn't being followed the whole day.

 

2) No one was taking photos right behind her.

 

 

It's not according to me, it's according to the law. Learn what the privacy is, learn what public places are and then argue.

1) My all day long example was just that, an example. It doesn’t matter if she’s being followed for 5 minutes or 5 hours. Taking pictures or following and filming a person when they don’t even know it is weird. 

 

2) You’re the one who keeps going on and on about the law. Just because it’s the law doesn’t mean I should just agree with it or think it’s normal. The fact that a person with (or without) children can be filmed at an airport/beach/wherever without being made aware of that is just weird and downright creepy and it seems like this video was made by a fellow passenger or someone who was at the airport, not paparazzi who’s job it is to do nothing but run after famous people all day. Leaving your house doesn’t mean people don’t have the right to some privacy. 

[RIP_Cabrini_Green]

this thread is so full of ebola right now...

 

so let me add to the stupidity...

 

i cant wait for her to leave VS and start the lingerie branch of Tropic of C.

 

 

[angelcandicebra]

On 12/20/2018 at 4:50 PM, MissPadilla said:

 

It would be a good thing if she did a cover + editorial for them promoting Tropic of C and talked about spring collection but knowing Vogue it won't happen as long as Priyanka, Kendall, Hailey and Hadids will be around. Vogue is nowdays whoever is relevant for tabloids. The Vogue Spain of January is so simple and unknown faces with slow low key editorials for example and US was boring as fuck all 2018...

I would love to see her on the cover of Vogue, but I find it extremely difficult to do so, even more so on a solo cover. A solo editorial, just like one she has already done, would be interesting, but knowing Vogue these days I find it difficult. Talking about the Tropic of C in a video for Vogue would be so good for her and brand ... 
But I hope 2019 brings some very good things to her career, with some covers for some Vogue.

[lubep]

[medicenevs]

IG Stories.

[lubep]

 

[medicenevs]

 

[Luca Taidelli]

So no scans or photos from the one who bought Angels?
What was the point in telling us so? To brag? Douchebag 🙊

[kaos]

Tropic of C

[angelcandicebra]

[Candylicious.]

 

 

[Candylicious.]