Don't Blame the Paparazzi!
Lynette Warren
Innocent Bystander wrote:
> In the fallout of this tragedy, some politicians and pundits, ever alert
> for media exposure opportunities, are appearing before television cameras
> to piously cry out for more laws limiting "invasion of privacy," even
> though this incident occurred in public.
I sense knee-jerk legislation on the horizon. "Diana's Laws" restricting
the media will be springing up from London to Hollywood.
The crash happened due to a combination of reasons. Blaming the press for
Diana's death is like blaming the concrete block which the car struck. You'd
would, of course, be right in saying that if either had not been there, the
deaths may not have occurred, but it does little for the overall good to try
to outlaw either concrete supports or a free press.
There are a lot of people in government who have been aching for an
opportunity to restrict the access of information to the public. Gagging and
restricting the media is their aim and you can bet that they will play this
tragedy out to the fullest.
Lynette
Effervescent Phlegm
How can the very market that the Paparazzi cater to blame them?
How can the media run a four hour special condemning the media for their
zealousness in covering a scoop.
They got their scoop.
Pete Storey
Bigot wrote:
> Dead wrong. There are plenty of low-life sleazoid public figures in
> the U.K. (I.E. *mell*r) who have made a bomb (forgive the pun) out of
>
> arms dealings who would yearn for just such a situation
>
> The appropriate perspective is the perspective of the better good of
> society as a whole.
>
> > A NO is a NO and always means NO.
>
> Well that's true! Except AIUI in Hungary.!
>
> Bigot
What a pile of total shite! where du get mellor as an arms dealer
from??? next john major will turn out to have been a high level ira
general and margaret thatcher a coke fiend. please. have some self
respect. dont talk bollocks that you simply cat support.
apart from which a no can be a no if you like but that doesnt mean you
can expect people to bow to your every command. why should they take
photos when convienient for you?? they are not under your direction. if
you choose to be in the public eye (and lets face it, diana chose to be
in the public eye) then you must face the consequences. whatever they
are.
Bigot
On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 00:00:35 +0200, Peter Szmulik
<"adress"@bottom.of.page (Peter Szmulik)> wrote:
.
>might be because you insist on trying to set the rules, alone. Remember,
>privacy is
>NOT defined by from the viewers perspetive, but from the subjects
>perspective.
Amos Davis
I believe that some limits should be placed on freelance photographers when
it comes to abuse of privacy issues. The First Amendment of the
U. S. Constitution is a cornerstone of American law and citizens' privacy
rights. However, some photographers go too far while trying photograph the
most intimate situations of entertainers and politicians.
The media that feeds off the offerings of extreme photographers are in part
to blame, and people who have an unfulfilled hunger for tabliod (sp)
journalism are to blame, as well. The media needs to police themselves to
stem the problem. If this does not occur, then the legislation should be
developed.
Peace,
Amos Davis
CBAXTER <cb...@erols.com> wrote in article
<01bcb7a2$e9248180$9041accf@christopher>...
>
>
> > There are a lot of people in government who have been aching for an
> > opportunity to restrict the access of information to the public.
Gagging
> and
> > restricting the media is their aim and you can bet that they will play
> this
> > tragedy out to the fullest.
> >
>
> And that is what has me the most worried. Government agencies the world
> over may use this event to pass laws or otherwise restrict certain media
> "elements".
>
> Its ironic- they same people who use the media for their own publicity
are
> often the same to speak out against the media when something bad happens.
>
> BAX
>
>
Elvis Presley
In article <01bcb782$53250da0$7f0998a4@mills_k.ie.stratus.com>, Keith
Mills <kei...@iol.ie> writes
>Fight back. I believe that anyone who used the press for their own benefit
>in the way that Diana did, is fair game. If the media are responsible for
>creating icons, then they are entitled to access. Fame is a double edged
>sword
I go along with that whole heartedly.
--
The King <elvis<at>presley.demon.co.uk>
(Reply to address in news header has been partly ROT13d to avoid SPAM)
Moped Racer Online Magazine.
Moped Mayhem Results Service, moped racing news and info pages.
<http://www.presley.demon.co.uk>Last update:27.08.97
ba...@value.net
In alt.conspiracy.princess-diana Lynette Warren <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
: Innocent Bystander wrote:
: > In the fallout of this tragedy, some politicians and pundits, ever alert
: > for media exposure opportunities, are appearing before television cameras
: > to piously cry out for more laws limiting "invasion of privacy," even
: > though this incident occurred in public.
: I sense knee-jerk legislation on the horizon. "Diana's Laws" restricting
: the media will be springing up from London to Hollywood.
: The crash happened due to a combination of reasons. Blaming the press for
: Diana's death is like blaming the concrete block which the car struck. You'd
: would, of course, be right in saying that if either had not been there, the
: deaths may not have occurred, but it does little for the overall good to try
: to outlaw either concrete supports or a free press.
Concrete supports help hold up the tunnel. I dont think the stalkerazzi
provide as much of a public service. What would you do in diana's
position? sit there in the car until dawn letting photogs take pictures?
let them follow you to your overnight accomodations? Let them photograph
you thru the windows, call you on the telephone, listen into your bedroom,
disguise themselves as room-service personnel and other hotel staff to
be able to get near you?
Its not so simple as taking a picture. That's not just what they
take. They also take your control and freedom. There's a reasonable
limit. There's a line they cross. You wouldnt have to go so fast
if they werent chasing you.
Dr Stuart McIntyre
Paul Ross wrote:
> In the UK we have had David Mellor, ex-MP, now a media 'star' (shown by
> the Press to have been having an extra-matital affair) and Piers Marchant
> MP (ditto) leading the pack in their demands for secrecy laws.
>
> The loud creek of bandwagons is heard all over the country.
I saw Mellor on the T.V. being interviewed early on Sunday,
and he seemed to be against such a law... he described it
as a 'blunt tool' or something, that would stop many legitimate
activities...
Yet another U-turn?
Stuart
--
"You came in that thing? | To avoid disappointment,
...you're braver than I thought."| remove the '-s-p-a-m' from
| my address before replying.
T Bruce Tober
In article <w8tP+sAN...@presley.demon.co.uk>, Elvis Presley
<el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> writes
>
>
>In my experience of pursuit, the pursuee decides the speed of the chase.
Ah, so you're a cop? And what other mighty exploits have you been
involved in? Or are you simply a walter mitty? Your "experience of
pursuit" my eye. And I'm the king of sheba.
tbt - Now happily using PIPEX Dial Service, having finally given up on Demon
--
|Bruce Tober, octob...@reporters.net, Birmingham, England +44-121-242-3832|
| Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Business, The Arts and lots more |
|pgp key ID 0x9E014CE9. For CV/Resume: http://pollux.com/authors/tober.htm |
| For CV/Resume and Clips: http://newsmait.com/tbt2.htm |
| |
|"The alarming development of aggregated wealth, which unless checked, will |
|inevitably lead to the pauperism and hopeless degredation of the toiling |
|masses, renders it imperative, if we desire to enjoy the blessings of life, |
|that a check should be placed upon its power and unjust accumulation. A |
|system needs to be adopted which will secure to the laborer the fruits of |
|his toil and can only be accomplished by the union of those who earn their |
|bread by the sweat of their brow. ....We do not wish to rob or opress the |
|moneyed powers, or its components. We only want to take its iron heel off |
|our necks" Knights of Labor newspaper (circa 1884) |
VEFS
What I don't understand is why is there so much time spent on whom to
blame for this horrific event. If laws have been broken then the
perpetrators should be brought to justice and pay for their crimes!
People have died and they all share in the blame:
a) The driver for drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car. I
agree with what I heard on MSNBC: if the motorcycle riders were not
shooting machine guns there was no excuse for driving at any speed that
was unsafe.
b) The Photographers (I am being nice) for following two people who just
wanted to go someplace and have a moment alone it would appear. I don't
care who they are a human being has a right to that!
c) The Hotel or whoever for making a game out of it by sending out the
first driver (the normal driver) as a decoy and calling in a second
driver who had been off work. Diana had spent 16 years of being stalked
why was this night so special to turn it into a high stakes game of cat
& mouse! Now I have heard yet another rumor that Diana & Dodi were
planning to announce their engagement. If this is true then it should
have been done right away in a secure place with security and allow a
photo opt. I can not believe that they would announce anything like
this without first talking to the children in private.
d) The Palace for taking away Diana's personal security when she lost
her H.R.H. status; Past United States Presidents and I think close
members of their families keep secret service status; why not a past/ex
or what ever Royal?
e) Diana and Dodi - for not telling the driver to slow it down (assuming
they didn't) - I have been in hirer cars and I would not have a problem
telling the driver he was acting in an unacceptable manner. I find it
hard to believe that someone did not say something. What about the body
guard in the front seat; Wasn't it his job to say something?
My point why are we now doing to them in their death what we did to them
while they were alive? We are examining them and their actions as if we
knew their deepest inter most thoughts. We are feeding on this
information like the tabloid's do. These were "human beings", this was
a mother, a son and members of families who are hurt and shocked at
their loss or in the case of the body guard praying for his life and
recovery! Which brings about another point: we have heard very little
about or seen little on how people are supporting this man and his
family, he may be the only key to the whole tragic event if he can
remember and the facts are released.
My questions:
What does it matter who was at fault? Dead is Dead and it will not
bring them back and make things right. Why can't we focus this energy
on the children, Diana's charity causes that she worked hard for? Who
will now take over her work? Like the land minds if the action is put
in place why not make sure they name it after Diana. Why not write to
officials in our governments to make sure this happens. Diana's
charities that she worked for, why not discuss positive ways to make
sure they are not dropped and fall out of view in six months to a year
when this whole tragic mess settles down!
In closing now the theories are cropping up - are the families and
Diana's children going to have to live like Lisa Marie Pressley has with
people going on and on about her father still being alive somewhere,
making jokes and so on, this has to hurt. I wonder how a child must
feel hearing that people think their parent would go off and leave them,
even knowing it is not true, but in their deepest heart wanting this
parent to be alive even if not with you. The Kennedy children and the
theories around their father and the showing of the newsreels to this
day what is the point? For our entertainment? Are we not feeding off
this like the tabloids and why the obsession? What positive end is this
discussion going to have? What is the point? Why not focus on laws to
protect a person's privacy without taking away freedom of the press.
I so hope that Diana is not forgotten when this calms down or not only
just remembered in the tabloid press for our entertainment. I hope that
her work with her charities will continue and people will leave her
private life alone finally in her death and focus on what she really
stood for and seem to want. Not a Saint but a kind giving women whom
could have been so much more if given the chance to have lived!
Elvis Presley
In article <01bcb809$8b2363a0$607f92cf@default>, "D.B Lancaster"
<ga...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>The photographers are COMPLETELY to blame. Although the driver was
>"legally" intoxicated, there is a huge differance between that and being
>DRUNK. He would not have been driving 12omph or 196 kpm had it not being
>for the low life "disrespecting" hounds trying to pry in on a private
>evening of a private couple, so get off the high horse of drunken driving
>fatalities and start respecting your fellow Humans....
>
>
In my experience of pursuit, the pursuee decides the speed of the chase.
--
Mike Dickson
In article <01bcb809$8b2363a0$607f92cf@default> ga...@worldnet.att.net wrote...
> Although the driver was "legally" intoxicated, there is a huge
> differance between that and being DRUNK.
So he was 'intoxicated' but not 'drunk'? Why do you think legal levels
of intoxication are introduced at all? This time, try and think before
you answer.
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland, EH21 6NL
mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino
*Spam deflecting e-mail address used* : Junk e-mails charged at $1000 US
CBaxter
> You guys have a talent to promote what serves YOUR self-interest while
> forgetting
> about what doesn't - which may be very important to others:
>
How can Freedom of the Press be a "self interest"? We cannot limit any
elements of the press, not for any reason. To do so would begin the
inevitable trend to tyranny. An excuse to limit even these tabloids or paps
would be just the first step.
Although I freely support the free press, I may not advocate the actions of
some of these certain groups, like the paps and tabs. Almost all of us all
professional photojournalists adhere to a specific code of professionalism
with respect to individuals. The actions of some of these people at the
accident scene would not be the way most of us, as human beings and
professionals, would choose to behave. Many Paparazzi photographers may not
be part of any professional organization and may simply be regular "joes"
with a camera looking for the shot that will make them rich.
Professional photojournalists are mostly great people with a passion to
tell a story to the world, this passion burns brightly within their souls,
and they often use this light to show dignity and the glory of the human
race. They feel strongly for the world and exhibit this in the photographs
they make.
Most photojournalists do this out of love for telling the story, very few
have the idea that it will ever make them rich, money is never this issue,
as long as they can eat and make a decent living while working in something
they love.
> If missused, e.g. by not respecting the Universal Human Rights
> declaration, regulation might be the only viable alternative.
>
To regulate would inhibit freedom. When and if we take that first step,
sooner or later we will all feel the pinch of our liberties being removed.
Once the media is regulated, they will then regulate the Internet.
neil...@btinternet.com
YThe Haleys wrote:
>
> > d) The Palace for taking away Diana's personal security when she lost
> > her H.R.H. status; Past United States Presidents and I think close
> > members of their families keep secret service status; why not a past/ex
> > or what ever Royal?
>
> who elected not to continue her Special Branch detectives any more,
> against the advice of the palace and security forces. Can anyone
> confirm or deny authoritatively?
>
> Peggy
Yes Diana refused point blank to use the official bodyguards. However
she relented when it came to being with her two sons, understanding the
importance of their safety.
NSB
CBaxter
> The photographers are COMPLETELY to blame. Although the driver was
> "legally" intoxicated, there is a huge differance between that and being
> DRUNK. He would not have been driving 12omph or 196 kpm had it not being
> for the low life "disrespecting" hounds trying to pry in on a private
> evening of a private couple, so get off the high horse of drunken driving
> fatalities and start respecting your fellow Humans....
>
So what you are saying is that 4 TIMES the legal limit is NOT DRUNK?????
Most people would be passed out at that point!
In addition, did these "paps" use some machine guns to go after the car?
Having the paps after them like that is, oh, yea, a great reason to drive
at excessive speeds.
A "private couple"? Since when were these two "private"? Before the
marriage to Prince Charles perhaps!
I guess you do not think that drunk driving is to blame in any situation,
that it was always something else... "oh, it was that guard rail- they
should have made it further up the road".... oh, it was that ditch, they
should have filled it..." "oh, it was the other driver, he should have
avoided the drunk..."
Our respect for our fellow human beings have always been high, that is why
we despise drinking and driving. To feel any other way, we would act
differently.
Big Fella
> We cannot limit any
> elements of the press, not for any reason. To do so would begin the
> inevitable trend to tyranny. An excuse to limit even these tabloids or paps
> would be just the first step.
Interesting. So what do you make of press censorship during the war?
What about information denied to the press on the claim of "national
security"? What about the British Official Secrets Act under which
people can be prosecuted?
Obviously the press can and will be limited. Moreover, the press itself
not only plays along but introduces additional censorship according to
its views of the state's needs and its own interests. If the editors
create limits, then why is it so wrong for others to introduce limits.
We don't give them freedom for THEIR benefit. It is solely for OUR
benefit. When their transgression of limits begin to hurt us as private
citizens, then they have become more important than us.
And THAT is not tolerable!
Peter Szmulik
Over and over again:
CBAXTER wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of people in government who have been aching for an
> > opportunity to restrict the access of information to the public. Gagging
> and
> > restricting the media is their aim and you can bet that they will play
> this
> > tragedy out to the fullest.
> >
> And that is what has me the most worried. Government agencies the world
> over may use this event to pass laws or otherwise restrict certain media
> "elements".
You guys have a talent to promote what serves YOUR self-interest while
forgetting
about what doesn't - which may be very important to others:
From the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
December 10, 1948:
.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence,
nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation Everyone has the right to
the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks
Don't forgett, the medias has special rights in this society in order to
help protect democracy.
If missused, e.g. by not respecting the Universal Human Rights
declaration, regulation might be the only viable alternative.
> Its ironic- they same people who use the media for their own publicity are
> often the same to speak out against the media when something bad happens.
might be because you insist on trying to set the rules, alone. Remember,
privacy is
NOT defined by from the viewers perspetive, but from the subjects
perspective. A NO is a NO and always
means NO.
Peter Szmulik
Peter dor Szmulik at meetingspace dot pi dot se
E. Faubion
"D.B Lancaster" <ga...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The photographers are COMPLETELY to blame. Although the driver was
>"legally" intoxicated, there is a huge differance between that and being
>DRUNK. He would not have been driving 12omph or 196 kpm had it not being
>for the low life "disrespecting" hounds trying to pry in on a private
>evening of a private couple, so get off the high horse of drunken driving
>fatalities and start respecting your fellow Humans....
No
E. Faubion
"D.B Lancaster" <ga...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Drunk drivers kill, period, and this is a prime example. To ask for
respect for fellow humans while ignoring the problem of intoxicated
drivers is silly to say the least.
ef
Dave Pearson
On 3 Sep 1997 01:30:09 GMT, D.B Lancaster <ga...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The photographers are COMPLETELY to blame. Although the driver was
> "legally" intoxicated, there is a huge differance between that and being
> DRUNK.
A "drunk" driver is a "drunk" driver, period. Drinking alcohol and
then driving is dangerous to the drinker, passengers and the public at
large. To deny this fact is to ignore the affects that drink driving
has on many families each year.
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
Free software, including........| dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
D.B Lancaster
The photographers are COMPLETELY to blame. Although the driver was
"legally" intoxicated, there is a huge differance between that and being
Big Fella
> A "drunk" driver is a "drunk" driver, period. Drinking alcohol and
> then driving is dangerous to the drinker, passengers and the public at
> large. To deny this fact is to ignore the affects that drink driving
> has on many families each year.
No disputing this. So long as there is no insistence that, absent the
paparazzi, this accident was bound to happen. Henri could have driven
them safely at 30mph wherever they were going. Or at very least, any
resulting accident at the legal speed would have been survivable. The
fact of trying to escape is what made his inebriation fatally dangerous.
Moreover, the behavior AFTER the crash is the kind of thing that must be
discouraged. If Henri had survived he should have been prosecuted. And
the paparazzi, if found guilty, also need to pay a price to society for
irresponsible, actually inhuman, behavior.
Think
In article <Ao3=vb_00iWS0=F_...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Luke D Brindle
<ld...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> think about it! there are so many who could be involved.
<snip
> pluralist, broad, wide ranging media: washington dc has 2 newspapers;
> rome has more than a dozen, as does paris, london, and most capitals.
> the media would now be opened up to threats of giant conglomeration and
> elimination of 'tabloids', much like what we have in the us, where the
> big business interests are in control of the papers.
In Britain, FYI, an enormous portion of the press (and cable TV too) is
owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
ti...@enteract.bottblock.com
In uk.current-events.princess-diana Elvis Presley <el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> wrote:
> In article <340c8...@news.pi.se>, Peter Szmulik
> <"adress"@bottom.of.page> writes
> >No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
> >family, home or correspondence,
> And The Ritz Hotel, one of THE places to be seen in Paris? Were they
> invading her privacy when they photographed her holding the hand of an
> AIDS victim? No. but that was a far more private occasion, especially
> for the sick person she was exploiting to massage her media image.
Let's try this again.
The Ritz Hotel is a public venue, provided that they were in a public
dining room and not in a private suite or something.
The hand-holding was, in all likelihood, a sanctioned photo opportunity,
similar to the media day August 14 for pictures of Charles, William and
Harry at Balmoral during their vacation.
A private car is *not* a public venue, and attempting to take pictures of
someone in a private car is an invasion of their privacy. One that is, I
believe, explicitly stated in French law.
Tirya
--
TDC Cryptozoologist, C of CC and CC :: http://www.enteract.com/~tirya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Princess Diana 1961 - 1997
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tabloid News and Paparazzi Petition and Boycott:
http://www.enteract.com/~tirya/petition.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siobhan Grier
> along these lines of far right conspiracy is the thought that di's death
> really was organized by the paparrazzi. if this 'revelation' is let
> out, public opinion will go way against the media in europe--a
> pluralist, broad, wide ranging media: washington dc has 2 newspapers;
> rome has more than a dozen, as does paris, london, and most capitals.
> the media would now be opened up to threats of giant conglomeration and
> elimination of 'tabloids', much like what we have in the us, where the
> big business interests are in control of the papers.
>
> the list goes on, but these are my main thoughts.
>
> luke.
Excuse me? What could the paparazzi possibly gain in her death? She was
their golden goose. They may be parasitic scum, but even they must know
which side their bread's buttered.
M Holmes
ti...@enteract.bottblock.com wrote:
: A private car is *not* a public venue, and attempting to take pictures of
: someone in a private car is an invasion of their privacy.
Not only that, using flashes at night in such a manner is reckless
endangerment in that they could blind the driver.
: One that is, I
: believe, explicitly stated in French law.
Other things that contravene French law"
A) Driving while 3 times the legal limit of alcohol.
B) Driving at 4 times the legal speed limit.
C) No wearing seatbelts.
Seems to me that everyone except the bodyguard were criminals and the
bodyguard was at least complicit in the crime of reckless endangerment.
Sadly for them, the laws of physics are more rigourously enforced.
: Tirya
FoFP
--
"One gets the distinct impression that Ms Harman does not answer
questions because she does not know the answers, and Mr Field does not
answer because he does."
-- Matthew Parris
T Bruce Tober
In article <6cPNWwAH...@presley.demon.co.uk>, Elvis Presley
<el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> writes
>And The Ritz Hotel, one of THE places to be seen in Paris?
So what. So they tood their pix at the Ritz. The car is private property
and should have been left alone, especially once it had gone into
motion.
Just because the Ritz is too posh and too expensive for you or I to eat
doesn't mean that anyone who does eat there should be hounded to death
by flipping paparazzi.
Bigot
On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 23:50:22 +0100, Pete Storey <pe...@sweetness.com>
wrote:
> What a pile of total shite! where du get mellor as an arms dealer
>from???
I never mentioned Me**or, you did.
I never mentioned "arms dealer", you did.
I have in mind the people who are by virtue of their position to
"make a bomb" out of arms dealings, and had in mind fees for
commisions and introductions U.S.W.
Of course if Mr **ellor had declared all his finacial interests as he
was supposed to then there wouldn't be any doubt would there?
> next john major will turn out to have been a high level ira
>general and margaret thatcher a coke fiend. please. have some self
>respect. dont talk bollocks that you simply cat support.
see above.
>apart from which a no can be a no if you like but that doesnt mean you
>can expect people to bow to your every command. why should they take
>photos when convienient for you?? they are not under your direction. if
>you choose to be in the public eye (and lets face it, diana chose to be
>in the public eye) then you must face the consequences. whatever they
>are.
>
Can't make sense of the above but AFAIK in English law you can
photograph anything you can see in a public place, or for that matter
private with the owner's consent, in fact without his consent
A.F.A.I.K. nothing much is changed except you can get chucked out.
Can't comment Re. France.
Bigot
Elvis Presley
In article <kKV4KoAb...@dial.pipex.com>, T Bruce Tober
<octob...@reporters.net> writes
>In article <w8tP+sAN...@presley.demon.co.uk>, Elvis Presley
><el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> writes
>>
>>
>>In my experience of pursuit, the pursuee decides the speed of the chase.
>
>Ah, so you're a cop?
I never said I was the pursuer. Were the pursuers in this case polis?
What makes you think I would want to claim to be a Police person?
>And what other mighty exploits have you been
>involved in?
I've flown a hang glider off the top of mount everest. (Or was it
K2?)[or did I skateboard down?]
>Or are you simply a walter mitty? Your "experience of
>pursuit" my eye.
I've watched some episodes of Kojak.
>And I'm the king of sheba.
>
Pleased to meet you, I'm Elvis Presley.
Elvis Presley
In article <nKn4qsAT...@dial.pipex.com>, T Bruce Tober
<octob...@reporters.net> writes
>Just because the Ritz is too posh and too expensive for you or I to eat
It's also too big.
Peter Szmulik
Elvis Presley wrote:
>
> In article <340c8...@news.pi.se>, Peter Szmulik
> <"adress"@bottom.of.page> writes
> >No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
> >family, home or correspondence,
> And The Ritz Hotel, one of THE places to be seen in Paris? Were they
> invading her privacy when they photographed her holding the hand of an
> AIDS victim? No. but that was a far more private occasion, especially
> for the sick person she was exploiting to massage her media image.
cope with
being denied privacy 24h by 365 days per year times 16 years? Privacy is
NOT defined
from the viewers side, but from the subjects side. A NO is a NO and
actually always means
just plain o'l simple NO! You seeking excuses for denying people their
rights!
And the full Article 12 of the UN declaration of Universal Human rights
goes:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family,
home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
honour and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the
law
against such interference or attacks
and by the way, it's equal for all.
Peter Szmulik
peter dot szmulik at meetingspace dot pi dot se
Robert N Young
On 3 Sep 1997 19:01:29 GMT, "CBaxter" <Cba...@yo.com> wrote:
>To regulate would inhibit freedom. When and if we take that first step,
>sooner or later we will all feel the pinch of our liberties being removed.
>Once the media is regulated, they will then regulate the Internet.
>
Interesting...so the this select band called the media is entilted to
do what it wants, regardless of the detrimental effect on others.
Freedom entails responsibilties. Youare describing anarchy.
--
Bob.
Installing new software is merely a state of mind.
Total Paranoia!
Mike Dickson
In article <340D7B...@lsl.co.uk-s-p-a-m> stua...@lsl.co.uk-s-p-a-m wrote...
> I saw Mellor on the T.V. being interviewed early on Sunday,
> and he seemed to be against such a law... he described it
> as a 'blunt tool' or something
You got the words right but mis-heard the context. :-)
Gene Byron
Lynette Warren wrote:
> The crash happened due to a combination of reasons. Blaming the press for
> Diana's death is like blaming the concrete block which the car struck.
Whether or not the photographers should be blamed
for what happened? I have been around the “famous
people” enough to know there is only one thing on
earth they hate more than photographers around
all of the time---and this is NOT having photographers
around all of the time.
Tonga
Big Fella
> Interestingly enough, why has no one made nothing of the irony that Our
> Lady of the Land Mines died on her to way to (presumably) bonk a man who is
> closely related to one of the world's biggest arms dealers.
"Interesting". I find your assumption of what they were going to do at
the other end more interesting. Admit that you haven't a clue. These
are your fantasies. Vicarious thrills perhaps?
Robert N Young
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 09:27:39 +0100, David Roberts
<add...@bottom.of.page.if.I.remember.to.include.it> wrote:
>> So what. So they tood their pix at the Ritz. The car is private property
>> and should have been left alone, especially once it had gone into
>> motion.
>
>Unless it was physically pushed off the road it _was_ left alone.
How do you know that and if you do...what are your sources?
>
>> Just because the Ritz is too posh and too expensive for you or I to eat
>> doesn't mean that anyone who does eat there should be hounded to death
>> by flipping paparazzi.
>
>"Hounded to death"! Are you sure you're not a tabloid journalist
>yourself?
>
A certain tabloid journalist said 'if you can't take the heat, keep out
of the kitchen'. Clearly, from the reactions of the media in general and
photo journalists in particular, they don't like that principle applied
to themselves.
Robert N Young
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 09:27:39 +0100, David Roberts
<add...@bottom.of.page.if.I.remember.to.include.it> wrote:
>"Hounded to death"! Are you sure you're not a tabloid journalist
>yourself?
>
Hounded to death seems entirely appropriate as some of those
journalists admit they get an adrenalin rush from the hunt and
the chase. Collectively, Pack of Hounds would appear to be a
fair definition by their own admission.
J. Brad Hicks
In article <01bcb932$5d0d5730$c974379d@seanfitz02>, "Seán Fitzgerald"
<sean...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I don't think this is the point here.
> The media work well with the royals when they go through the proper
> channels (as some of the media do) i.e. official press calls, photo
> sessions, etc. It's morally wrong for them to work on the level that they
> did with Diana.
??? (puzzled look) ???
"Morally wrong"? On what grounds? Can you outline what it is about
photographing someone while they're in public without their permission that
you object to on moral grounds?
--
J. Brad Hicks mailto:jbh...@inlink.com
Web Page: http://www.inlink.com/~jbhicks
Robert N Young
On 4 Sep 1997 20:28:34 GMT, "C Baxter" <CB...@me.com> wrote:
>Do not think that journalists in general are anything like these bands of
>thugs.
>
No, but if journalists in general cannot control the thugs then they
should be prepared to accept the controls that will if they don't want
to be associated.
Ruth Hine
Big Fella <bigf...@nospam.com> wrote in article
<340F0C...@nospam.com>...
Oh I am sorry. I had forgotten that she has been beatified. Saints, of
course never ever ever ever have sex - let alone commit adultery with their
riding instructor.
Of course - she might *not* have been travelling to her (un-denied) lover's
home at midnight for sex (which she was more than entitled to do in peace
and privacy - as is anybody). She *might* have been on her way to observe
some open heart surgery. And you accuse ME of seeking vicarious thrills?
Ah well. Once Saturday's hypocritical and over-hyped necro-fest is over,
we might be able to nip this Di-vita cult in the bud. Don't cry for me
Harvey Nichols?
Ruth
Peter Szmulik
>
>> You guys have a talent to promote what serves YOUR self-interest while
>> forgetting
>> about what doesn't - which may be very important to others:
>
>How can Freedom of the Press be a "self interest"?
Freedom of Speech is a pre-requisite for democracy. Freedom of the
Medias is a tool
to support Freedom of Speech. If the Free Medias uses it's extraordinary
rights in society
just to make more money, and by doing so are infringing human rights and
seriously hurting and
killing people, the Medias are not helping us make this world more
humane
>
> > If missused, e.g. by not respecting the Universal Human Rights
> > declaration, regulation might be the only viable alternative.
> >
>
> To regulate would inhibit freedom. When and if we take that first step,
> sooner or later we will all feel the pinch of our liberties being removed.
> Once the media is regulated, they will then regulate the Internet.
Shure, I agree, it's not a good alternative, it's a choice of two bad
ones. BUT THEN
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BEFORE THE PRESSURE ON THE POLITICIANS MAKES THEM
INTRODUCE LEGISLATION.
Politicians round the world are talking about it, and I bet it's because
started to ring, and keeps
ringing.
shanna...@pnx.com
On Tue, 2 Sep 1997 21:35:35 -0400, Luke D Brindle <ld...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Sadly enough, though any of those conspiracy things COULD have happened, it was
just an ordinary, tragic drunken-driving accident in which the people who died
were not wearing seatbelts. The driver of the car is the primary one to blame,
unless the paparazzi got in front of the vehicle and forced him to swerve.
And let's not confuse tabloid "journalism" with REAL journalism. It's not the
same thing at all.
>
>think about it! there are so many who could be involved.
>
>antimonarchists gained a big victory, as di was the only thing
>respectable about royalty, and without her, the monarchy has nothing to
>redeem it.
>
>another probable is the "anti-terrorists". the french police did assign
>their anti-terrorism unit on the case. in the us, the terrorism craze
>is reaching pre-mccarthy levels. the new anti-terrorism law passed on
>the anniversary of oklahoma city can proscribe any organisation which
>threatens the status quo. the new york "plots", okla city, and many
>other examples come to mind of 'threats to national security' from
>'terrorists'. the brits are fanatic about terrorism, considering their
>government's occupation of ireland and the resistance to the occupation
>often touches mainland britain. if the inquiry determines terrorists,
>the global police state has made a significant advance.
>
>along these lines of far right conspiracy is the thought that di's death
>really was organized by the paparrazzi. if this 'revelation' is let
>out, public opinion will go way against the media in europe--a
>pluralist, broad, wide ranging media: washington dc has 2 newspapers;
>rome has more than a dozen, as does paris, london, and most capitals.
>the media would now be opened up to threats of giant conglomeration and
>elimination of 'tabloids', much like what we have in the us, where the
>big business interests are in control of the papers.
>
>the list goes on, but these are my main thoughts.
>
>luke.
---------------------------------------------------
shan...@pnx.com
Archivist
Star Trek Stories for All Ages
http://www.pnx.com/asca
Big Fella
> Whether or not the photographers should be blamed
> for what happened? I have been around the “famous
> people” enough to know there is only one thing on
> earth they hate more than photographers around
> all of the time---and this is NOT having photographers
> around all of the time.
>
Gross overgenerlization. Those trying to make a career or revive one
may fit this description. Those at the place where they don't worry can
do entirely without the harassment.
David Roberts
T Bruce Tober wrote:
>
> In article <6cPNWwAH...@presley.demon.co.uk>, Elvis Presley
> <el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> writes
>
>
> and should have been left alone, especially once it had gone into
> motion.
Unless it was physically pushed off the road it _was_ left alone.
> Just because the Ritz is too posh and too expensive for you or I to eat
> doesn't mean that anyone who does eat there should be hounded to death
> by flipping paparazzi.
"Hounded to death"! Are you sure you're not a tabloid journalist
yourself?
David
--
***************================****************
If you want to e-mail me, you will need to change the
address, but don't ever send me any commercial junk.
I am oss108 at bangor dot ac dot uk so there.
David Roberts
T Bruce Tober wrote:
>
> In article <w8tP+sAN...@presley.demon.co.uk>, Elvis Presley
> <el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> writes
> >
> >
> >In my experience of pursuit, the pursuee decides the speed of the chase.
>
> involved in? Or are you simply a walter mitty? Your "experience of
> pursuit" my eye. And I'm the king of sheba.
Come off it TBT, it's bleeding obvious that the pursuee decides
the speed of the chase. They're the ones being chased, see.
David Roberts
ti...@enteract.bottblock.com wrote:
> A private car is *not* a public venue, and attempting to take pictures of
> believe, explicitly stated in French law.
Bollocks. A public road is a public venue. If anyone wants privacy
on it they should fit curtains.
françoise gaspari
freedom of the press! let me laugh! freedom of the press is not about
hunting down like this, freedom of the press is not about tracking
celebrities down for more than ten years! you guys know perfectly what is
their so called freedom of the press : the amount of the check they get for
unofficial pictures from princess di and dodi
Peter Szmulik <"adress"@bottom.of.page> a écrit dans l'article
<340dd...@news.pi.se>...
Neil F
> On Tue, 2 Sep 1997 21:35:35 -0400, Luke D Brindle <ld...@andrew.cmu.edu>
wrote:
<snip>
> And let's not confuse tabloid "journalism" with REAL journalism. It's not the
> same thing at all.
Yes, of course. 'Real' journalists are conscientious, ethically upright,
wonderful people who do a very hard job, without promise of reward or fear
of sanction from any rich people at all (what a heartless accusation!),
and they do it for us all.
What a load of bollocks!!!!!!!!!
They're total creeps, who push the official line to their readership
whilst swapping pseudo-cynical conspiracy stories among themselves, the
characteristics of which changes according to how high up they are.
Journalists across the world are talking among themselves about how it
might have been murder. Basically what happens is a few people with spook
connections spread rumours at different levels, and the journalists, being
just as gullible as their readership in most cases, soak them up.
Of course it *was* murder, but to discuss who did it and why, and what
were the political/commercial circumstances, is somewhat above the
intelligence and courage of journalists.
peter
In article <CheetahPRO_...@blackcat.demon.co.uk>, Mike Dickson
<mike@blackcat.?.demon.?.co.?.uk> writes
>In article <340D7B...@lsl.co.uk-s-p-a-m> stua...@lsl.co.uk-s-p-a-m wrote...
>
>> I saw Mellor on the T.V. being interviewed early on Sunday,
>> and he seemed to be against such a law... he described it
>> as a 'blunt tool' or something
>
>You got the words right but mis-heard the context. :-)
>
>Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland, EH21 6NL
>mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino
>*Spam deflecting e-mail address used* : Junk e-mails charged at $1000 US
>
>
--
peter
Chris Trille
In France (maybe more than other countries), hundreds of people are
killed every year because of drink and driving. I do not know french
person who did not have a friend or relative killed in a car accident.
Unfortunately, Diana and Doddy were in the car that time.
Paparazzi are somewhere to blame, but trying to escape motorbikes and
driving at 100M/Hour (about 160 km/h) in the street of Paris is a blend
between stupidity and madness. The driver had definitely too much
alcool, but also must have been watching too many James Bond films.
Why don't famous people who get arrassed by photographers pay some of
them (say in exchange of exclusive interview once in a while) to chase
the paparazzi", follow them and their family for a whole month, see how
THEY react?
Chris
Valerie Schuster
I Stand Corrected for my statement on the security around Diana - However my
point is still same - why is so much energy being wasted on Who is to Blame?
Does it really matter? I also hope we do not do to Diana in her death what we
did to her while she was alive i.e. Focus on her private life instead of what
she was working for i.e. raising money for Aids Research, banning of
land-minds and so on.
Catty wrote:
> The Haleys <wfh...@inil.com> wrote:
>
> >> d) The Palace for taking away Diana's personal security when she lost
> >> her H.R.H. status; Past United States Presidents and I think close
> >> members of their families keep secret service status; why not a past/ex
> >> or what ever Royal?
>
> >I have read on this newsgroup and elsewhere that it was Diana herself
> >who elected not to continue her Special Branch detectives any more,
> >against the advice of the palace and security forces. Can anyone
> >confirm or deny authoritatively?
>
> >Peggy
>
> Authoritatively? I cannot claim that luxury, but you are correct. It
> is well documented, and the Palace wasn't exactly overjoyed about
> her refusal. However, she tolerated the bodyguards whenever she
> was with her sons.
>
> Catty
Mike Dickson
In article <01bcb951$70dc3320$LocalHost@christopher> CB...@me.com wrote...
> Most of these are Tabloids, who use sensationalism to promote their
> rags. A real newspaper that has the correct percentage of ads versus
> editorial will, depending on its editor, use the best images it can to
> best represent the readers.
I think you'll find that most if not all newspapers use sensationalism
to sell their rags. What differs the tabloids from what is laughingly
called the 'quality press' is the manner in which the sensationalism is
couched.
> > (2) Not every country in the world actually *has* a free press,
> > including many whose population *think* they do.
>
> Unfortunately, this is true. Pravda is a good example.
So is the Daily Express.
Kurt Ullman
In article <neilf-04099...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
ne...@NOSPAM.borve.demon.co.uk (Neil F) wrote:
>What a load of bollocks!!!!!!!!!
>
>They're total creeps, who push the official line to their readership
>whilst swapping pseudo-cynical conspiracy stories among themselves, the
>characteristics of which changes according to how high up they are.
>Journalists across the world are talking among themselves about how it
>might have been murder. Basically what happens is a few people with spook
>connections spread rumours at different levels, and the journalists, being
>just as gullible as their readership in most cases, soak them up.
Nobody seemed to notice the Great Irony here in the States when ABC
ran this piece about how "The Tabloids" were in this feeding frenzy and
followed it with snippets from a Barabara Walters Celebrity Interview or Two
with the Princess. One of the news programs here also ran a story shrotly
before her death about the photos with Dodi, showing them. Apparently one does
not feed a frenzy unless one buys first rights to the pictures.
Also no one in the States has yet to give me an answer to the question
"Why is a bunch of motorcycles in Paris going after a Mercedes that much
different from a bunch of helicopters chasing a White Bronco around LA?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling
Sombody
You're right regulate the media...let's see now...how would that have
stopped a drunk driver from ramming his speeding car into a bridge
support?? Maybe we should pass a law stopping drunk drivers from being
allowed to drive speeding cars! Oh, yea we got that law already!!! Maybe
we can pass a law that you can't piss off drunk drivers of speeding cars,
that way they won't get upset and crash! Boy oh boy! I love these
newsgroups!
Robert N Young <you...@best.com> wrote in article
<340dccf1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
> On 3 Sep 1997 19:01:29 GMT, "CBaxter" <Cba...@yo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >To regulate would inhibit freedom. When and if we take that first step,
> >sooner or later we will all feel the pinch of our liberties being
removed.
> >Once the media is regulated, they will then regulate the Internet.
> >
> Interesting...so the this select band called the media is entilted to
> do what it wants, regardless of the detrimental effect on others.
> Freedom entails responsibilties. Youare describing anarchy.
>
VALEN
> No, but if journalists in general cannot control the thugs then they
> should be prepared to accept the controls that will if they don't want
> to be associated.
This is a moral and ethical issue. There is no (and should not have)
authority to control certain groups of journalists. Journalists do have
professional organizations which can and will act to pursuade the extreme
elements to use more control.
A small percentage of any profession makes the whole look bad in some eyes,
such as police forces. This has always been the case in our world. We
should not allow for these small percentages of "bad elements" to dictate
policy on the whole in general. To do so would mean that we should do the
same for ALL the professions, even yours.
C Baxter
> So every action not explicitly forbidden by law is allowed?
> And not only allowed but also socialy acceptable and even seen as
> the most encourageble actions possible?
> And that type of legal system would be a viable route to a more
> humane society?
>
What legal system, if any, _could_ we have to make a humane society? Would
more restrictions make this or simply make us complacent sheep? We are only
human, and everyone is different. One legal system to one society may be
barbaric to another. Compare the justice system of Saudi Arabia to that of
the UK? Or Russia to the U.S.? Or even the justice system within a country,
such as the death penalty. Many would say "an eye for an eye", others say
this is primitive and barbaric. We are lowering to their level. Is it even
possible to create a perfect legal system?
> You must be joing! But it is indeed clarifying that you say that the
> Media
> Industry is operating by the 'what is not unlegal is allowed' rule!!
>
Welcome to reality pal. This is the world in which we live, this does not
apply to the media, it applies to everybody, everything, period. Think
about it. Every industry on this planet will "push the envelope" as far as
it can, as long as it remains within the boundaries of the law. Some of it
may be unethical, but it still is within the realms of the law.
This is the world we have made for ourselves, no matter how many laws that
we pass, no matter how many rules we make, it will always be how far one
can push it. And beyound. Make the speed limit 100 kph and people will go
105. Make it 70 kph and they will push it to 75. Others push further.
Others decide to go slower. Instead of 70 they will go 60 and so on. That
is the way of the universe that we live in.
Can we really change it or make it different? Or would this be an exercise
in futility?
> Peter Szmulik
>
VALEN
> > If you have say, a few photographers outside your house, 24h per day,
> > that follows
> > you everywhere you go, take pic's of you in all incidental and
> > embarrasing
> > situations, and when there are no such situations, provokes them.
> > Of course, no laws are broken, just happen to take a walk, on a public
> > street, by chance at the same time and following
> > the same route as you, always. Your 'extra' shadow. 10 of them.
> > For 16 years. Shure - no laws broken (almost). But privacy?
>
You are using your thoughts and ideas and opinion from a person whose
viewpoint is from someone that has never been in the spotlight. You may
think differently than those who have celeb status. These celebs and
popular people have used the system to promote their own personal causes in
their life. Once they have captured the audience through the good that they
have done, the people want to know more, they decide they want to see the
bad. For everything comes both good and bad in some eyes.
Just because it is not convenient nor desired to cover these bad positions
of these celebs, is no reason why it should not be covered. This is the
price that is paid for stardom. That is the fact of life. For every push
there is a pull. Life may suck, but thats the way it is. People may like to
see this good people do, but only for a while. Sooner or later they will
become tired of all these good things some people do, therefore, decide
that they want to see some bad to offset the good.
> Laws are broken, and ignored. If I take a picture through the window of
> a celebrity's house, I get nothing but a big lump of cash for the
> picture. If I take a picture through the window of my neighbor's house,
> I go to jail.
Has any of these celebrities ever heard of blinds? I don't know about you,
but I keep my blinds down when I am home, not from the hoards of
journalists, but from all prying eyes. It is human nature to glance into
open windows, even by mistake, even if just passing by. This is what blinds
were created for, to prevent your privacy from being intruded upon. Most of
us, out of moral and ethical behaviour, would not take pictures of our
neighbors. If we have the blinds down, the issue becomes mute. The
opportunity never existed.
> > And how many are they, world-wide. And how many suffers from their
> > intrusions?
>
> Do numbers count?? Is five too few?? Ten too many?? Wrong is wrong, no
> matter how many suffer.
What about criminals or crooked politicians? Do we intrude in their privacy
by reporting the crimes they have committed? Would photographing them on
the way to prison intrude on their privacy? If we pass a law that would
limit the press, would this law apply to them as well?
> But what really bugs me is that these idiots justify their actions
> because THEY say that YOU and I want to know! I don't care who is
> kissing whom. I have a life. I don't need to hang onto evry little
> detail of some celebs life to make myself complete. I would imagine
> that 99.9% of you feel the same way. And yet these assholes are hiding
> behind us and using us as their reason for behaving the way they do. I
> take offense at that.
The funny thing is, you would be surprised how many people _do_ care about
this crap. They would never admit it in public, but they are the first in
line to buy these rags when they come out. I agree with you, I could care
less about that BS too. There are too many other things in life to worry
about and also enjoy. My life is complicated enough to worry about how
complicated others lives are. But then there is another point. Many other
people like to read about others lives. Somehow this makes their lives less
confusing when they read about others. They may think that the problems
they have are not as bad after they read about celebs lives.
You are an educated person as with many thats on-line are also educated and
intelligent. We all realize that this stuff is total BS nor do we even
care. However, .1% of a worlds population of 5 billion is an audience of
500 million potential readers, and that is pretty lucrative market for
them. These people love to read about how aliens impregnated their pet cat
or that someone's adopted daughter is really a space mutant, and they
actually believe this stuff. Celeb coverage is probably the only thing that
contains actual truth (if you call it that, but at least its not alien
influenced). In the supermarket, I will sometimes watch the checkout lines,
the people that buy this garbage will look around first, then after making
sure no one notices, grab all the tabs they can. Its a funny thing to see.
When these rags say the world wants to know, they mean the 500 million
possible readers that want to know. The rest of us must endure the knee
deep you-know-what that comes with it.
Big Fella
> Are you seriously saying this car wasn't travelling at speed?
>
> Experts who have looked at the car have put the estimated speed at well
> over 100 mph and the speedo was apparently jammed at 120.
All I will concede is a proability of traveling above the 30mph speed
limit.
I said "good evidence" because the speedometer is hardly evidence at
all.
Moreover, traffic safety experts in the U.S. summarily dismissed the
over 100mph estimate. And having seen a car that had a 30mph headon
collision, this car should have been MUCH more demolished at a speed
above 100mph. Remember that the increase in moment of inertia is
GEOMETRIC, not arithmetic.
So, at this point, I haven't heard anything but really superficial
speculation that doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
Which means that I'm not saying what you're suggesting, I'm saying that
a much lower speed reflects past experience. Nothing more than a lower
rate of speed is required for this level of damage. And if you factor
in a lot of other circumstantial evidence, you get the probability of a
much lower speed. And the ONLY piece of evidence supporting the high
speed is a disputed report of a speedometer stuck on 120mph.
Big Fella
> The witness was driving, in the tunnel, in front of the car. The witness
> said that a motorcycle with two 'people on it, passed the car on the
> right, swerved in front of the car and as it swerved in front of the car
> there was a bright flash, prior to the car going out of control. The
> witness said that he did not see the actual crash, as he was emerging
> from the tunnel, but he did hear the sounds of the crash.
And they ALL were going 120 mph, of course. That must be fun....driving
120 mph down the road, looking in the rear view mirror!!!
Louis Epstein
VEFS (dash...@erols.com) wrote:
:
: People have died and they all share in the blame:
:
: c) The Hotel or whoever for making a game out of it by sending out the
: first driver (the normal driver) as a decoy and calling in a second
: driver who had been off work. Diana had spent 16 years of being stalked
: why was this night so special to turn it into a high stakes game of cat
: & mouse! Now I have heard yet another rumor that Diana & Dodi were
: planning to announce their engagement. If this is true then it should
: have been done right away in a secure place with security and allow a
: photo opt. I can not believe that they would announce anything like
: this without first talking to the children in private.
Dodi had just gotten Diana a $200,000 ring,but I think any engagement
would only have been announced after she had told her sons,who she was
to have gone to see the next day.
: d) The Palace for taking away Diana's personal security when she lost
: her H.R.H. status; Past United States Presidents and I think close
: members of their families keep secret service status; why not a past/ex
: or what ever Royal?
DIANA SPECIFICALLY REFUSED to keep a security detail.
Robert N Young
On 5 Sep 1997 05:06:50 GMT, "Sombody" <some...@home.now> wrote:
>
>You're right regulate the media...let's see now...how would that have
>stopped a drunk driver from ramming his speeding car into a bridge
>support?? Maybe we should pass a law stopping drunk drivers from being
>allowed to drive speeding cars! Oh, yea we got that law already!!! Maybe
>we can pass a law that you can't piss off drunk drivers of speeding cars,
>that way they won't get upset and crash! Boy oh boy! I love these
>newsgroups!
>
You obviously don't keep up with the latest information. Rumours that
a motocyclist swerved in front of the car, in the tunnel, is confirmed
by a witness statement.
The witness was driving, in the tunnel, in front of the car. The witness
said that a motorcycle with two 'people on it, passed the car on the
right, swerved in front of the car and as it swerved in front of the car
there was a bright flash, prior to the car going out of control. The
witness said that he did not see the actual crash, as he was emerging
from the tunnel, but he did hear the sounds of the crash.
It can reasonably be deduced that if the car went out of control after
the motorcyclist swerved and after the bright flash, that the car was in
control prior to the motorcyclist's swerve and the bright flash which
would have blinded the driver. It might even be deduced that the driver
had seen the car in front and may have been slowing down ( the paparazzi
claim they couldn't keep up) and positioned to carry out an overtaking
manouvre, safely, enabling the motorcyclist the opportunity to pass on
the right and swerve in front of the car.
Robert N Young
On 5 Sep 1997 04:53:44 GMT, "Sombody" <some...@home.now> wrote:
>
>This is just standard fare for a society insane by their own fantasies! Now
>we have a little more to oggle like some perverse voyeur! In a few days
>this particular sub-plot will end and a new one will move to take it's
>place. But, no matter what anyone says, one thing is very clear....someone
>'drunk on his ass' should have never been allowed to drive that car! The
>reason the car crashed was because a drunk man made judgements a drunk man
>should never be allowed to make! End of story!
><Snip...some BS about rights...>
I suggest you keep up with current events in the investigation. I refer
you to the witness statement in reply to your comments in your other
article in this thread.
Dave Roberts
In article <340F07...@nospam.com>, Big Fella <bigf...@nospam.com>
writes
>> I'd be intrigued to know what kind of safety measures would have
>> prevented a Mercedes being driven at 120mph by a drunk from having
>> a serious accident.
>>
>
>Well, lets start by saying that there is no good evidence for that
>120mph figure. So, its ridiculous to make that the critical assumption.
No?
What about the state of the car after it hit the post?
Are you seriously saying this car wasn't travelling at speed?
Experts who have looked at the car have put the estimated speed at well
over 100 mph and the speedo was apparently jammed at 120.
Regards
Dave
--
("'\-/'").___..--''"-._
( 0_ 0 ) -. ( ).-.__.) Cyber Kitty mmeeeeeoooowwwwwww
(_Y_.)' ._ ) ._ . -..-' Cheers
_..--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Dave Roberts
(().-'' (().' ((!.-' http://www.darob.demon.co.uk
C Baxter
This is a debate which has been argued about for years, and will continue
to be argued for many years to come. Some journalists have used certain
tactics to "get their story" and decide that sticking a camera in someone's
face is the best way. Others feel that this is not the best way. Most
journalists are human and can have empathy on these scenes. Others may be
heartless bastards who are totally insensitive to the rights of some
victims.
But we should also consider the positive that comes from reporting like
this. To use your example on the 2 children that have lost their mother. TV
reports such as this can cause a public outpouring of support for the
children. People will see these helpless kids and send money to them. They
will offer to give them a good home. They often send food and toys to help
make them feel better. The public sees their anguish that would have never
seen it if it was not for the reporting of the TV or newspaper. They may
not have gotten any public support if the station or paper decided that it
wanted to censor it or denie coverage. Initially, a part of the public
reacts harshly to the story, but the majority of the public sends this aid,
which can and will help the children for years to come.
For aid and sympathy like this to come from the community, they need to see
the horrors of reality. To censor reality in such fashion, we will never
see the problems this world has, nor would we correct it. It needs to be
openly shown, and with this we will all feel for it, and do something to
correct it to try to make this a better world for us and the future.
kayless <kay...@albany.net> wrote in article <340F57...@albany.net>...
> The paparazzi is not alone in the blame, the media in general is:
> I will give you a rather nasty example that i know of personally:
> Some years ago a child was abducted and murdered where i live, her
> grandfather and great uncle were policemen in that town as well as many
> cousins. After many days of intense searching, her lifeless body was
> found in the woods hear her home. In the beginning, the media was most
> useful in their attemps to assist by showing her image on the local
> television stations. At the end though, it turned ugly. On the news that
> night, i saw her grandpather breakdown at the crime scene identifying
> her body, it did not end there, they then continued into our
> neighborhood to approach the teenage cousins to tell them "Your cousing
> was just found dead in the woods near your home. What are your
> feelings?" Can you imagine the insensitivity? It is unspeakable! Now the
> same calaber turns on their own. I found it offensive that they took
> picutes like that for one but this is not anything new under the sun.
> How many times have we seen pictures of something equally as horrendous?
> I think that we have lost focus of many things. One is that the media
> does invade our privacy then hides behind the 'skirts' of the 1st
> amendment any chance they get. The other thing is that there are 2
> children who have lost their mother for absolutely no reason whatsoevet
> and what is happening? These children cannot even do something as simple
> as turn on a television without seeing this plastered everyehere. Where
> does the line get drawn and when is freedom of speech end and right to
> privacy begin?
>
C Baxter
> I don't think that the average television reporter is all that different
> from these thugs. Most are just talking heads with no real idea what is
> going on and certainly have no respect for a person's privacy. Any
> idiot that sticks a microphone in the face of a grieving mother is the
> same kind of thug.
>
I must admit your right for some of these guys, I guess every met area as
one station with some meathead that thinks that sticking cameras in people
faces is cool. I met one of these jerks one time and I told him I thought
he was a complete ass-hole for his confrontational style of journalism. I
told his station I will never watch this channel as long as he still worked
there. Sooner or later the channel will get the message.
Many, however, are sensitive and again, these thug types are few and far
between. A discreet distance should always be observed, as decent human
beings should do.
But we should also consider the positive that comes from reporting like
this. To use your example on the grieving mother. TV
reports such as this can cause a public outpouring of support for the
family. People will see the helpless family and send money to them. They
will offer to give them a good home. They often send food and toys to help
make them feel better. The public sees their anguish that would have never
seen it if it was not for the reporting of the TV or newspaper. They may
not have gotten any public support if the station or paper decided that it
wanted to censor it or deny coverage. Initially, a part of the public
reacts harshly to the story, but the majority of the public sends this aid,
which can and will help the family for years to come.
VALEN
Sombody <some...@home.now> wrote in article
<01bcb9b9$d30c0580$5599...@nino.stratos.net>...
> You're right regulate the media...let's see now...how would that have
> stopped a drunk driver from ramming his speeding car into a bridge
> support?? Maybe we should pass a law stopping drunk drivers from being
> allowed to drive speeding cars! Oh, yea we got that law already!!! Maybe
> we can pass a law that you can't piss off drunk drivers of speeding cars,
> that way they won't get upset and crash! Boy oh boy! I love these
> newsgroups!
They are quite fun, aren't they? Some people take them too seriously,
though. But they are great to share our opinions.
Many have chosen to cloud the real truth hear by pointing fingers at the
media, when it was a drunken driver that caused it in the first place. He
chose to drink, and chose to drive at 100+ on his own. The media may have
been pursuing, but by what right did he have to drive that fast in a metro
area?
I bet that even if the press was not on his heals, he would have wrecked
somewhere else eventually that night, especially with a BAC of 0.187.
C Baxter
> I think you'll find that most if not all newspapers use sensationalism
> to sell their rags. What differs the tabloids from what is laughingly
> called the 'quality press' is the manner in which the sensationalism is
> couched.
>
I beg to differ on this. I have seen virtually thousands of newspapers and
most of them do not use sensationalism, but it all depends on how you
define sensationalism, I suppose.
> So is the Daily Express.
Where is this paper from? Is it similar to Pravda?
VALEN
> I don't buy this. Personal Privacy is a Universal Human Right Equal for
> ALL.
> Personal Privacy is defined from the Subjects point of view, not the
> intruder.
> A NO is a NO and always means NO. Agreeing to media interviews once,
> twice,
> a zillion times does not invalidate your right to privacy - that Human
> Right is
> equal for all and universal.
Where is this right defined? At home, a public street, a public event? We
are allowed to cover only what they choose for us to cover and not for
anything else? I'm sorry, but this sounds a little too much like socialism
to me. In many communist countries, the government only allows coverage of
what is says can be covered. To do anything else would mean arrest. Is this
the route the free nations of the world desires to go?
>
> And the freedom of the press is actually not part of of the Human Rights
> declaration, rather, it is a TOOL to help protect EVERYONES right to
> Freedom of Speech, and to monitor our elected representatives, their
> decisions, how they spend our money, and stays within the law.
> In what way does public knowledge of the color of celebrities
> underwear help defend democracy from tyranic forces?
>
Who constructed this declaration? How did it form? Was the worlds people
allowed to provide input on this declaration and voted upon by the worlds
people? Or was it voted upon by _appointed_ delegated by various world
leaders?
> > Not I, I choose to live for the freedom of us all, to be a patriot for
the
> > cause of freedom.
> I suggest you volonteer to be the first person ever who lives a truly,
> and fully PUBLIC LIFE! Web TV cameras and mic's in every room in your
> house,
> lights on at all times so anyone can peek across the Internet.
> Bank account numbers, medical records, all legal contracts
> for us all to scrutinize on the web. Lists of friends, relatives,
> lovers, contacts published and monitored. Mic's and cameras on your
> body,
> with a GPS and wireless networks so WE at all times can see where you
> are.
> Wait a minute, this reminds me of a SF story some time, was it......?
The celebs do not have this when they shut their doors, besides, this is no
where near the same thing that we have been discussing. We all have some
degree of privacy when we go home as long as we close the door, shut the
blinds and relax. Its not like the press is beating their doors down. The
only places they are "covered" is a public place. Besides, if you live in
the States, much of it is already under some form of surveillance- highways
have cameras mounted every mile to "assist" motorists in case they break
down and traffic monitoring. Many of the malls have cameras to deter crime,
almost all the stores have cameras for the same purpose. How easy is it to
tap into? The highway system is accessible by the TV stations to give
traffic updates, some cable providers air this on some channels. The stores
video feeds, are they accessible or are they "closed"? So, if you really
think about it, the minute we leave our homes we are under constant watch.
If I was a celeb or somebody like that, I would have a garage with cars
with tinted glass. I would go to and from never giving them any opportunity
to get pictures. I would use side and back entrances. I would elude or
evade followers. Nothing is 100 percent, but I would cut down any possible
opportunity. Look at world leaders, they elude the press pretty good, do
they not? Only appearing for "press conferences". Sure, they get covered
during golf games, but they know it. They only give expressions when they
want to. They never get flustered, because to do so would be a good
opportunity for the press. Look at JFK, Jr. Great example. The press ate
that up and paid big bucks. If you do not give them that kind of
opportunity, the well dries up and dies.
VALEN
Thank you very much! The whole issue should be about this guy who was three
to four times the legal limit of intoxication. I don't know about anybody
else, but a .187 would make me pass out. I wouldn't be able to stand let
alone drive. Why didn't anybody notice this before they got into the car,
and stopped him?
Were there any BAC tests performed on the other occupants of the car? I
don't know about anybody else, but if I was aware of a driver drinking I
would NOT have gotten into that car, unless my judgment was impaired in
some way.
Are there any photos or video of them when they were getting into the car
before the accident?
Sombody <some...@home.now> wrote in article
<01bcb9b7$d1381ac0$5599...@nino.stratos.net>...
C Baxter
> I thought this discussion was focused on protecting the individuals
> privacy
> from intrusion by the Medias? And I would hope any media has
> significantly
> more readers/viewers that media victims?
>
It is. My response was to illustrate what it would take to curb some
activities of the press if you feel that this publication has infringed on
the rights of some people. Working in the system for quite some time, I
know what it takes to change policy regarding these issues. Working the
system is preferable than passing laws to inhibit the press. With this,
freedom is not charged too precious a price.
Louis Epstein
VALEN (CB...@erols.com) wrote:
: Thank you very much! The whole issue should be about this guy who was three
: to four times the legal limit of intoxication. I don't know about anybody
: else, but a .187 would make me pass out. I wouldn't be able to stand let
: alone drive. Why didn't anybody notice this before they got into the car,
: and stopped him?
:
: Were there any BAC tests performed on the other occupants of the car? I
: don't know about anybody else, but if I was aware of a driver drinking I
: would NOT have gotten into that car, unless my judgment was impaired in
: some way.
:
: Are there any photos or video of them when they were getting into the car
: before the accident?
I believe there are shots of Diana getting into the car at the Ritz.
: Sombody <some...@home.now> wrote in article
: >
peter
In article <01bcba14$9f107760$LocalHost@christopher>, VALEN
<CB...@erols.com> writes
>
>Thank you very much! The whole issue should be about this guy who was three
>to four times the legal limit of intoxication. I don't know about anybody
>else, but a .187 would make me pass out. I wouldn't be able to stand let
>alone drive. Why didn't anybody notice this before they got into the car,
>and stopped him?
>
>Were there any BAC tests performed on the other occupants of the car? I
>don't know about anybody else, but if I was aware of a driver drinking I
>would NOT have gotten into that car, unless my judgment was impaired in
>some way.
Agree
>
>Are there any photos or video of them when they were getting into the car
>before the accident?
>
Yes. Shown on the BBC 6:00 News he looks sober. He drove up to the Ritz
- parked his Mini, carefully and correctly. Then he is shown leaving.
The whole thing stinks.
also
they are not going to bury him as previously planned. The doctors sent
by Al Fayed to check the autopsy results are deeply unhappy about the
blood:alcohol results and don't think they are legitimate.
Watch this space.
>Sombody <some...@home.now> wrote in article
><01bcb9b7$d1381ac0$5599...@nino.stratos.net>...
>> This is just standard fare for a society insane by their own fantasies!
>Now
>> we have a little more to oggle like some perverse voyeur! In a few days
>> this particular sub-plot will end and a new one will move to take it's
>> place. But, no matter what anyone says, one thing is very
>clear....someone
>> 'drunk on his ass' should have never been allowed to drive that car! The
>> reason the car crashed was because a drunk man made judgements a drunk
>man
>> should never be allowed to make! End of story!
>> <Snip...some BS about rights...>
>>
--
peter
Big Fella
How about "measures" to control the small bad element? The very fact
that it is small will make the measures more effective? Also, how about
the "good press" taking action to control the "bad press". That is the
charter of medical boards and similar bodies in the USA. They don't
always do it perfectly, but they are so chartered. Group pressure is
the oldest human device to control antisocial behavior.
Chuck Hoffman
Innocent Bystander wrote:
>
Do the paparazzi really deserve the
> ultimate blame for this tragedy?
>
> In short, no!
>
I don't entirely agree. They had been hounding the woman for 16 years.
Given that background, it is, perhaps, understandable that her wish was
to flee the incessant stare of photographic lenses. I think the
paparazzi played a role -- directly or indirectly -- in Diana's death.
If the blood-alcohol tests are to be believed, he driver was impaired.
That certainly contributed to the tragedy.
But if the driver was under the influence of alcohol, were the paparazzi
under the influence of money??? Which can cloud the judgement more???
Would the prospect of a million-dollar payday cause people to do things
that were contrary to reason and decency?
--
Chuck Hoffman
Whatever
In article <01bcba1a$b5d236e0$LocalHost@christopher>, "VALEN"
<CB...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> Many have chosen to cloud the real truth hear by pointing fingers at the
> media, when it was a drunken driver that caused it in the first place. He
> chose to drink, and chose to drive at 100+ on his own. The media may have
> been pursuing, but by what right did he have to drive that fast in a metro
> area?
>
> I bet that even if the press was not on his heals, he would have wrecked
> somewhere else eventually that night, especially with a BAC of 0.187.
It's quite possible that the paparazzi were not only "at his heels." If you
believe the statements from one of the witnesses, it appears that one of
the motorcycles actually cut in front of the car just seconds before the
crash. Then, "there was a flash of light" (flash camera, one would assume).
If this is true, the actions of this photographer possibly, 1) temporarily
blinded the driver, and/or 2) caused the driver of the car to swerve to
avoid hitting the motorcycle. Even a completely sober driver could be
expected to lose control of the vehicle under those circumstances.
This, of course, doesn't absolve the driver from blame for driving under
the influence of alcohol, but it *would* indicate that there were other
serious, contributing factors to the cause of the accident--and that at
least *one* of the paparazzi was equally culpable (if this report turns out
to be true).
One has to wonder whether it might be possible to either prove (or
disprove) this witness's account by checking the photographs taken by the
paparazzi. It will be interesting to learn if any of those photos *do* show
a motorcycle in *front* of the car either just prior to or after entering
the tunnel.
Peter Szmulik
Fully agree!
Let's try to understand a bit more on where the limits are...
UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, equal for all:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon
his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers.
A free press/media is not an Universal Human Right - rather it
is, or used to be a tool to help protect freedom of speech. In
past years, printing presses where expensive beasts and available
only to to a few. So a free press was seen as 'the voice of the
public'.
A free press was also seen as a way to protect democracy by
having the press monitor OUR ELECTED POLITICIANS, their actions,
decisions, opinions - trying to make shure that they stayed within
the LAW. The press developed a business practise to use not only
official information channels to get to relevant information.
Watergate.
Today, we have the Internet. We are all publishers. We have
Freedom of Speech with Global Reach
Some medias are still sticking to their original mission - to
monitor the political system.
Others have taken the methods used for monitoring the political
system and applied it on individuals. They tend to claim they are
defending the Free Press and claims that the Free Press is for the
common good. I belive it's fair to say that they are defending their
corporate profit margins - not that that is inherrently bad, but it
is at the cost of individuals right to privacy, it is hurting and even
killing all kinds of people. It's about you and me!
I claim that the medias have a mission to monitor the political
and business system of the world from a PROFESSIONAL point of view.
Information that relates to the system and how individuals are
performing in the system. Business life! But does intimate details
of a public persons private life nessesarily relate to his/hers
ability to carry out his/hers job? NO! That is Private Life and
anyone has a right to a private life AS DEFINED BY HIM/HERSELF.
Privacy is defined from the subjects side, not the intruders side,
regardless of location and situation, even in a public place.
Take your own example; helping the search for the girl by publishing
pictures of her is for the good of everyone. Interfering with her
relatives is a clear intrusion - they should be allowed to define
IF and WHEN they want to speek to the medias, and no photos
should be allowed to be taken unless explicitly allowed.
And again, this is regardless of location, public or not.
Peter Szmulik
peter dot szmulik at meetingspace dot pi dot se
Robert N Young
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:31:36 -0700, Big Fella <bigf...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>> The witness was driving, in the tunnel, in front of the car. The witness
>> said that a motorcycle with two 'people on it, passed the car on the
>> right, swerved in front of the car and as it swerved in front of the car
>> there was a bright flash, prior to the car going out of control. The
>> witness said that he did not see the actual crash, as he was emerging
>> from the tunnel, but he did hear the sounds of the crash.
>
>And they ALL were going 120 mph, of course. That must be fun....driving
>120 mph down the road, looking in the rear view mirror!!!
No. However you have snipped half the posting...very conveniently!!!
GLIMMUNG
<<Excessive newsgroup list left intact, but followups set to uk.c-e.p-d and
a.conspiracy.p-d>>
In article <340EDD...@bottom.of.page.if.I.remember.to.include.it>,
David Roberts <add...@bottom.of.page.if.I.remember.to.include.it> wrote:
>
>I'd be intrigued to know what kind of safety measures would have
>prevented a Mercedes being driven at 120mph by a drunk from having
>a serious accident.
>
>David
A report on US television showed the tunnel, with the pillars going
all the way to the ground. In the US, twenty-five years ago they
started converting all major roadways, and required all new construction,
to include guardrails or walls. France is way behind on this. If there
had been a wall, the car would not have smashed head on into a pillar
and come to a complete stop in milliseconds. It would have been redirected
at a moderate angle, and lost a lot of its kinetic energy. The television
report quoted US safety experts saying that this accident would not have
been fatal if there had been a mere three foot high wall instead of pillars
and empty space.
GLIMMUNG
<<Followups set to a more reasonable list of newsgroups>>
In article <340F07...@nospam.com>, Big Fella <bigf...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>And, as I said, there are many many other safety features. When there
>is a fork in a highway, there are large orange barriers filled with sand
>that stand in front of the place where the guard rails join. That helps
>insure that a car that fails to turn properly loses momentum more
>SLOWLY.
Actually, that would be as bad as hitting solid concrete. Those barrels
are empty, and when they are run into, they collapse, absorbing the
energy of the car at a rate more conducive to survival.
GLIMMUNG
In article <01bcb951$2c1e3d00$835095c1@default>,
Ruth Hine <Ruth...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>"As any ful kno" David Mellor has been a highly paid
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Molesworth Lives!
Dave Roberts
In article <01bcb7a1$effbb740$679091c6@amos>, Amos Davis
<am...@earthworld.com> writes
>I believe that some limits should be placed on freelance photographers when
>it comes to abuse of privacy issues. The First Amendment of the
>U. S. Constitution is a cornerstone of American law and citizens' privacy
>rights. However, some photographers go too far while trying photograph the
>most intimate situations of entertainers and politicians.
What like standing outside a restaurant, a public place where they they
had a right to be.
>
>The media that feeds off the offerings of extreme photographers are in part
>to blame, and people who have an unfulfilled hunger for tabliod (sp)
>journalism are to blame, as well. The media needs to police themselves to
>stem the problem. If this does not occur, then the legislation should be
>developed.
France has some of the strongest privacy laws in the world.
Peter Szmulik
VALEN wrote:
>
> > I don't buy this. Personal Privacy is a Universal Human Right Equal for
> > ALL.
> > Personal Privacy is defined from the Subjects point of view, not the
> > intruder.
> > A NO is a NO and always means NO. Agreeing to media interviews once,
> > twice,
> > a zillion times does not invalidate your right to privacy - that Human
> > Right is
> > equal for all and universal.
>
> Where is this right defined? At home, a public street, a public event? We
> are allowed to cover only what they choose for us to cover and not for
> anything else? I'm sorry, but this sounds a little too much like socialism
> to me. In many communist countries, the government only allows coverage of
> what is says can be covered. To do anything else would mean arrest. Is this
> the route the free nations of the world desires to go?
In communist countries the communist party decides what should be
covered, what should be said, and by whom, at an unbelivable level of
detail. I am talking about the opposite - YOURS AND MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY
AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH in relation to intruders such as the medias or be
it communist regimes. The medias are a tool for you and me to make our
voices and oppinions heard. We are not a free utility for the medias
to construct news from. However, today, we have the Internet
so why bother about using the medias?
>
> >
> > And the freedom of the press is actually not part of of the Human Rights
> > declaration, rather, it is a TOOL to help protect EVERYONES right to
> > Freedom of Speech, and to monitor our elected representatives, their
> > decisions, how they spend our money, and stays within the law.
> > In what way does public knowledge of the color of celebrities
> > underwear help defend democracy from tyranic forces?
> >
> Who constructed this declaration? How did it form? Was the worlds people
> allowed to provide input on this declaration and voted upon by the worlds
> people? Or was it voted upon by _appointed_ delegated by various world
> leaders?
So you as representative of the Free Medias you are not
committed to Human Rights?
Let's be open about this. Every media company has a legitimate
right to earn money. Sell more copies and more air-time. What makes
me sick is when this is done at the cost of human lives and in
the name of defending the Freedom of the Press.
What we need to defend is a humane world - let's start with
defending the human rights.
> If I was a celeb or somebody like that, I would have a garage with cars
> with tinted glass. I would go to and from never giving them any opportunity
> to get pictures. I would use side and back entrances. I would elude or
> evade followers. Nothing is 100 percent, but I would cut down any possible
> opportunity. Look at world leaders, they elude the press pretty good, do
> they not? Only appearing for "press conferences". Sure, they get covered
> during golf games, but they know it. They only give expressions when they
> want to. They never get flustered, because to do so would be a good
> opportunity for the press. Look at JFK, Jr. Great example. The press ate
> that up and paid big bucks. If you do not give them that kind of
> opportunity, the well dries up and dies.
You are missing the point. If Privacy and Freedom of Speech are human
rights, they apply everywhere and at all times, not just behind
closed doors and blinds - to me, those closed doors and blinds are
the signs of a totalitarian regime.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations
adopted and proclaimed the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the
following pages. Following this historic act the
Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of
the Declaration and "to cause it to be
disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools
and other educational institutions, without
distinction based on the political status of countries or
territories."
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in
barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of
mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and
want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the commonpeople,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse,
as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and
oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations
between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed
theirfaith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity
and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women
and have determined to promotesocial progress and
better standards of life in larger freedom,� Whereas Member States have
pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation
withthe United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the
greatestimportance for the full realization of this
pledge,
Now, Therefore,
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
proclaims
THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of
achievementfor all peoples and
all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of
society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive
byteaching and education to promote respect for these rights and
freedoms and byprogressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their
jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act
towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore,
no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to
which a
person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or
under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave
trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the
law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination
to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal
protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration
and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights
granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of
his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public
trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any
act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence,
under national or international law, at the time when it was committed
Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that
was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
honour and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the
law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within
the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and
to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries
asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely
arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to
the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied
the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a
family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during
marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent
of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and
is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief,
and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media
and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his
country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his
country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine
elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be
held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and
is entitled to realization, through national effort and
international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and
resources of each State, of the economic, social and
cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development
of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to
just and favourable conditions of work and to protection
against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for
equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration
ensuring for himself and his family an existence
worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means
of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the
protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable
limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of himself and of his family, including
food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services,
and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and
assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall
enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at
least in the elementary and fundamental stages Elementary
education shall be compulsory Technical and professional education shall
be made generally available and higher education shall
be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human
personality and to the strengthening of respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding,
tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious
groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the
maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that
shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of
the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific
advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the
rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully
realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and
full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be
subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely
for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights
and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a
democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to
the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any
State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or
to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein.
Leif
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> "Why is a bunch of motorcycles in Paris going after a Mercedes that
> much
> different from a bunch of helicopters chasing a White Bronco around
> LA?"
>
It is not.. not at all....
It seems to me that the editors and the rest of the industry is so
desperate to be the first ones with a story so they pursue their readers
/ wiewers/listenenrs boundries of decensy...
I do honestly belive that this acsident/murder finally woke up the
public, the gowerments and maybee.. some parts of the press.
California will maybee come up with a law forcing hyenas on a 50 foot
distance from celebrities who is not on a public event.. about time.....
BTW... notice that NONE here botherd to respond to my earlier posting
about the atitude of pressphotographers I KNOW R/T....
Because I am a nice person I will repeat it below.. so you guys get a
new oportunity to respond.:
I am not a celebrety.. but I have a few times been in situation where I
have been a target for press photgraphers.... yes most of them are
decent ppl in normal... but however.. the ones I know have a moral like
this.. if it is a picture that will sell.. take it...
on of these used to be crew on an ambulance.. and he was kicked out..
because he brougth a camera on duty.... just in case.......
and another I used to know happend to soot a picture just when the
police hit a man in his stomach in a small city a few year ago.
He sold the picture where the man grab his stomach and loose his
shotgun to several newspapers..
And he was so trilled that he was so "lucky" to get the picture just
when the police fired... so he could get the frontpage on a national
newspaper......
I adviced him to send a card to the police and thank them for
cooperation... shooting a man so he could be famous...
He had no concern that the police opend fire and killed a man....
( not blaming the police, have no idea why they opend fire.. and do not
judge it..)
I have to this day not met one pressphotographer that not was on "job"..
certainly not anyone that would hessitate to take a picture no matter
what if it was sellable...
Leif
James Hammerton
Ruth Hine (Ruth...@msn.com) wrote:
>
>
> Pete Storey wrote:-
>
> > What a pile of total shite! where du get mellor as an arms dealer
> > from??? next john major will turn out to have been a high level ira
> > general and margaret thatcher a coke fiend. please. have some self
> > respect. dont talk bollocks that you simply cat support.
>
> "As any ful kno" David Mellor has been a highly paid
> Check out your register of Member's interests and the controversy
> following the Cash for Questions scandals - oh yes, and that little
> unpleasantness involving Mr Al Fayed.
>
> Interestingly enough, why has no one made nothing of the irony that Our
> Lady of the Land Mines died on her to way to (presumably) bonk a man who is
> closely related to one of the world's biggest arms dealers. Yes, Dodi -
> nephew of Adnan Koshoggi ( whose probable secret bankrolling of Al Fayed
> Snr resulted in his refusal of a British Passport on the grounds of
> probable fraud in the takeover of Harrods)
>
> No-one deserves to die in such a horrible way BUT for Fuck's sake, she was
> a grossly privileged woman. A shallow, venal, manipulative clothes horse
> with fantastic PR skills.
>
> Can't we all just sober up and stop being so self indulgent?
Judging by the way the funeral went apparently not...
Hell if Diana hadn't died, today's major headlines would be the
death of Mother Teresa, as it is she's mentioned in passing.
James
--
James Hammerton, Research Student, School of Computer Science,
University of Birmingham | Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/
Connectionist NLP WWW Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/CNLP/cnlp.html
Replace "seemysigfile" with "james" in my email address
Mike Dickson
In article <IBr10qAQ...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk wrote...
> Yes. Shown on the BBC 6:00 News he looks sober. He drove up to the Ritz
> - parked his Mini, carefully and correctly. Then he is shown leaving.
Don't be ridiculous. It 'proves' absolutely nothing. Parking a car and
driving at absurd speeds through the streets are two entirely different
things.
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland, EH21 6NL
mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino
*Spam deflecting e-mail address used* : Junk e-mails charged at $1000 US
Pat Winstanley
In article <01bcba14$9f107760$LocalHost@christopher>, VALEN
<CB...@erols.com> writes
>Thank you very much! The whole issue should be about this guy who was three
>to four times the legal limit of intoxication. I don't know about anybody
>else, but a .187 would make me pass out. I wouldn't be able to stand let
>alone drive. Why didn't anybody notice this before they got into the car,
>and stopped him?
Maybe he wasn't and hadn't been ingesting alcohol... have you any
awareness of the various means by which alcohol can be present in a
person... especially a dead one?
Do you know what happens when a body dies?
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
James Hammerton
Robert N Young (you...@best.com) wrote:
>
> On 5 Sep 1997 05:06:50 GMT, "Sombody" <some...@home.now> wrote:
>
> >
> >You're right regulate the media...let's see now...how would that have
> >stopped a drunk driver from ramming his speeding car into a bridge
> >support?? Maybe we should pass a law stopping drunk drivers from being
> >allowed to drive speeding cars! Oh, yea we got that law already!!! Maybe
> >we can pass a law that you can't piss off drunk drivers of speeding cars,
> >that way they won't get upset and crash! Boy oh boy! I love these
> >newsgroups!
> >
> a motocyclist swerved in front of the car, in the tunnel, is confirmed
> by a witness statement.
But this is contradicted by other witness statements. Also why didn't
this particular person come forward earlier?
> The witness was driving, in the tunnel, in front of the car. The witness
> said that a motorcycle with two 'people on it, passed the car on the
> right, swerved in front of the car and as it swerved in front of the car
> there was a bright flash, prior to the car going out of control. The
> witness said that he did not see the actual crash, as he was emerging
> from the tunnel, but he did hear the sounds of the crash.
So where are these motorcyclists? How did they escape the crash
themselves? I find it hard to believe they could be travelling at
>100mph and execute the maneouvre just described.
> It can reasonably be deduced that if the car went out of control after
> the motorcyclist swerved and after the bright flash, that the car was in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> control prior to the motorcyclist's swerve and the bright flash which
^^^^^^^
When the driver was rat-arsed?!
JK.
In article <wzrKHKAi...@pierless.demon.co.uk>, Pat Winstanley
<pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes
>Do you know what happens when a body dies?
Sure....they normally go "Arrrrrghhhh" and fall over.
--
JK.
Big Fella
> Hell if Diana hadn't died, today's major headlines would be the
> death of Mother Teresa, as it is she's mentioned in passing.
>
> James
Wrong. In my newspaper, they did an entire special section on her. She
way well be Time's Person of the Year, too. But by no means is it
treated as some non-event.
Beyond that, think about what Diana expressed as her wish. Then ask
yourself what Mother Teresa most wished for. Do you REALLY think it
was to win the international publicity sweepstakes? I can't believe
that. I never knew her directly, but from what I do know, my inference
would be that if any of the children she cradled and fed realized for a
moment that true love can exist, saw the light of God coming through
Mother Teresa's eyes, I think her most cherished dream came true in that
moment.
God will undoubtedly set her mind at rest on that point.
We may run our lives according to media demands, but a few people rise
above that and become truly saintly. How can you doubt that Mother
Teresa was one of those people?
Suggestion: Care a lot less about the fawning of the media. It really
is less than nothing in the larger human story.
Robert N Young
On Sat, 6 Sep 1997 15:06:59 GMT, seemys...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James
Hammerton) wrote:
>Robert N Young (you...@best.com) wrote:
>> You obviously don't keep up with the latest information. Rumours that
>> a motocyclist swerved in front of the car, in the tunnel, is confirmed
>> by a witness statement.
>
>But this is contradicted by other witness statements. Also why didn't
>this particular person come forward earlier?
As I understand, it was mentioned briefly by the media but hastely
dropped when reports came out that the driver was drunk.
The witness went to the Ritz on the Sunday and was advised to make his
statement to the police. He did go to the police and make the statement.
>
>> The witness was driving, in the tunnel, in front of the car. The witness
>> said that a motorcycle with two 'people on it, passed the car on the
>> right, swerved in front of the car and as it swerved in front of the car
>> there was a bright flash, prior to the car going out of control. The
>> witness said that he did not see the actual crash, as he was emerging
>> from the tunnel, but he did hear the sounds of the crash.
>
>So where are these motorcyclists? How did they escape the crash
>themselves? I find it hard to believe they could be travelling at
>>100mph and execute the maneouvre just described.
Which also brings into question the speed of the car. As I have pointed
out, if the witness statement is accurate ( and there is no reason to
suppose not) then the car must have slowed to allow the paparazzi to
catch up and overtake, by the paparazzis own admisssion.
>
>> It can reasonably be deduced that if the car went out of control after
>> the motorcyclist swerved and after the bright flash, that the car was in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> control prior to the motorcyclist's swerve and the bright flash which
> ^^^^^^^
>
>When the driver was rat-arsed?!
The effect of alcohol on the body is determined by a number of factors.
The tests show that the blood/alcohol level was well above the
legal limit but there are also a number of factors which may, or may
not, have affected the results of the tests.
Even if the driver was stone could sober, a motorcycle swerving in front
and similtaniously firing a high power flashgun would result in the
driver losing vision for several seconds and could easily result in loss
of control of the car.
--
Bob. www.best.com/~youngrn
Mike Dickson
In article <01bcba1c$e705d120$LocalHost@christopher> cb...@yourmoma.com wrote...
> > So is the Daily Express.
> Where is this paper from? Is it similar to Pravda?
It's from the UK and yes, it bears more similarities to Pravda than its
readership would probably admit.
Chuck Hoffman
There is a dividing line between a free press and an invasive press.
In a free AND empathetic society, the press would limit themselves
before becoming invasive. Unfortunately, we cannot count on that, given
that the rewards for not doing so are so very high.
If the press is constrained by authorities, then they are not truly
free. But what aspect of life IS truly free -- apart from deciding on
your own when to take a leak??? There are societal and/or legal
constraints on WHERE to take a leak.
--
Chuck Hoffman
Peter Szmulik
C Baxter wrote:
>
> > So every action not explicitly forbidden by law is allowed?
> > And not only allowed but also socialy acceptable and even seen as
> > the most encourageble actions possible?
> > And that type of legal system would be a viable route to a more
> > humane society?
> >
>
> What legal system, if any, _could_ we have to make a humane society?
Thats what I'm trying to say. We are born humans, that is we are born
with a brain and a sense of what's right and wrong. That sense is
far more detailed and fine tuned than what can be printed as laws.
Let's use that ability, let's stay human, with dignity and
self-respect. That also means taking on life as a personal
responsibility, as a challenge, being brave
enough to be both vulnerable and strong, being fully alive.
From what I hear, most of media industry is today hiding behind a
"that's the rules, and we are following them, and we are not going
to change, because we don't need to" attitude, apparently unable to
take in what has just happened. Media Industry and it's present
business practicies killed Princess Diana. MILLIONS OF
YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE IN UPROAR TODAY. There are hundreds of
boycot-the-tabloids sites on the net.
But you are happy to continue to follow the rules, your rules.
Buddy, that's what I call sticking your head into the sand.
That's what I call to be unaware of market realities.
YOU WILL HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS PRACTICIES - IF NOT
YOU WILL BE HISTORY. And if you don't I would both expect
formal rules and significant boycots.
> Welcome to reality pal. This is the world in which we live, this does not
> apply to the media, it applies to everybody, everything, period. Think
> about it. Every industry on this planet will "push the envelope" as far as
> it can, as long as it remains within the boundaries of the law. Some of it
> may be unethical, but it still is within the realms of the law.
There is a limit to everything. And the limit is the customer. Take
the environment for example. For long water and air where 'free
utilities' (in some parts of the world they still are) - it didn't
cost anything to polute. By a combination
of customer demand for 'environmently sound products' and
national/international legislation most major companies today have
environmental programs that in many cases goes beyond the formal
rules. Environmental protection is being used to create a favourable
image and help support a competitive edge on the market. Many
customers even pay a higher price for products produced in an
environmentally sound way.
What media company will be first to display an 'ethical business
practicies' banner and use that in their marketing?
Mike Dickson
In article <wzrKHKAi...@pierless.demon.co.uk> pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk wrote...
> Do you know what happens when a body dies?
Yes, they get summarily canonised, their death is writ large over the
media in the worst case of stomach-churning overkill ever, every word
spoken about them is in hagiography, the nation supposedly morns in a
state of loss so great that we forget even our basic bodily functions,
and a series of sad bastards want to make an episode of the 'X Files'
out of it because they really think the truth is out there.
Well...that's what happens to some people anyway.
Michael
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0200, Peter Szmulik
<"adress"@bottom.of.page (Peter Szmulik)> wrote:
>And the freedom of the press is actually not part of of the Human Rights
>declaration, rather, it is a TOOL to help protect EVERYONES right to
>Freedom of Speech, and to monitor our elected representatives, their
>decisions, how they spend our money, and stays within the law.
>In what way does public knowledge of the color of celebrities
>underwear help defend democracy from tyranic forces?
>
If the press are not to be allowed to investigate the colour of a
celebrities knickers then somebody will have to forbid it. If someone
is allowed to forbid the press to do such things, then the press is
not free any more. The tyrannic forces have won a further foothold.
Love and Peace
Michael
Big Fella
> If the press are not to be allowed to investigate the colour of a
> celebrities knickers then somebody will have to forbid it. If someone
> is allowed to forbid the press to do such things, then the press is
> not free any more. The tyrannic forces have won a further foothold.
>
> Love and Peace
As I said to my wife while watching the funeral, the British people will
now go on trial. If they care as much as they said they did about Diana,
knowing how she cared about her boys, they should make the tabloid
publishers pay DEARLY for any transgression against William and Harry.
They are the future of the nation, and if entire editions of offensive
tabloids go unsold, I think the publishers will get the message. There
was great unity in the street. Can there be equal unity at the
newstand?
In a business meeting yesterday morning, an American friend made a
cynical statement about the future,and I said to give the British a
chance. I think this is like an asteroid hitting the earth, altering
its orbit. I don't know if that's a fact or merely what I want to
believe about the public.
Kaarin Goodburn
Ruth Hine <Ruth...@msn.com> wrote in article
<01bcb951$2c1e3d00$835095c1@default>...
> No-one deserves to die in such a horrible way BUT for Fuck's sake, she
was
> a grossly privileged woman. A shallow, venal, manipulative clothes horse
> with fantastic PR skills.
>
> Can't we all just sober up and stop being so self indulgent?
>
> Ruth
>
Ruth, she made a positive difference to many people. That's what the loss
is about for me.
Ruth Hine
--
Ruth
Kaarin Goodburn <orion...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bcbb78$93b4caa0$8651...@orion.kandh.easynet.co.uk>...
> Ruth, she made a positive difference to many people. That's what the
loss
> is about for me.
>
>
Oh yes, a positive difference. I for one thought land mines and AIDS were
*good* things before she told me otherwise.
Ruth
Ron Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 13:10:25 GMT, alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk
(Alex Buell) wrote:
>
>Oi! I resent that remark... I'm a fan of X-Files, but I'm not necessarily a sad
>bastard!
But you don't reject the possibility.
Ron
mas...@st.custards.com
In article <5uqpii$4...@examiner.concentric.net>, GLIMMUNG
<Glim...@cris.com> writes
>Molesworth Lives!
>
But wot of grate freind Pearson? or Molesworth II? - Where were they on
the nite?
--
Master