Don't Blame the Paparazzi!

[Innocent Bystander]

Donąt Blame the Paparazzi!
Opinion By James Thomas Green
(c) September 1, 1997

Early one Parisian summer morning, Princess Diana was ambushed and pursued
by a platoon of motorcyclists.

Within a black Mercedes, she fled at speeds in excess of one-hundred-twenty
miles per hour in a vain attempt to elude her tenacious pursuers. Racing
through a narrow tunnel, the limousineąs alcohol impaired chauffeur lost
control. The massive vehicle bounced along the inside walls of the tunnel
like a giant ping pong ball. The once impressive automobile was rendered
into a twisted metal pretzel and three occupants, including the Princess,
were killed. A forth occupant survived in critical condition.

Why was it necessary that the Princess escape? What sinister purpose did
the pursuers have? Did they want to kill or maim her? Did they have guns?
Did they have explosives? Did they pose some kind of tangible physical
threat which justified this deadly high-speed flight on public roads?

In short, no!

Her pursuers were the so-called paparazzi; photographers who specialize in
capturing celebrity images. Not all paparazzi are journalists nor even
professional photographers. Their "weapons" were cameras and
photon-emitting flashbulbs. If they had successfully followed her to her
destination, their grave offense would have been attempting to take her
picture; hardly a physical danger unless one believes oneąs soul is
captured by the lens. In attempting to escape mundane flash photography,
three people senselessly lost their lives.

The news of the tragedy washed across the Planet. The waves of accusations
began as ripples which grew geometrically to tsunamis. The cry went out,
łthose paparazzi are to blame!" łRespectable˛ journalists decried the
evils of "sleazy tabloids." Celebrities and Royals added to the chorus by
speaking out angrily about their own frequent high-speed flights from the
camera-wielding fiends.

Some demanded the paparazzi be charged with manslaughter or even murder.
Dianaąs brother asserted he łalways believed the press would kill her.˛ He
further expanded the pool of alleged conspirators when he accused anybody
who ever paid for a picture of Diana of having łblood on their hands.˛

In spite of the obvious dangerous folly of the escape attempt, it was those
who followed with cameras who are condemned rather than the reckless
vehicle operator in spite of having a blood-alcohol level consistent with
downing nine shots of whisky at once. Do the paparazzi really deserve the
ultimate blame for this tragedy?

In short, no!

Itąs incredible that the real risk of death was apparently preferable to
allowing her image to be captured on film. A dangerous gamble was taken in
the high speed attempt to evade flashbulbs. It doesnąt take a rocket
scientist to understand that the physical dangers of driving in excess of
one-hundred miles per hour through a narrow tunnel far exceed the
non-physical dangers of having oneąs image captured on film. While itąs
annoying being the focus of obnoxious and harassing photographers, itąs not
a life-threatening experience.

Nothing the photographers did can justify the dangerous actions by the
intoxicated chauffeur. It was not merely the safety of the limousineąs
occupants at risk, but also the safety of innocent bystanders. It's very
fortunate that no innocent bystanders were killed as well by this insane
bout of camera-shyness.

This is not a defense of the harassing techniques of some stalking
paparazzi. Some overzealous photographers do go to far overboard in their
attempts to photograph celebrities in compromising situations. Everyone
should have an expectation of privacy while in private locations. Recall
however that this drama played out on public streets. Whatever
insensitivity and obnoxiousness they are guilty of, it is not the
paparazziąs fault that some people would rather endanger themselves and
innocent bystanders rather than allowing their pictures to be taken when
they are in public places.

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. The urge to limit freedom of
speech and itąs corollary, the right to gather information, is a slippery
slope. In the rush to judgment and justice, there is a real danger that in
attempting to rectify the wrongs of the paparazzi, the real victim will be
everyoneąs freedom of speech.

/-------------------------------------------------------------\
| (-: Copyright Boilerplate :-) |
| (c) 1997 by James Thomas Green. All rights reserved. |
| This work may be reposted on Usenet Newsgroups and BBSs as |
| long as this notice remains included. This work MAY NOT be |
| included on web sites, disks, or other electronic or hard |
| copy print media without prior approval. |
\ /
/~^~(-: James Thomas Green :-)~*~(-: ja...@databaun.com :-)~^~\
| "I write because I am personally amused by what I do, |
| and if other people are amused by it, then it's fine. |
| If they're not, then that's also fine." |
| -Frank Zappa- |
\____________{-: http://www.databaun.com/jamez :-}____________/

[IckyB.]

In article <jamez-ya02408000...@news.callamer.com>,
ja...@databaun.com says...
>
>
> Donšt Blame the Paparazzi!

> Opinion By James Thomas Green
> (c) September 1, 1997
>
>
> Early one Parisian summer morning, Princess Diana was ambushed and pursued
> by a platoon of motorcyclists.
>

> Why was it necessary that the Princess escape? What sinister purpose did
> the pursuers have? Did they want to kill or maim her? Did they have guns?
> Did they have explosives? Did they pose some kind of tangible physical
> threat which justified this deadly high-speed flight on public roads?

Their approach to dealing with paparazzi can also be criticized in this
way...By trying to elude the Paparazzi, they increase the value of any
photos that might be taken - thus escalating the frenzy. An analogy of
sorts...American rock band, "The Grateful Dead" allowed fans to openly
record their concerts because of the huge market for bootleg concerts
that had developed when recording was prohibited...Allowing recording
lessened the exclusivity one might have on a bootleg tape, and thus
lessened its value.

[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

[Jon Parry-McCulloch]

On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 12:37:09 +0100, Robert Snow <al...@bra01.icl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>How can yousay its not the paparatzi's fault, no one knows yet
>what went on in the tunnell, if a biker cut the merc up causing it to
>swerve into the wall then thats their fault, if the driver just lost it
>then its not the p's fault, no one knoes yet. Wait for the photo's
>that were confescated are developed & studied & not forgetting the
>surviver of the crash, he may well have something to say

My, aren't you the illiterate baboon, hmm? That you are posting
from a uk address fills me with deep shame since it is highly
likely that we are both products of the same educational system.

As it happens the driver was drunk, and in being drunk whilst
driving a car on a public road, he got exactly what he deserved when
he slammed into the concrete pillar at 120 odd mph.

I feel no sympathy or grief for the passing of Diana, yet I would
not necessarily have wished calamity upon her; however, I have to
confess that few things give me greater pleasure than hearing of
the death of a drunk driver.

Drunk drivers are scum; they deserve to die.

Jon

[Robert Snow]

How can yousay its not the paparatzi's fault, no one knows yet
what went on in the tunnell, if a biker cut the merc up causing it to
swerve into the wall then thats their fault, if the driver just lost it
then its not the p's fault, no one knoes yet. Wait for the photo's
that were confescated are developed & studied & not forgetting the
surviver of the crash, he may well have something to say

rob

[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.

[Mike Dickson]

In article <340BFA...@bra01.icl.co.uk> al...@bra01.icl.co.uk wrote...

> How can yousay its not the paparatzi's fault, no one knows yet
> what went on in the tunnell

At least one thing is perfectly clear - a drunk man drive a large and
powerful car into the tunnel at about 121mph and attempted to negotiate
a bend which would only be navigable at about a third of that speed.

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

[Elvis Presley]

In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970902...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Martin Hanna <admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Whoever's fault it was, all I can say is that the Paparazzi who took the
>photographs after the accident are completely sick.

What about the TV companies who photograhed it as soon as they got
there. The only difference is that they were late...
--
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

[Pete Storey]

Jon Parry-McCulloch wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 12:37:09 +0100, Robert Snow
> <al...@bra01.icl.co.uk> wrote:
> >

> >How can yousay its not the paparatzi's fault, no one knows yet
> >what went on in the tunnell, if a biker cut the merc up causing it to
>
> >swerve into the wall then thats their fault, if the driver just lost
> it
> >then its not the p's fault, no one knoes yet. Wait for the photo's
> >that were confescated are developed & studied & not forgetting the
> >surviver of the crash, he may well have something to say
>

> My, aren't you the illiterate baboon, hmm? That you are posting
> from a uk address fills me with deep shame since it is highly
> likely that we are both products of the same educational system.
>
> As it happens the driver was drunk, and in being drunk whilst
> driving a car on a public road, he got exactly what he deserved when
> he slammed into the concrete pillar at 120 odd mph.
>
> I feel no sympathy or grief for the passing of Diana, yet I would
> not necessarily have wished calamity upon her; however, I have to
> confess that few things give me greater pleasure than hearing of
> the death of a drunk driver.
>
> Drunk drivers are scum; they deserve to die.
>
> Jon

Fair play is all i can say. whilst i couldnt care less about diana i
wouldnt wish her dead, however if she is stupid enough, as an example
setter to the public, to firstly let what must have plainly been a drunk
driver to drive you and then not to wear seat belts is simply stupid.
sorry hon, but it happens to the best of us. why is she treated
differently from the hundreds of others who die a year in the same
way????

[Martin Hanna]

On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Robert Snow wrote:

> How can yousay its not the paparatzi's fault, no one knows yet
> what went on in the tunnell, if a biker cut the merc up causing it to
> swerve into the wall then thats their fault, if the driver just lost it
> then its not the p's fault, no one knoes yet. Wait for the photo's
> that were confescated are developed & studied & not forgetting the
> surviver of the crash, he may well have something to say
>
> rob

Whoever's fault it was, all I can say is that the Paparazzi who took the
photographs after the accident are completely sick. I saw a picture on
another newsgroup and it is extremly horrific and I just cannot understand
how someone could take photographs when that person is in that condition.
Perhaps to satisfy the voyeurism of assholes like me. Anyway, be warned,
some of those pics are extreme.

Martin.

[Chris Gatcombe]

Jon Parry-McCulloch wrote:
>
> Drunk drivers are scum; they deserve to die.
>

Hear hear, providing they kill only themselves and not others.

--
Chris Gatcombe cgat...@yocms.bev.etn.com
Eaton Corporation, Semiconductor Operations Division, Beverly MA 01915
Phone: (508) 921 9690 Fax: (508) 927 3652
Home: ch...@gatcombe.com =/= http://www.tiac.net/users/gatcombe

[ti...@enteract.bottblock.com]

In uk.current-events.princess-diana Innocent Bystander <ja...@databaun.com> wrote:
> This is not a defense of the harassing techniques of some stalking
> paparazzi. Some overzealous photographers do go to far overboard in their
> attempts to photograph celebrities in compromising situations. Everyone
> should have an expectation of privacy while in private locations. Recall
> however that this drama played out on public streets. Whatever
> insensitivity and obnoxiousness they are guilty of, it is not the
> paparazziąs fault that some people would rather endanger themselves and
> innocent bystanders rather than allowing their pictures to be taken when
> they are in public places.

Big problem with this theory - the car is not a "public place" by
definition of the French privacy laws. The car is private property.

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Anonymous]

In article <340BFA...@bra01.icl.co.uk>, bra01.icl.co.uk wrote:

| How can yousay its not the paparatzi's fault,

Because someone as pissed as a fart was driving a 4 ton vehicle at 120 MPH
through a tunnel with a dangerous bend and no one in the back, apart from
one, was wearing a seatbelt.

| if the driver just lost it

The driver was in no condition to have been driving the car in the first
place.

[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.

[Big Fella]

> At least one thing is perfectly clear - a drunk man drive a large and
> powerful car into the tunnel at about 121mph and attempted to negotiate
> a bend which would only be navigable at about a third of that speed.
>

What is "clear" to me at this point: French police reporting they found
alcohol in Henri Paul's blood. All the rest would be barred by a judge
as speculation. The fact that a needle on the wrecked car's speedometer
points at some particular number is not proof of anything at all. In
fact, I doubt they'll ever really prove anything about the car's speed.

[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
>
>

[Oliver Benson]

Chris Gatcombe <cgat...@yocms.bev.etn.com> wrote:

>Jon Parry-McCulloch wrote:
>>
>> Drunk drivers are scum; they deserve to die.
>>

>Hear hear, providing they kill only themselves and not others.

Simple advice. Don't drink and you'll avoid the mourning after.

[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.

[Elvis Presley]

In article <5uh96r$s...@bmdhh222.bnr.ca>, jim <M...@Here.Com> writes
>Surely it is the people who wish death on others who deserve to die.

What about people who wish death on those who wish death on others who
deserve to die?

Not very Christian.

[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.

[BOW>>>---->]

Seems to be a simple cause and effect case here.....
I will pose some questions as to my thinking on our great loss:
1) Would Di's original car and driver been used if the hounding
paparazzi's would have been absent from the hotle Ritz?
Obviously the answer is YES, therefore, there would have been no
accident...
2) There is a law in France protecting the personal lives of everyone
from the hounding of any press....even public figures....
Obviously, if these DOGS would have not broken the law the 3 people
would be here today.
3) Was there a lack of good judgement in the choice of drivers....
Of course, but going back to number 1 and 2, IMO places the death's of
these three people places exactly where the blame belongs.
4) Could Di and the others been saved if the poparazzi's helped them at
the scene instead of taking pictures?
That remains to be seen, but I think not: the internal damage to the
princess was very extensive.
There is a golden hour time frame after such trama, it is detramental
to the vitim's mortality, that they receive immediate medical care with
in the hour....chances of survival after the golden hour decrease very
substantially with every ticking minute afterward...
The issue here for us all, should be the morals and the ethics of these
photographic dogs......no matter the chances for survival of the
princess and others. IMO, their behaviour was totally uncalled for an
members of the human race. What are they firstly.....human or
photographers? By their actions, they surely did not act humainly at
all, therefore in my book, they are no better than dogs.

****there was a witness whom has given statement to the Paris police,
that seconds before the accident, he had seen a motorcyle swirve in
front of the Mercedes before impact. This person claims that they were
in front of the two vehicles seconds before the crash and actually saw
this take place in their rear view mirror...other reliable news sources
on the net, have also stated this was the case. Not to jump to any
conclusions on this, I feel that's why the police are waiting for the
recovery of the bodygaurd to get his statment before actually comming
out with a police report stating this....the driver in front of the
accident could have said it no matter what has happened.....that remains
to be seen....

[Ian G Batten]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <01bcb85b$b63b3700$2c21...@ot075894.open.ac.uk>,
Malcolm Macgregor <m.d.ma...@open.ac.uk> wrote:
> outside after one of the most romantic occasions of your life, when all you
> want to do is enjoy the occasion is as much privacy as possible. The

So if you're having dinner at a hotel which your companion's father
owns, why not stay there afterwards? It's all been a bit vague as to
why the couple felt the need to engage in a car chase through Paris
after dinner to a ``private house'', when they could have simply taken a
room at the hotel in total privacy.

Well, until the Guardian sent a forged fax to get the bill, I suppose.

ian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQB1AwUBNA1MwMoy0yij3IvtAQFfnAL/QkZuvE6DXXWMg1D48Iu2xLuJYecYCK3P
qjQ0Fh6TzRvojQ6OtcRSEqsQaql0c9aQedp8htMRgAX93TZretU3TrJMEa2EySzF
lG1krGA3g8/tpZofX9xApxBqU/cEMk+z
=P8EB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mark Whidby]

In article <340CED...@postoffice.net>, "BOW>>>---->" <bet...@postoffice.net>
writes:

> ...other reliable news sources on the net

Shome mishtake shurely?

--
Mark Whidby, Manchester Computing

[Catty]

May I ask one question? Who called the p- word that the couple were
leaving and are ready to be photographed outside the Ritz? This was
reported, but no one mentioned anything about this. Just curious.

[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) |

[M Holmes]

Malcolm Macgregor (m.d.ma...@open.ac.uk) wrote:

: Try and imagine having your every movement covered by a pack of
: imbecile paparazzi shouting and clicking at you. Imagine this going
: on for years. No one should have to put up with that. Imagine this
: pack hanging around outside after one of the most romantic occasions

: of your life, when all you want to do is enjoy the occasion is as much

: privacy as possible. The driver, who is much to blame, decided, in a
: stupud, drunken but underrstandable decision, to accelerate away from
: the paparazzi to give the couple some peace.

Putting everyone else at risk by driving at ridiculously dangerous
speeds in order to satisfy a desire for provacy is selfish behaviour of
the highest order.

Diane and Dodi's chance for a snog in a car is *not* worth risking
other road users life over. If they wanted privacy, they could have gone
to a room in the Ritz and shut the curtains.

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

[Maarten Egmond]

M Holmes (zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> Robert N Young (you...@best.com) wrote:

> : She hated the media attention and the lack of privacy it entailed.
> So why didn't she go back to schoolteaching after the divorce? I hardly
> think the media would have crowded the school gates every day.

If you believe that, you are a really naive person. As long as Diana would
have anything to do with Charles, the royal family, or other important people
(something she could not possible avoid, since she has two children with
Charles) she would have been stalked.

As long as the public shows interest in someone, he or she will be stalked.

If you want an example, take Elvis Presley. Even though he died a long time
ago, he's still being "stalked", because the public shows a great deal of
interest in him. If Elvis would have retired his carreer, in stead of dying,
there is no reason why this would have changed, since the public would still
show an interest in him, and he would still be stalked.

[I snipped some newsgroups out of the list]

Regards, Maarten 'Elmer' Egmond,
third year physics student at the Eindhoven University of Technology

[Siobhan Grier]

It's not a mistake, and don't call me Shirley.

[Elvis Presley]

In article <340CEB...@postoffice.net>, "BOW>>>---->"
<bet...@postoffice.net> writes
>

>Seems to be a simple cause and effect case here.....
>I will pose some questions as to my thinking on our great loss:
>1) Would Di's original car and driver been used if the hounding
>paparazzi's would have been absent from the hotle Ritz?
>Obviously the answer is YES, therefore, there would have been no
>accident...

there might have been if her driver was drunk too. How about this
though: If DPOW had not refused British Police protection, she would
have been driven by a british civil servant instead of an arab's hired
thugs.

>2) There is a law in France protecting the personal lives of everyone
>from the hounding of any press....even public figures....
>Obviously, if these DOGS would have not broken the law the 3 people
>would be here today.

They were in a public place. In fact, it was one of THE places to be
seen.

>3) Was there a lack of good judgement in the choice of drivers....
>Of course, but going back to number 1 and 2, IMO places the death's of
>these three people places exactly where the blame belongs.

You are starting from a conclusion and selectively ignoring evidence
that contradicts it.

>4) Could Di and the others been saved if the poparazzi's helped them at
>the scene instead of taking pictures?
>That remains to be seen, but I think not: the internal damage to the
>princess was very extensive.
>There is a golden hour time frame after such trama, it is detramental
>to the vitim's mortality, that they receive immediate medical care with
>in the hour....

you need to learn to speak English. What you have mis-spelled means that
it would be better to leave her an hour before treatment. Did you mean
that? maybe the paramedics should be charged in that case.

>chances of survival after the golden hour decrease very
>substantially with every ticking minute afterward...

You watch too much TV.

>The issue here for us all, should be the morals and the ethics of these
>photographic dogs......no matter the chances for survival of the
>princess and others. IMO, their behaviour was totally uncalled for an
>members of the human race. What are they firstly.....human or
>photographers? By their actions, they surely did not act humainly at
>all, therefore in my book, they are no better than dogs.

maybe they weren't good humans, but it doesn't make it their fault.

>
>****there was a witness whom has given statement to the Paris police,
>that seconds before the accident, he had seen a motorcyle swirve in
>front of the Mercedes before impact. This person claims that they were
>in front of the two vehicles seconds before the crash and actually saw
>this take place in their rear view mirror...other reliable news sources
>on the net, have also stated this was the case. Not to jump to any
>conclusions on this, I feel that's why the police are waiting for the
>recovery of the bodygaurd to get his statment before actually comming
>out with a police report stating this....the driver in front of the
>accident could have said it no matter what has happened.....that remains
>to be seen....

How does a motorcycle cause a 2 ton car to crash? So what if one of them
overtook it? That doesn't say what caused the crash.

[The Chief]

Innocent Bystander <ja...@databaun.com> dribbled in article
<jamez-ya02408000...@news.callamer.com>...
>
> Her pursuers were the so-called paparazzi; If they had successfully
followed
> her to her destination, their grave offense would have been attempting to
take her
> picture; hardly a physical danger unless one believes onešs soul is
> captured by the lens. In attempting to escape mundane flash photography,
> three people senselessly lost their lives.
>

True, it was a senseless loss. But, this woman was harassed from almost
the first day that she was seen with Prince Charles. Constantly
photographed every day. They would camp outside her house, just so they
could get 'that special' photo, they would photograph her with her kids,
they would try and catch her with a 'new friend' or 'lover'. People would
setup camera's in gyms, hoping to catch her in an embarrassing pose. They
would listen in on phone calls and tape them. Day in, day out for 16 years,
trying to get that one picture, not for the public, not just because some
magazine editors would ask for it.....BUT so that they may line their own
pockets. Money was their only motivation. To get rich off someone else's
pain.

She pleaded with these people to give her at least some privacy. But would
they back of? No. You ask whether it was worth speeding off to evade
these scum bags! No, it wasn't, but if they weren't there in the first
place, if they decided enough was enough, and did give her the room, and
respected her wishes, then more then likely we wouldn't be discussing this
right now.

Celebrities constantly complain about the invasion of privacy. And don't
say it is because they are famous. Who really wants to see someone wiping
their arse ('ass' for the americans)? These paparazzi, journalists, and tv
camera people, stand in front of people, won't get out of their way when
they ask, and in general become annoying little shits. All the time saying
that it is for the 'news'.

Are they responsible for Princess Diana's death? Yes!!! And they should
not only be charged for manslaughter but CONVICTED as well.

Its a shame that the only way she found peace was to die.

Chris Bennetts (ch...@powerup.com.au)

[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

[-=BajaRat=-]

CNN reports that the cellular phone records of the paparazzi vultures
are being investigated by French police.

-=BajaRat=-

[M Holmes]

Maarten Egmond (e...@stack.nl) wrote:

: M Holmes (zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: > Robert N Young (you...@best.com) wrote:

: > : She hated the media attention and the lack of privacy it entailed.
: > So why didn't she go back to schoolteaching after the divorce? I hardly
: > think the media would have crowded the school gates every day.

: If you believe that, you are a really naive person. As long as Diana would
: have anything to do with Charles, the royal family, or other important people
: (something she could not possible avoid, since she has two children with
: Charles) she would have been stalked.

When she was with her kids maybe, though precautions could have been
taken to ensure they were inside away from prying eyes. I really doubt
that the News of the World reporters would hang around school gates for
"Child in Di's Class Makes Plasticine Model - Pictures Inside!"

: If you want an example, take Elvis Presley. Even though he died a long time

: ago, he's still being "stalked", because the public shows a great deal of
: interest in him. If Elvis would have retired his carreer, in stead of dying,
: there is no reason why this would have changed, since the public would still
: show an interest in him, and he would still be stalked.

You're one of those deluded people who think Elvis is dead aren't you?

: Regards, Maarten 'Elmer' Egmond,

FoFP

[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.

[Piers C. Structures]

In article <340BFA...@bra01.icl.co.uk> bra01.icl.co.uk "Robert Snow" writes:

> Wait for the photo's
> that were confescated are developed & studied & not forgetting the
> surviver of the crash, he may well have something to say

Like, 'Who am I'.

--
Suck The Goat

[Elvis Presley]

In article <bKr3qnAj...@dial.pipex.com>, T Bruce Tober
<octob...@reporters.net> writes
>In article <5ujgrn$jqb@bourbon>, Axel <ax...@white-eagle.co.uk> writes
>>Elvis Presley (el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx) wrote:
>>: there might have been if her driver was drunk too. How about this

>>: though: If DPOW had not refused British Police protection, she would
>>: have been driven by a british civil servant instead of an arab's hired
>>: thugs.
>>

>>And who would have been paying for the British civil servant?
>
>Surely not elvis. He probably hates paying taxes and would have been
>bitching if she was getting that kind of protection too. Unless, of
>course, the protection was riding a motorcycle.

>
>
>
>
>
>tbt - Now happily using PIPEX Dial Service, having finally given up on Demon

It's as if you've known me for years.

[M Holmes]

Robert N Young (you...@best.com) wrote:

: She hated the media attention and the lack of privacy it entailed.

So why didn't she go back to schoolteaching after the divorce? I hardly
think the media would have crowded the school gates every day.

: Bob.

[ti...@enteract.bottblock.com]

In uk.current-events.princess-diana Pete Storey <pe...@sweetness.com> wrote:
> sorry hon, but it happens to the best of us. why is she treated
> differently from the hundreds of others who die a year in the same
> way????

Hundreds of others die each year while being hounded by the paparazzi?

Tir
--
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Maarten Egmond]

Maarten Egmond (e...@stack.nl) wrote:

> You are generalizing, and discriminating here. It's not fair to call him an
> "arab's hired thugs". Besides, the replacement driver was supplied by the
> hotel, not Dodi. Apart from that, you are making an unfair assumption
> that the original driver *would* have been drunk, just because he *could*
> have been drunk.

To get back to myself, I have caught myself in error here, as Dodi's family
owned the hotel, they more or less DID supply the driver. Though this doesn't
mean they are to blame, since it's doubtful they knew he was drunk at that
moment.

Another story is that about whether the replacement driver had a proper
licence to drive such a vehicle. If the stories that he didn't are true, then
I think the hotel management should have known (and the driver himself should
have told it anyway).

[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

[Lance]

ja...@databaun.com (Innocent Bystander) wrote:

>
>
> Donšt Blame the Paparazzi!
> Opinion By James Thomas Green
> (c) September 1, 1997
>
>
>Early one Parisian summer morning, Princess Diana was ambushed and pursued
>by a platoon of motorcyclists....<snip>...
>
>Itšs incredible that the real risk of death was apparently preferable to
>allowing her image to be captured on film. A dangerous gamble was taken in
>the high speed attempt to evade flashbulbs. It doesnšt take a rocket
>scientist to understand that the physical dangers of driving in excess of
>one-hundred miles per hour through a narrow tunnel far exceed the
>non-physical dangers of having onešs image captured on film. While itšs
>annoying being the focus of obnoxious and harassing photographers, itšs not
>a life-threatening experience.
>
I'm not a very smart man, nor am I a rocket scientist that you
mentioned, and from your post, it seems as you are extremely wise, so
please make me understand this. Just how much to you have to hound
someone so that they would get into a car with driver who is
apparently drunk? just how far do you have to push someone so that
he/she would tell the driver who is obviously drunk to NOT slow down?
and just how miserable do you have to make someone's life with your
constant invasion so that what you call mere "annoyance" push aside
your reasonable judgements and turn what rest of us take as mundane
experience into life-threathing experience? they did it to her for 16
years, is that long enough? or do most of us have higher tolerance for
that? I want to know.

Lance
lt...@pipeline.com

[Alan Strom]

Innocent Bystander wrote:

> Donšt Blame the Paparazzi!
> Opinion By James Thomas Green
> (c) September 1, 1997

> <cut along dotted
> line.........................................................................................................>

this has got to be the most sensible thing i've read s far in this
newsgroup,

[Robert N Young]

On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 20:46:15 -0500, "Stephen W. Davis"
<lup...@theshop.net> wrote:

>
>
>Robert N Young wrote:
>
>> >
>> > The paparazzi did not kill Princess Di. She died because she was the
>> >passenger in a car recklessly driven by a drunken asshole whose blood
>> >alcohol level was three times the legal limit.
>> She was in that car because of the Paparizzi. That is on public record
>> also.
>
>Fiddle-De-Dee! Do you really think Di would have ridden a camel, and if she
>did don't you think she would have seen to it that the press heard her every
>complaint about the pain in her posterior; or would have visited Paris without
>seeing to it that the world knew in advance that she was cavorting--"puttin' on
>the Ritz"--with the super-rich..ahem...Middle-Eastern...playboy?
>
She wanted a private life. That is on public record also.

BTW if you look at the ngs you will see that the original post for this
thread is a troll!
--
Bob.
Installing new software is merely a state of mind.
Total Paranoia!

[BOW>>>---->]

There was a witness whom has given statement to the Paris police, that
seconds before the accident, he had seen a motorcyle swirve in front of
the Mercedes before impact. This person claims that they were in front
of the two vehicles seconds before the crash and actually saw this take
place in their rear view mirror...other reliable news sources on the

net, have also stated a statment was given to police stating this. Not

to jump to any conclusions on this, I feel that's why the police are
waiting for the recovery of the bodygaurd to get his statment before

actually comming out with a police report stating this....also, the
driver in front of the accident could have said it out of outrage, no

matter what has happened.....that remains to be seen....

Lets pray for swift justice......

[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.

[Mike Dickson]

In article <340CA8...@nospam.com> bigf...@nospam.com wrote...

> What is "clear" to me at this point: French police reporting they found
> alcohol in Henri Paul's blood. All the rest would be barred by a judge
> as speculation. The fact that a needle on the wrecked car's speedometer
> points at some particular number is not proof of anything at all. In
> fact, I doubt they'll ever really prove anything about the car's speed.

Your ignorance is stunning.

An autopsy can give as accurate a blood alcohol reading as any other
means you can imagine. I'd be interested in knowing why you think this
would be 'speculative'. Furthermore, the speed of a car at time of
impact can be calculated to within about five percent tolerance from the
degree of deformation of the vehicle, the nature of the object it
struck, skid marks on the roadway and the frictional coefficient of the
road surface.

Go away and start again.

[Axel]

[Jon Parry-McCulloch]

On 2 Sep 1997 14:52:11 GMT, jim <M...@Here.Com> wrote:

>Why.

Why not? They are deliberately placing the lives of otehrs in
jeopardy and so must be removed from society permanently; I can
see no better way of doing this than executing them.

>Surely it is the people who wish death on others who deserve to die. The
>driver may have been completely blameless. Seems unlikely though - but
>innocent until proven guilty. It saddens me that you are posting from the
>UK and don't support this principle.

Of course I believe in innocence until proven guilty; but this
man is obviously guilty.

Jon

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jon Parry-McCulloch + Not only does my boss
Technical Director + share my opinions, but
JPM Software Solutions Ltd + he sleeps with my wife,
Telephone +44 1449 494945 + too.
Mobile +44 802 423866 +
email j...@public.antipope.org +

Unsolicited commercial email attended to at my usual
hourly rate of 40 pounds sterling plus VAT, minimum
charge 7.5 hours per message.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Malcolm Macgregor]

Try and imagine having your every movement covered by a pack of imbecile
paparazzi shouting and clicking at you. Imagine this going on for years. No
one should have to put up with that. Imagine this pack hanging around
outside after one of the most romantic occasions of your life, when all you
want to do is enjoy the occasion is as much privacy as possible. The
driver,
who is much to blame, decided, in a stupud, drunken but underrstandable
decision,
to accelerate away from the paparazzi to give the couple some peace.
The paparzzi gave chase, at the very least goading the driver to keep up
the
excessive speed. And afterwards the paparazzi hindered police in their
attempts to help the occupants of the car.

Blame them

[John J Smith]

In article <5uh8gb$k...@basement.replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>In article <340BFA...@bra01.icl.co.uk>, bra01.icl.co.uk wrote:
>
>| How can yousay its not the paparatzi's fault,
>
>Because someone as pissed as a fart was driving a 4 ton vehicle at 120 MPH
>through a tunnel with a dangerous bend and no one in the back, apart from
>one, was wearing a seatbelt.

Of course he was oblivious to the 'alleged' braking motorbike in front,
the quantity of other motorbikes at the side and back, and the flash
photography in a dark tunnel.

Smid

[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

[Mike Dickson]

In article <340CED...@postoffice.net> bet...@postoffice.net wrote...

> ...other reliable news sources on the net

...do not exist.

[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

[Lady DarkRose]

One thing I think many people have failed to realize is that no picture
snapped through the window of the car would have been worth chasing them
over. The papparazzi weren't after Diana and Dodi that night to get a
good picture - it was a simple case of harrassment. Last week or so, the
papparazzi had gotten pictures of Diana in a bikini, on a beach, kissing
Dodi.What the hell kind of picture did they expect to get through the
window of a moving car that would top that? The fact is, most papparazzi
despise the celebrities they photograph, and in fact, hound them simply
out of spite. These photographers need to learn that when someone says
no to having their picture taken, that is the end of it. No one has the
right to persue someone relentlessly as they did Diana.

Some have said Diana was a pro at manipulating the media, and that she
bitched and complained when she didn't want them around. I think one
needs to look at it from this angle: It is not strange that she or any
one else in her possition would want media attention for the work they
do, the charitable causes they work for. That doesn't mean they want the
media sticking their noses into private areas of the person's life. Yes,
Diana wanted the media there when she spoke against land mines, and when
she did work for AIDS patients. That sheds light on the cause, and
makes people take notice. But didn't she have the right to lead a
personal, private life too? Just because she was a Princess and a
celebrity, didn't she have the right to do things with her children and
Dodi, and not have photographers in her face the whole time?

Just my 2 cents on the matter...

Lady DarkRose
@>~~>~~>~~~~~~

[Robert N Young]

On 3 Sep 1997 12:42:59 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>Robert N Young (you...@best.com) wrote:
>
>: She hated the media attention and the lack of privacy it entailed.
>
>So why didn't she go back to schoolteaching after the divorce? I hardly
>think the media would have crowded the school gates every day.
>

Don't you believe it!!!

[T Bruce Tober]

In article <5ujgrn$jqb@bourbon>, Axel <ax...@white-eagle.co.uk> writes

Surely not elvis. He probably hates paying taxes and would have been
bitching if she was getting that kind of protection too. Unless, of
course, the protection was riding a motorcycle.

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) |

[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.

[Sam Nelson]

In article <5ujgrn$jqb@bourbon>, ax...@white-eagle.co.uk (Axel) writes:
| Elvis Presley (el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx) wrote:
| : there might have been if her driver was drunk too. How about this
| : though: If DPOW had not refused British Police protection, she would
| : have been driven by a british civil servant instead of an arab's hired
| : thugs.
|
| And who would have been paying for the British civil servant?
|

A teeny-weeny proportion of our taxes would've paid. Well worth it to have
avoided the majority of the past week's mass-media outpourings, IMHO.

--
Sam. (Insert bandwidth-wasting disclaimer here)

[ti...@enteract.bottblock.com]

In uk.current-events.princess-diana Mike Dickson <mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk> wrote:
> In article <340CA8...@nospam.com> bigf...@nospam.com wrote...

> > What is "clear" to me at this point: French police reporting they found
> > alcohol in Henri Paul's blood. All the rest would be barred by a judge
> > as speculation. The fact that a needle on the wrecked car's speedometer
> > points at some particular number is not proof of anything at all. In
> > fact, I doubt they'll ever really prove anything about the car's speed.

> Your ignorance is stunning.

> An autopsy can give as accurate a blood alcohol reading as any other
> means you can imagine.

Maybe this is the wrong thread for this, but how is it possible that Henri
Paul keeps getting drunker when he's been dead for two days? The latest
news report I heard was that his BAC was now at *4X* the French legal
limit, up from 3... either they're doing improper tests, or someone
doesn't know how to calibrate the equipment, or... what?

[T Bruce Tober]

In article <2sIOqpAY...@presley.demon.co.uk>, Elvis Presley
<el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> writes
>
>How does a motorcycle cause a 2 ton car to crash? So what if one of them
>overtook it? That doesn't say what caused the crash.

Yo fool (anyone calling himself elvis would have to be a fool), get off
your high motorcycle. Anyone can see that your whole argument here for
the past few days is to protect the image of the motorcycle and motor
cyclists. Hardly a lofty cause, though an understandable one. And no, it
doesn't take more than two braincells to see how a motorcycle could
cause a mercedes or any other large vehicle (or small one) to crash
(whether the driver of the crashed vehicle was skunk drunk or stone cold
sober).

[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

[James Hammerton]

The Chief (ch...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
> Innocent Bystander <ja...@databaun.com> dribbled in article
> <jamez-ya02408000...@news.callamer.com>...
> >
> > Her pursuers were the so-called paparazzi; If they had successfully
> followed
> > her to her destination, their grave offense would have been attempting to
> take her
> > picture; hardly a physical danger unless one believes onešs soul is
> > captured by the lens. In attempting to escape mundane flash photography,
> > three people senselessly lost their lives.
> >
>
> True, it was a senseless loss. But, this woman was harassed from almost
> the first day that she was seen with Prince Charles. Constantly
> photographed every day. They would camp outside her house, just so they
> could get 'that special' photo, they would photograph her with her kids,
> they would try and catch her with a 'new friend' or 'lover'. People would
> setup camera's in gyms, hoping to catch her in an embarrassing pose. They
> would listen in on phone calls and tape them. Day in, day out for 16 years,
> trying to get that one picture, not for the public, not just because some
> magazine editors would ask for it.....BUT so that they may line their own
> pockets. Money was their only motivation. To get rich off someone else's
> pain.
>
> She pleaded with these people to give her at least some privacy. But would
> they back of? No. You ask whether it was worth speeding off to evade
> these scum bags! No, it wasn't, but if they weren't there in the first
> place, if they decided enough was enough, and did give her the room, and
> respected her wishes, then more then likely we wouldn't be discussing this
> right now.

You could equally say that if she hadn't courted and used the press in
the ways she did this might not have happened, or that if the people
who bought the newspapers hadn't taken an interest in her this
wouldn't have happened. Distasteful as I find the behaviour of the
paparazzi, I don't hold them responsible for her death.

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

[Doktor Wu]

The Chief wrote in article <01bcb877$cc3e8680$a853...@chief.powerup.com.au
>...

:She pleaded with these people to give her at least some privacy. But

would
:they back of? No. You ask whether it was worth speeding off to evade
:these scum bags! No, it wasn't, but if they weren't there in the first
:place, if they decided enough was enough, and did give her the room, and
:respected her wishes, then more then likely we wouldn't be discussing
this
:right now.

Here, here! At the very *least*, they create the "fight or flight"
mindset.

[Elvis Presley]

In article <01bcb85b$b63b3700$2c21...@ot075894.open.ac.uk>, Malcolm
Macgregor <m.d.ma...@open.ac.uk> writes
>Blame them

and everything will be better?
--
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

[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.

[Elvis Presley]

In article <5ujsgg$o...@eve.enteract.com>, ti...@enteract.bottblock.com
writes

>Maybe this is the wrong thread for this, but how is it possible that Henri
>Paul keeps getting drunker when he's been dead for two days? The latest
>news report I heard was that his BAC was now at *4X* the French legal
>limit, up from 3... either they're doing improper tests, or someone
>doesn't know how to calibrate the equipment, or... what?

the press are making it all up?

[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.

And who held the cameras? Same guys for the past 16 years! Would you
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.

[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

[Robert Snow]

Jon

Some people have time to go over their text & correct the spelling
mistakes, as I am at work I don't have the time, as long as the
semantics are correct so what ???

Anyway , 120mph hmmmm not what the news said last nite, the speedo
was not stuck at 120mph.
Perhaps Diana should have carried a breathaliser tester with her,
just to make sure that her drivers aren't drunk ??

Also the Papparatzi's have been charged with man slaughter,
sounds like they were/are at fault.

I hope my spelling is to your satisfaction this time, would not
want to upset you anymore, sheesh some people ??

Rob

Jon Parry-McCulloch wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 12:37:09 +0100, Robert Snow <al...@bra01.icl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >How can yousay its not the paparatzi's fault, no one knows yet
> >what went on in the tunnell, if a biker cut the merc up causing it to
> >swerve into the wall then thats their fault, if the driver just lost it
> >then its not the p's fault, no one knoes yet. Wait for the photo's
> >that were confescated are developed & studied & not forgetting the
> >surviver of the crash, he may well have something to say
>
> My, aren't you the illiterate baboon, hmm? That you are posting
> from a uk address fills me with deep shame since it is highly
> likely that we are both products of the same educational system.
>
> As it happens the driver was drunk, and in being drunk whilst
> driving a car on a public road, he got exactly what he deserved when
> he slammed into the concrete pillar at 120 odd mph.
>
> I feel no sympathy or grief for the passing of Diana, yet I would
> not necessarily have wished calamity upon her; however, I have to
> confess that few things give me greater pleasure than hearing of
> the death of a drunk driver.
>
> Drunk drivers are scum; they deserve to die.
>
> Jon

[Maarten Egmond]

Elvis Presley (el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx) wrote:
> In article <340CEB...@postoffice.net>, "BOW>>>---->"
> <bet...@postoffice.net> writes
> >
> >1) Would Di's original car and driver been used if the hounding
> >paparazzi's would have been absent from the hotle Ritz?
> >Obviously the answer is YES, therefore, there would have been no
> >accident...

> there might have been if her driver was drunk too. How about this
> though: If DPOW had not refused British Police protection, she would
> have been driven by a british civil servant instead of an arab's hired
> thugs.

You are generalizing, and discriminating here. It's not fair to call him an
"arab's hired thugs". Besides, the replacement driver was supplied by the
hotel, not Dodi. Apart from that, you are making an unfair assumption
that the original driver *would* have been drunk, just because he *could*
have been drunk.

> >2) There is a law in France protecting the personal lives of everyone
> >Obviously, if these DOGS would have not broken the law the 3 people
> >would be here today.

> They were in a public place. In fact, it was one of THE places to be
> seen.

I'm not familiar with French law, but indeed, I doubt that the paperazzi
were actually breaking the law BY JUST FOLLOWING them. Note that I have no
facts here, so I might be off. Does anyone have facts on this?

> >3) Was there a lack of good judgement in the choice of drivers....
> >Of course, but going back to number 1 and 2, IMO places the death's of
> >these three people places exactly where the blame belongs.

> You are starting from a conclusion and selectively ignoring evidence
> that contradicts it.

Yes. This is what I noticed in the original post as well. It's not right
to choose the facts as they suit you. The driver *was* drunk (as far as I
know right now) so he's certainly to blame too.

> >4) Could Di and the others been saved if the poparazzi's helped them at
> >the scene instead of taking pictures?
> >That remains to be seen, but I think not: the internal damage to the
> >princess was very extensive.
> >There is a golden hour time frame after such trama, it is detramental
> >to the vitim's mortality, that they receive immediate medical care with
> >in the hour....

> you need to learn to speak English. What you have mis-spelled means that
> it would be better to leave her an hour before treatment. Did you mean
> that? maybe the paramedics should be charged in that case.

Everyone knows what is meant here, so that's not something to shove off the
blame. Apart from that, it seems that indeed they would probably not have
survived if they were helped by the photographers immediately. As pointed out
they could also have done more harm than good.
Though what's worth noting is that (assuming these rumours are true):
- if the paperazzi hindered the medical people they indeed are to blame
- if they did not call emergency help first, they are also to blame
Maybe if they didn't hinder, and did call for help, the victims would not
be saved, but they should have tried. Again, assuming these rumours are
true, because I haven't seen them confirmed yet.

> >chances of survival after the golden hour decrease very
> >substantially with every ticking minute afterward...

> You watch too much TV.

Are there any facts to support either point? It's too easy to say that there
is or is not a "golden hour" without some facts.

> >The issue here for us all, should be the morals and the ethics of these
> >photographic dogs......no matter the chances for survival of the
> >princess and others. IMO, their behaviour was totally uncalled for an
> >members of the human race. What are they firstly.....human or
> >photographers? By their actions, they surely did not act humainly at
> >all, therefore in my book, they are no better than dogs.

> maybe they weren't good humans, but it doesn't make it their fault.

That is right, but the statement here goes the other way:
"By their actions [..] they are no better than dogs"
or in other words:
Because it's their fault they are no good humans. (Why bring dogs into the
story here?) I'm not saying I agree with this statement, since I would put
it more mildly since not all facts are known yet, and it seems there were
more causes of the accident:
"If they (partly) caused the accident willingly, they are no good humans."

> >****there was a witness whom has given statement to the Paris police,
> >that seconds before the accident, he had seen a motorcyle swirve in
> >front of the Mercedes before impact.

> How does a motorcycle cause a 2 ton car to crash? So what if one of them
> overtook it? That doesn't say what caused the crash.

Assuming again this really happened (I have no confirmation), it's easy:
Drive in front of another car (even with your bike if you can ride that
fast), and
1. suddenly brake or
2. try to cut them off
You will cause an automatic reaction with the driver of the car, which
causes him to try to avoid you. This sudden behaviour can cause the car
to become uncontrollable, and cause a crash. There is no need for physical
contact to cause a crash!

Of course, if the driver would not have been drunk, he might have been able
to keep the car under control, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong to do any
of the 2 points I mentioned above.

Regards, Maarten 'Elmer' Egmond,
third year physics student at the Eindhoven University of Technology

[Fraser May]

We have waited in lines
For pop, sport, the sales, the theatre.
Now we wait to remember
A wife, a lover, a mother, a martyr?

Today for us there is only one subject,
The sorrow that we will never be her subjects.
Because of what we subjected her to -
The prurience of the long range view.

Goodbye Diana

Fraser
inqui...@enterprise.net-remove wrote in article
<5ukt6b$12f$1...@news.enterprise.net>...
> On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 00:53:47 -0400,"BOW>>>---->"
> <bet...@postoffice.net> wrote:
>
>
> >There was a witness whom has given statement to the Paris police, that

> >seconds before the accident, he had seen a motorcyle swirve in front of

> >the Mercedes before impact. This person claims that they were in front
> >of the two vehicles seconds before the crash and actually saw this take
> >place in their rear view mirror...other reliable news sources on the
>
> What speed was their car doing to stay in front of the merc 140mph ?
>
> >net, have also stated a statment was given to police stating this. Not
> >to jump to any conclusions on this, I feel that's why the police are
> >waiting for the recovery of the bodygaurd to get his statment before
> >actually comming out with a police report stating this..
> >..also, the driver in front of the accident could have said it out of
outrage, no
> >matter what has happened.....that remains to be seen....
> >Lets pray for swift justice......
> True Justice, is never swift . Let's hope it is sure!
>
> Truth has no time limit.
>
>
>

[TheH...@getbent.com]

SHIRLEY YOU JEST? BY THE WAY...I DON'T HATE EVERY FRENCH PERSON I
MEET.....JUST FRANCE AND THE ATTITUDE

[inqui...@enterprise.net-remove]

[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?

[Mike Dickson]

In article <5um6v8$g8a$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk> J.J....@ftel.co.uk wrote...

> Could you give a reference for that one please.
>
> I've been trawling around for eye witness statements, and I've found none
> from any reputable source.

Well, for one thing it shows up this way on the cameras placed along the
roadway on the run into the tunnel and was reported that way by the
Parisian police. For another there were two American witnesses to the
event who gave a corroborating account of events.

[Big Fella]

> Then she was naive to the point of complete ignorance when she married
> Prince Charles. The paparazzi did not discover their interest in the royal
> family the day Diana married into it. Did Diana suppose that she alone
> would be exempt from the paparazzi's intense interest??
>

What evidence of the present predatory behavior existed in 1981 when
Diana was considering this? What was Rupert Murdoch doing at that time?
And why do you expect a 19-year-old recluse to have a better judgment on
this than a 200 year old dynasty?

[Siobhan Grier]

Mike Dickson wrote:
>
> In article <01bcb8cc$11ab2800$c5b0...@frasermay.demon.co.uk>
> f...@frasermay.demon.co.uk wrote...

>
> > We have waited in lines
> > For pop, sport, the sales, the theatre.
> > Now we wait to remember
> > A wife, a lover, a mother, a martyr?
>

> For fuck's sake....please stop.
>

Weren't they Di's last words? Yeah, I know, incredibly sick, but when in
Rome ... or Paris

[Elvis Presley]

In article <5ujsq2$2...@turtle.stack.nl>, Maarten Egmond <e...@stack.nl>
writes

>Elvis Presley (el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx) wrote:
>> In article <340CEB...@postoffice.net>, "BOW>>>---->"
>> <bet...@postoffice.net> writes
>> >
>> >1) Would Di's original car and driver been used if the hounding
>> >paparazzi's would have been absent from the hotle Ritz?
>> >Obviously the answer is YES, therefore, there would have been no
>> >accident...
>
>> there might have been if her driver was drunk too. How about this
>> though: If DPOW had not refused British Police protection, she would
>> have been driven by a british civil servant instead of an arab's hired
>> thugs.
>
>You are generalizing, and discriminating here.

Nice of you to notice.

>It's not fair to call him an
>"arab's hired thugs".

Why not?

>Besides, the replacement driver was supplied by the
>hotel, not Dodi.

Which is owned by Dodi's dad.

>Apart from that, you are making an unfair assumption
>that the original driver *would* have been drunk, just because he *could*
>have been drunk.

Oh. I'm also assuming that the British police driver wouldn't have been
drunk. not too fair an assumption either ;-)

>
>> >2) There is a law in France protecting the personal lives of everyone
>> >Obviously, if these DOGS would have not broken the law the 3 people
>> >would be here today.
>
>> They were in a public place. In fact, it was one of THE places to be
>> seen.
>
>I'm not familiar with French law, but indeed, I doubt that the paperazzi
>were actually breaking the law BY JUST FOLLOWING them. Note that I have no
>facts here, so I might be off. Does anyone have facts on this?

Facts have no place on Usenet. Read the FAQs!

<snippety snip>

>
>> How does a motorcycle cause a 2 ton car to crash? So what if one of them
>> overtook it? That doesn't say what caused the crash.
>
>Assuming again this really happened (I have no confirmation), it's easy:
>Drive in front of another car (even with your bike if you can ride that
>fast), and
>1. suddenly brake or
>2. try to cut them off
>You will cause an automatic reaction with the driver of the car, which
>causes him to try to avoid you. This sudden behaviour can cause the car
>to become uncontrollable, and cause a crash. There is no need for physical
>contact to cause a crash!

Given that the guy is driving the most important person in the world or
whatever, he should have been capable of running into the bike that was
swerving in front of him -

[should I go into the fact that the wheels of a motorcycle act as large
gyroscopes which make sudden changes of direction at high speed very
hard to achieve? If you think it's possible to "zig zag" on a bike at
120mph in a way a car driver will find difficult to avoid, I suggest you
attempt to negotiate the Jim Clark Esses at Croft Motor Racing Circuit
near Darlington on a bike. It's piss easy in a car, but very hard on a
bike, even a race bike with super quick steering because the high speed
(>120mph) makes the bike too stable to tip into the turns.]

- Isn't that what they are taught on these VIP chauffer courses? Again,
I assume that a proper police driver assigned to this job would have had
a better strategy than knee jerk reacting himself into a wall. being a
good driver or motorcyclist is all about switching off your instinctive
Survival Reactions [(c)+(tm) Keith Code] such as panic braking or
steering and doing what suits the car or bike best.

>
>Of course, if the driver would not have been drunk, he might have been able
>to keep the car under control, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong to do any
>of the 2 points I mentioned above.

Certainly.

>
>Regards, Maarten 'Elmer' Egmond,
>third year physics student at the Eindhoven University of Technology

Aaaaaaaahhhhhh! I see you knew about motorcycle wheels all along ;-)

[Sam Nelson]

In article <5ulm8q$bm6$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk>, Ian G Batten <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes:
| In article <5ujm0j$n...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
| M Holmes <zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
| > So why didn't she go back to schoolteaching after the divorce?
|
| Because she had absolutely no qualifications to do so? I've always
| wondered what capacity she worked at a nursery: she had neither nursery
| nursing nor teaching qualifications.
|
Nursery nurses around here generally start straight from school for a year or
so in-service as a trainee/junior, then go off to college for a year or so,
then they often come back to the nursery they started at on some sort of
part-time work, part-time college basis. I'd guess Di's status was the
`straight from school' bit. She was only there for three or four months
before the engagement, IIRC, and if she had gone back (with at least a GBP15M
settlement in the bank? She appears to have left her sons GBP10M each in her
will) she'd have been starting from the bottom, probably getting paid less a
year than she'd make in interest in a week. Nursery-nursing isn't the world's
most glamorous highly-paid occupation.

[Smittie]

In article <340f0ff5...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, you...@best.com (Robert
N Young) wrote:

>She would probably not been aware of that. Even one of the photo
>journalists who saw the driver said that he was not noticeably drunk.
>I am not defending drunk driving. The simple fact is that the driver
>was called in and was driving that car because of the known aggressive
>and insatiable behavior of the paparazzi. Without them, none of this
>would have happened.

By the same token, if the driver had been in compliance with traffic laws
it is highly unlikely that anyone inside the car would have been hurt. The
paparazzi did not force the driver to drive in a reckless and
irresponsible manner. That was a choice he made on his own.

Smittie

[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.

[NLD]

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Gareth Evans wrote:

SNIP

> That wasn't paparazzi, that was private people trying to make a few
> tasteless quid.

How do you know?

SNIP

>=20
>=20
> She pleaded with them, then did her best to be in the public eye. She
> wanted her cake and to eat it. As soon as she steps into public
> property, she's public domain.She knew that and used it to her
> advantage.

Going out to a function or charity event and having your picture taken is
one thing, but having people chase you down like a pack of scavengers
after a wounded antelope is quite another. How would you like someone
hiding in your bushes just to get a shot of you on the toilet??

These are two distinct differences.=20

SNIP

--
NLD

[Louis Epstein]

ti...@enteract.bottblock.com wrote:
: In uk.current-events.princess-diana Mike Dickson <mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk> wrote:
: > In article <340CA8...@nospam.com> bigf...@nospam.com wrote...
:
: > > What is "clear" to me at this point: French police reporting they found
: > > alcohol in Henri Paul's blood. All the rest would be barred by a judge
: > > as speculation. The fact that a needle on the wrecked car's speedometer
: > > points at some particular number is not proof of anything at all. In
: > > fact, I doubt they'll ever really prove anything about the car's speed.
:
: > Your ignorance is stunning.
:
: > An autopsy can give as accurate a blood alcohol reading as any other
: > means you can imagine.
:
: Maybe this is the wrong thread for this, but how is it possible that Henri

: Paul keeps getting drunker when he's been dead for two days? The latest
: news report I heard was that his BAC was now at *4X* the French legal
: limit, up from 3... either they're doing improper tests, or someone
: doesn't know how to calibrate the equipment, or... what?

:
: Tirya

There have been two reported BAC numbers,apparently from different
samples to check the result.The first was .175% and the second .187%.
The French legal limit is .05%.

[Smittie]

In article <340ca732...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, you...@best.com (Robert
N Young) wrote:

>She hated the media attention and the lack of privacy it entailed. She
>decided that if she was to endure this attention that she would at least
>direct the attention to the humanitarian cause she cared about.
>That is on public record.

Then she was naive to the point of complete ignorance when she married
Prince Charles. The paparazzi did not discover their interest in the royal
family the day Diana married into it. Did Diana suppose that she alone
would be exempt from the paparazzi's intense interest??

>> The paparazzi did not kill Princess Di. She died because she was the
>>passenger in a car recklessly driven by a drunken asshole whose blood
>>alcohol level was three times the legal limit.
>She was in that car because of the Paparizzi. That is on public record
>also.

Climbing into a car the driver of which is drunk is STUPID! Pure and
simple. A bodyguard allowing their principle to get into a car driven by
someone who is drunk is negligence and incompetetence of a criminal level.

Smittie

[Big Fella]

> You can't have your cake and eat it. If you step onto public property
> you should expect to be public domain for the press.

Great. That means we can expect society to be run by publicity hogs.

No society that wishes to survive will settle for such idiotic rules.

[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.

[Robert N Young]

On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 13:12:32 -0500, smi...@enfour.com (Smittie) wrote:

>In article <5ujpsn$nb8$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk>, J.J....@ftel.co.uk (John J
>Smith) wrote:
>
>>Of course he was oblivious to the 'alleged' braking motorbike in front,
> >the quantity of other motorbikes at the side and back, and the flash
> >photography in a dark tunnel.
>
>Had the driver been sober and obeying the traffic laws it would not have
>been necessary to plow into a tunnel pillar to avoid a real or imagined
>motorcylcist.
>
>Had the Princess' own car stayed on so that two cars were traveling in
>company, it would have been easy and safe, at least for the car's
>passengers, to keep the paparazzi from taking their pictures. Instead,
>someone who knows nothing about security, hatched a rather fantastic and
>ineffective plan employing decoys and high speed chases.
>
You really are *good* at this hindsight stuff, aren't you.