Jump to content

Recommended Posts

EDTers while Louisa was on the juice, EDFers after Louisa was on the juice.


DDL was fab in The Gang Activity of New York.



owlwise Wrote:

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

> Thanks Administrator. I was starting to get

> worried that everyone's more interested in someone

> called Louisa on this forum and not so interested

> in DDL, a major achiever/actor who's done

> something with his life, won 3 Oscars (the first

> man to do so) and was Knighted only last November,

> who was in Dulwich a couple of days ago. Seems

> like this Louisa has achieved more interesting

> things that keep the EDTers chattering... I must

> admit it's a bit disappointing that noone was

> impressed to hear that DDL was in the area. Oh

> well.

I don't totally agree edcam, if someone has chosen to pursue a career in the public eye then they have to expect a certain amount of this kind of thing (although clearly there are limits).


Although I agree with what maxxi said, it's really not particularly surprising that the odd celebrity pops up, even one as apparently high calibre as this.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Scootingover Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > He is in the area reasonably frequently as is

> Liam

> > Neeson. Friends of a resident.

>

>

Quite right Scootingover, all three are very good friends and are in the village regularly. DDL, LN and local resident. Out and about regularly. DDL slightly less so.

> Liam Neeson. Really? Funny how noone has ever

> mentioned seeing him.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I don't totally agree edcam, if someone has chosen

> to pursue a career in the public eye then they

> have to expect a certain amount of this kind of

> thing (although clearly there are limits).

>

> Although I agree with what maxxi said, it's really

> not particularly surprising that the odd celebrity

> pops up, even one as apparently high calibre as

> this.



Agree. Can't remember who it was now but remember an A lister saying exactly this, they just said they wanted people to leave them alone whilst they were eating, but other than that they felt posing for photos or signing autographs was part of their (VERY well paid) job.

I agree to an extent that it is to be expected but still think it's not unreasonable to be allowed to go about your business without your personal space being constantly invaded.


Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I don't totally agree edcam, if someone has chosen

> to pursue a career in the public eye then they

> have to expect a certain amount of this kind of

> thing (although clearly there are limits).

>

> Although I agree with what maxxi said, it's really

> not particularly surprising that the odd celebrity

> pops up, even one as apparently high calibre as

> this.

I can never understand why people you see on television or films are regarded as 'famous'. They are just doing a job they are good at - the same as a solicitor or a carpenter.

When you see one of these people sitting next to you in the doctor's waiting room or eating egg and chips in the BBC canteen you realise they are just ordinary people doing an ordinary job. They deserve not to be pointed at in the supermarket aisle.

Politicians are the only ones who deliberately put themselves in the public eye.

edcam - well there's a limit. But I would of thought that someone coming up to you and shaking your hand is surely well within that limit. It's not like he was being mobbed by selfie-stick wielding morons.


lesalden - film stars are doing an ordinary job, and haven't deliberately put themselves in the public eye? Couldn't disagree more.

"Politicians are the only ones who deliberately put themselves in the public eye."



That is utter nonsense.


I'm not suggesting that anyone should have any ownership over their private lives, but if you choose a career as an entertainer of any sort, then by definition you are choosing to put yourself in the public eye. In fact your success in your chosen career (actor / comedian / band member) depends on what the public think of your performance.

Yes but that doesn't mean you are public property.


Otta Wrote:

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

> "Politicians are the only ones who deliberately

> put themselves in the public eye."

>

>

> That is utter nonsense.

>

> I'm not suggesting that anyone should have any

> ownership over their private lives, but if you

> choose a career as an entertainer of any sort,

> then by definition you are choosing to put

> yourself in the public eye. In fact your success

> in your chosen career (actor / comedian / band

> member) depends on what the public think of your

> performance.

No but it's still quite creepy.


Jeremy Wrote:

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

> edcam - well there's a limit. But I would of

> thought that someone coming up to you and shaking

> your hand is surely well within that limit. It's

> not like he was being mobbed by selfie-stick

> wielding morons.

>

> lesalden - film stars are doing an ordinary job,

> and haven't deliberately put themselves in the

> public eye? Couldn't disagree more.

edcam Wrote:

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

> Yes but that doesn't mean you are public

> property.


> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "Politicians are the only ones who deliberately

> > put themselves in the public eye."

> >

> >

> > That is utter nonsense.

> >

> > I'm not suggesting that anyone should have any ownership over their private lives

edcam Wrote:

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

> I agree to an extent that it is to be expected but

> still think it's not unreasonable to be allowed to

> go about your business without your personal space

> being constantly invaded.

>

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------


I agree with this it is only fair to allow people some ordinary life, without people treating them differently. Happened to my husband at one time, when our children were small, and our lives were made so miserable that we eventually went out as a family but without him.

> -----

> > I don't totally agree edcam, if someone has

> chosen

> > to pursue a career in the public eye then they

> > have to expect a certain amount of this kind of

> > thing (although clearly there are limits).

> >

> > Although I agree with what maxxi said, it's

> really

> > not particularly surprising that the odd

> celebrity

> > pops up, even one as apparently high calibre as

> > this.

sandyman Wrote:

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

> The only thing that irritated me about Louisa was

> her habit of putting her name at the bottom of her

> posts!



I totally agree with you. Other people do it and that's fine, yet when she does it is particularly irritating.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Post much better this Xmas.  Sue posted about whether they send Xmas cards; how good the post arrives is relevant.  Think I will continue to stay off Instagram!
    • These have reduced over the years, are "perfect" lives Round Robins being replaced by "perfect" lives Instagram posts where we see all year round how people portray their perfect lives ?    The point of this thread is that for the last few years, due to issues at the mail offices, we had delays to post over Christmas. Not really been flagged as an issue this year but I am still betting on the odd card, posted well before Christmas, arriving late January. 
    • Two subjects here.  Xmas cards,  We receive and send less of them.  One reason is that the cost of postage - although interestingly not as much as I thought say compared to 10 years ago (a little more than inflation).  Fun fact when inflation was double digits in the 70s cost of postage almost doubled in one year.  Postage is not a good indication of general inflation fluctuating a fair bit.  The huge rise in international postage that for a 20g Christmas card to Europe (no longer a 20g price, now have to do up to 100g), or a cheapskate 10g card to the 'States (again have to go up to the 100g price) , both around a quid in 2015, and now has more than doubled in real terms.  Cards exchanged with the US last year were arriving in the New Year.  Funnily enough they came much quicker this year.  So all my cards abroad were by email this year. The other reason we send less cards is that it was once a good opportunity to keep in touch with news.  I still personalise many cards with a news and for some a letter, and am a bit grumpy when I get a single line back,  Or worse a round robin about their perfect lives and families.  But most of us now communicate I expect primarily by WhatApp, email, FB etc.  No need for lightweight airmail envelope and paper in one.    The other subject is the mail as a whole. Privitisation appears to have done it no favours and the opening up of competition with restrictions on competing for parcel post with the new entrants.  Clearly unless you do special delivery there is a good chance that first class will not be delivered in a day as was expected in the past.   Should we have kept a public owned service subsidised by the tax payer?  You could also question how much lead on innovation was lost following the hiving off of the national telecommunications and mail network.
    • Why have I got a feeling there was also a connection with the beehive in Brixton on that road next to the gym
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...