Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Read a bit more about this in TimeOut on the way home. They put a very positive spin on the whole thing, with the only shot in the programme having already been printed on the front page of a newspaper (which I don't recall causing the same outrage)


The thrust of the programme being that the photographers became the scapegoat at the time, supposedly interfering with the medics trying to attend - something I remember clearly at the time. So if this isn't true (and medics at the scene are interviewed saying that the photographers did NOT impede) then we have an interesting public-interest story - "Mass hysteria at time of death forces a scapegoat mentality which affects many living people's lives for a decade") The photos at the centre of the storm are used to support this argument and do not show any ghoulish images...


So I'm at a loss as to what the fuss is about - if I read what I wrote at the beginning of my first post above it's apparent I fell in line with the pervading mood about how wrong CH4 were. And I might now be falling in line with an article I read in a magazine.. But without watching it I'm not sure we can use the word "wrong" in the moral sense??

I did watch it and it was quite interesting in the way it went through the timeline in excrutiating detail. My two-penneth:


1. The photo was up for about 4 seconds, nothing could be seen and it added nothing to the programme. It could easily have been dropped.


2. Diana was mercilessly hounded by the paps but did use them quite a lot to publicise herself.


3. If they'd been wearing seatbelts we wouldn't be having this discussion

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

    • Link to petition if anyone would like to object: Londis off licence Petition 
    • He did mention it's share of freehold, I’d be very cautious with that. It can turn into a nightmare if relationships with neighbours break down. My brother had a share of freehold in a flat in West Hampstead, and when he needed to sell, the neighbour refused to sign the transfer of the freehold. What followed was over two years of legal battles, spiralling costs and constant stress. He lost several potential buyers, and the whole sale fell through just as he got a job offer in another city. It was a complete disaster. The neighbour was stubborn and uncooperative, doing everything they could to delay the process. It ended in legal deadlock, and there was very little anyone could do without their cooperation. At that point, the TA6 form becomes the least of your worries; it’s the TR1 form that matters. Without the other freeholder’s signature on that, you’re stuck. After seeing what my brother went through, I’d never touch a share of freehold again. When things go wrong, they can go really wrong. If you have a share of freehold, you need a respectful and reasonable relationship with the others involved; otherwise, it can be costly, stressful and exhausting. Sounds like these neighbours can’t be reasoned with. There’s really no coming back from something like this unless they genuinely apologise and replace the trees and plants they ruined. One small consolation is that people who behave like this are usually miserable behind closed doors. If they were truly happy, they’d just get on with their lives instead of trying to make other people’s lives difficult. And the irony is, they’re being incredibly short-sighted. This kind of behaviour almost always backfires.  
    • I had some time with him recently at the local neighbourhood forum and actually was pretty impressed by him, I think he's come a long way.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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