Czech PM lashes out at photographer

hmm wacks the photographer for taking a pic of his kid and almost tips over the push chair in doing so. Smooth!
 
Love it when they said he was calling a "snap election" LOL :D
 
It wasnt a left jab was it? It looks like he open-palmed-shoved his head away.

Its absolutely bloody shocking though, its a photo...not an egg.
 
The tog wouldn't get to do that in this country!
 
Lol, i love the swing followed by "crunch crunch snap snap crunch" as everyone's shutter's get a work out ;)
 
To be honest, why the tog needed to take pics of the kid is beyond me....whilst he shouldn't have been there, he shouldn't have been hit either though!
 
Tog was out of order IMO ,what kinda shot was he hoping to get from there.I put the reaction down to animal instinct,i mean the PM was only protecting his child :shrug:In fact the more i watch the worse it looks .Togs head took a fare ding off the wall ,yeh ,he shouldn't have been hit,but,he also shouldn't have taken pics of the child :nono:
 
mxfun said:
i mean the PM was only protecting his child :shrug:
Click to expand...

From a photograph?

While I do think the tog was wasting his time, smacking him didn't do anything but probably give him a headache and show bad publicity.



A couple of seconds earlier and he would have gone through the window, would have loved to see what he would do then, see if he would have continued on his way.
 
mxfun said:
the PM was only protecting his child :shrug:
Click to expand...

What from? He knew what the photographer was doing. He knew he wasn't physically harming him.

He overreacted to something he didn't even think a physical threat.

Why shouldn't the tog have been there?
 
Marcel said:
What from? He knew what the photographer was doing. He knew he wasn't physically harming him.

He overreacted to something he didn't even think a physical threat.

Why shouldn't the tog have been there?
Click to expand...

Why should he have been?? There is no need to take photos of an innocent child that is nothing at all to do with any story (as far as we know). Other than the fact 'because he can' it seems pretty pointless!
 
Marcel said:
What from? He knew what the photographer was doing. He knew he wasn't physically harming him.

He overreacted to something he didn't even think a physical threat.

Why shouldn't the tog have been there?
Click to expand...

How do you know,that the PM knew he wasn't a threat :shrug:
He still shouldn't photographed his BABY!! . Just my opinion
 
mxfun said:
How do you know,that the PM knew he wasn't a threat :shrug:
He still shouldn't photographed his BABY!! . Just my opinion
Click to expand...

I doubt he would be planning too much surrounded by press and PM body guards
 
russbates said:
I doubt he would be planning too much surrounded by press and PM body guards
Click to expand...


Never... take anything for granted,especially in the society we live amongst today...anything is possible,people might see that as an overreaction but hey .. you just never know
 
The first thing i though was did he get a shot of the fist coming towards him, would have been the first thing i checked!
 
mxfun said:
Never... take anything for granted,especially in the society we live amongst today...anything is possible,people might see that as an overreaction but hey .. you just never know
Click to expand...

Fair enough, i would be a nervous wreck if i thought like that!
 
Well when I say this country I mean the UK. ( I sometimes forget the internet is worldwide) :D
 
mxfun said:
How do you know,that the PM knew he wasn't a threat :shrug:
Click to expand...

Because he said "Why are you taking photos"
Not "What are you doing" or "Why are you trying to murder me and my child in a bloodbath"


He still shouldn't photographed his BABY!! . Just my opinion
Click to expand...
Why not? (Not sure the need for the tabloid style dramatic emphasis either ;))

So you're saying the such a violent response is acceptable from someone in such a high position?
 
Perfectly reasonable to photograph the child being pushed in the pram by his Prime Minister Elect father......there IS a story there and the PM was looking for it. Why else would he take his child TO THE PARTY HQ. Not the usual afternoon parent and child peramble is it. Not the usual parent and child either.
I can see what the photographer was looking for in the shot - super wide angle, father in the top of the frame, baby in the pram in bottom. A shot of PM and child gives a different angle to just the PM.

The PM was obviously aware of the press, he isn't new to politics. The child was being used as much by the father as by the photographer - why else does someone in such high position take their child in a pram to the party HQ, where they KNOW a delegation from the press will be waiting and following?

Smacks (do you see what I did there?) of the Johnny two jags incident in N. Wales....politicians of high rank like that should be above such behaviour. OR they shouldn't be surprised when their rank is lowered to match their behaviour.
 
Lensflare said:
snip
Click to expand...

All this taken into account, there were a million other angles he could have used, whilst staying out of the way! It looks like he is trying to photograph the childs face, which does seem pointless! Why not just get the PM and the pram? It'd have been impossible to get the PMs face and the babies face in unless he had 180degree field of view!
 
Well I haven't got the details to hand but J K Rowling took a tog/paper to court for a very similar incident and she won her case. Something to do with the child should be entitled to privacy even if parents are famous. There is also a law in this country of harasment and looking at the video, has was being harassed.

But if someone can prove me wrong I shall bow to their superior knowledge!

Personally, I think there is something morally wrong with togs that take pics like this, but that's just me.
 
admirable said:
Well I haven't got the details to hand but J K Rowling took a tog/paper to court for a very similar incident and she won her case. Something to do with the child should be entitled to privacy even if parents are famous. There is also a law in this country of harasment and looking at the video, has was being harassed.

But if someone can prove me wrong I shall bow to their superior knowledge!

Personally, I think there is something morally wrong with togs that take pics like this, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

Harassment needs to happen more than once and normally on seperate occasions, it would be hard to make it stick.

JK Rowling's case didn't make photography illegal and wasn't about photography at all. It was about publishing images and that's a key point. It's the publishing that makes a private moment public because it's now available to a greater audience. There was a similar case with Princess Stephanie.
 
WRT The JK Rowling thing. She was just walking down the street doing shopping.
This is different....the PM took the kid to work. He and he alone removed any privacy rights of the child when he took him to work.
 
What's wrong with taking your kid to work! It's a very normal practice?

My Dad took me to his work and I have taken my kids to my workplace, it's not that different from the norm.
 
Absolutely nothing at all.!
But if you're a high profile public figure who attracts alot of press attention. You can't take your kid to work, then complain that they get photographed.
 
I guess the tog felt the PM taking his kid to work might newsworthy but I doubt he'd feel the same about you.
 
If this had happened in the Uk, the tog would very probably have been shot,
 
But that was the whole point of the Rowling ruling, a kid from famous parents should have the same rights to privacy as normal 'unfamous' parents!

'unfamous' :lol:
 
If someone came that close to me with a camera and pointed it in my face? I would make certain he hit the wall or the ground very hard :D No photographer has any right to take close up shots like that without permission IMHO - He got what he deserved :lol:
 
pxl8 said:
I guess the tog felt the PM taking his kid to work might newsworthy but I doubt he'd feel the same about you.
Click to expand...

Very true, so what was the point of taking the pic if he couldn't use/publish/sell it?
 
I suppose he thought he might be able to sell it, it's the publisher who might have problems if they published and the PM took action.
 
admirable said:
Very true, so what was the point of taking the pic if he couldn't use/publish/sell it?
Click to expand...

But who's to say they can't?
Rowling was doing her shopping. This PM took his kid into a high profile 'environment'.

llonen said:
If this had happened in the Uk, the tog would very probably have been shot
Click to expand...

I really don't know how to respond to that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top