I was just pointing out that maybe this young lady knew what sought of life she was getting into
Paul Weller and his wife call for child privacy changes...
- Thread starter Sharky
- Start date
I was just pointing out that maybe this young lady knew what sought of life she was getting into
Its a kind of war that's being going as long as i can remember between the paparazzi and the celeb world.
I remember years ago their was a pap called i think Richard Young,he was know for his ruefulness for getting the shot, always falling out with the stars,but the odd thing in the end he became in bit of a celeb himself,and ended up being photograph himself by other paps drinking and going with the the stars.
Its an odd world
Last edited:
I was just pointing out that maybe this young lady knew what sought of life she was getting into
Did the kids know about this life they were getting into when they were being born?
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its a kind of war that's being going as long as i can remember between the paparazzi and the celeb world.
I remember years ago their was a pap called i think Richard Young,he was know for his ruefulness for getting the shot, always falling out with the stars,but the odd thing in the end he became in bit of a celeb himself,and ended up being photograph himself by other paps drinking and going with the the stars.
Its an odd world
John Deakin? Currently an exhibition at the photographers gallery.. http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/john-deakin-2
No child choose its life it was born into its just a matter of chance, if your born to the rich & famous your life is going to get some attention, same as if your born into war or poverty,your life going to be different.
It would be a great world if we could protect every child,but we cant and as case after case has showed its can be the very people who are suppose to be the ones who care for us the most who can do the most damage in the end.
Last edited:
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Heartfelt as that may be, it doesn't excuse kn0bhead paparazzi invading the privacy of children.No child choose its life it was born into its just a matter of chance, if your born to the rich & famous your life is going to get some attention, same as if your born into war or poverty,your life going to be different.
It would be a great world if we could protect every child,but we cant and as case after case has showed its can be the very people who are suppose to be the ones who care for us the most who can do the most damage in the end.
A point you've skirted around and ignored (because it makes the rest of your attitude untenable) throughout this thread. It's children we're talking about. The law idea is stupid, we all know it'll go nowhere. But a mum is perfectly entitled to protect her children from kn0bhead photographers, in fact - more then entitled, I'd argue she is obliged. That has no risk to the everyday life of you or me because whilst we're photographers, we're not kn0bheads.
Phil I agree its for the protection, but in this world its not the worst thing that can happen to an child, having a few photos up on line.
And yes theses photographer should know better.
You still miss my point as those you agree, it would be a very stupid law, just saying it will go nowhere is not good enough for me, the consequences as I have already said in many posts on thread and others have said ?.
And yes she has the right to protect her children, also I have the right to to fight back against such an stupid proposal, on the slight chance that she made get it thought, however small that might be.
And it is also the hypothesis of some of theses so called celeb ranting on about protecting their children, and then using them when it suit them.
We will see what she has to say once Paul gets fed up with her, he been thought 3 already.
And yes theses photographer should know better.
You still miss my point as those you agree, it would be a very stupid law, just saying it will go nowhere is not good enough for me, the consequences as I have already said in many posts on thread and others have said ?.
And yes she has the right to protect her children, also I have the right to to fight back against such an stupid proposal, on the slight chance that she made get it thought, however small that might be.
And it is also the hypothesis of some of theses so called celeb ranting on about protecting their children, and then using them when it suit them.
We will see what she has to say once Paul gets fed up with her, he been thought 3 already.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
You don't though! It's simply not going to happen. FFS The News of The World hacked hundreds of phones and the government spent millions examining the evidence and slapped down F all in consequences. Do you think one rock star's wife is going to make any difference?
And again, with the small minded celeb culture? It's beneath you really!
Seriously, that kind of talk justifies the paparazzo and feeds the culture you pretend to hold in contempt.
Either rise above it and comment like a grown up, or sink with the scumbags, because you can't pretend to hate it and then talk about 'celebs' like they're a sub-species.
And again, with the small minded celeb culture? It's beneath you really!
Seriously, that kind of talk justifies the paparazzo and feeds the culture you pretend to hold in contempt.
Either rise above it and comment like a grown up, or sink with the scumbags, because you can't pretend to hate it and then talk about 'celebs' like they're a sub-species.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
The sad fact is that we do agree about the central point; the law would be a stupid idea.Were not going to agree Phil,let agree to disagree
What we don't agree about is that the children of someone in the public eye deserve the same human rights as my children. That's a sad indictment of the power of the media and I have failed to convince you of the fact.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
to befair phil I don't think Simon is saying that - afterall no one has the 'human right' not to have their children photographed so celebs do indeed have the same human rights as the rest of usin that respect
I read simons argument as being that if you are a publicity whore (and I'm not saying Mrs Weller is - thats a different discussion) you can't then get upset when the press give you more publicity than you would have liked.
I read simons argument as being that if you are a publicity whore (and I'm not saying Mrs Weller is - thats a different discussion) you can't then get upset when the press give you more publicity than you would have liked.
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes you can.
No matter how vacuous the celebrity, they should be able to do a school run, or go shopping with the children etc., without having to expect to see it splashed across the media.
If their children are with them, then even the most retarded scumbag pap should know to keep the lens cap on.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
What Ruth said.
But more precisely; article 8, the right to a private family life which my children share with Mr Wellers children. And which you will understand overrides the right of a photographer snap and to publish whatever they feel like. Back to step one, but the toothless press watchdogs aren't doing their bit to uphold.
But Phil by the very nature of some children parents,they are not going to have the same rights as your children.
The new young Prince by the nature of his birth 3rd inline to the throne,will he just be able to go to park with mum or dad,or do the things a normal child can do no,people will want to know things about him,his whole life will be controlled.
Take Bin Laden by the nature of what he was a terrorist, did his children have the right private family life of course not,were they evil or terrorists ?,but by the very nature of their Dad actions,if just look at it from a child point of view,one night loads of solider just appeared shot mum & dad blew up the place where they lived took dads body away and chucked it in the sea.
Its a lovely idea that all children have the same rights,and i wish it could be but its not going to be.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
But for the kids we're discussing, and the intrusion into their life, it's very easy to stop.
I have never understood why paps do what they do,also i never understood why some people crave the celebrity life style,i guess its just sought of an addiction and like all addiction drugs drink that lifestyle is going to have some affect of the your children.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The key word there is private - both you and ms weller have a right to privacy in private (or areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy) neither of you has the right not to have your kids photographed in a public place - the only legal protection being the harrasment laws which requires multiple intrusion by the same person
also for harrasment to stick it has to be unwelcome and unwanted - in the case of some publicity tart celebs, they have implicitly invited it by their behaviour in courting the press. I don't know enough about Ms weller to say whether she falls into that category.
Phil were going to agree,whether you can stop it altogether is very doubtful,but if it come to the point where a pap is harassing a celeb when they are with they children,maybe under existing laws get an injunction out against harassment by that pap
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
You do know that she doesn't fall into that category, you googled for images of her, and found one selfie from twitter (most people I know have at least one of those, so not really a sign of the fame hungry) and a load of paparazzi images taken in the street. So, not the falling out of nightclubs type, she's a stay at home mum.
And you're right, having my picture taken in the street isn't a privacy issue, but having it published certainly is.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
But it doesn't take harassment for enough images for publication. It only takes a single incidence, so not really practical. And it's easy to stop, we need proper press regulation (still the same answer after all these pages).Phil were going to agree,whether you can stop it altogether is very doubtful,but if it come to the point where a pap is harassing a celeb when they are with they children,maybe under existing laws get an injunction out against harassment by that pap
Personally, I think that Paul should have stuck his camera up the paps arse when he didn't stop after a polite request. I'm also quite surprised that a pap in the states even recognised him, he plays a handful of gigs every few years in the states to hundreds of fans, hardly a 'celebrity' over there.
But Phil your never going to stop it,it might not be pap it could just be a fan who see them out they maybe with their children,and grabs a shot put it up on say Facebook its the world we live in,like it or not the internet change everything.
As for Paul Weller in the US i have been seeing a lot of the music press,about wanting to make a big comeback(new album),and him and his wife have been doing a few celeb party in Hollywood,after all its where the big money is in music,film,etc.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
But the story wouldn't have happened for a fan pic on Facebook! If I approached him in the street and asked for a picture with him, he'd smile and pose. If I hid round a corner and pointed a long lens at his kids, I'd be asking for trouble. But that's not the issue here.
It's a completely different scenario, and all it takes (still) is proper press regulation. And how do we know that? Because they were awarded damages. So all it takes is a body to growl when the press attempt to misbehave and the problem stops. Instead we have a body that sits on it's hands till someone makes a complaint. Given how few people can be bothered to complain, the press behave like they are without rules, and pay up on the few occasions they are caught out.
I can't comment on the Hollywood parties, it's certainly not a market he's ever had any success in. Even in the days he was headlining Glastonbury he couldn't make a fortune in the states, I doubt that he has an appetite to break it now.
But that's still irrelevant! The guys kids should not be plastered all over the papers. Whether he's got an album out, or he's an axe murderer, his kids don't belong in the flipping nasty, s***ty, fascist loving, crooked, tax dodging, immigrant obsessed, daily mail.
Phil your beef seem to be with the Daily Mail,hardly my fav paper i don't think i ever brought one.
But the facts the photos weren't plastered all over the paper they were six photos online,he got his day in court and won.
It was just the reaction of his wife to the introduction that she wants of a law,that would be draconian by any measure that i felt i had a right to disagree with.
As for the rest we will have agree to disagree on
But the facts the photos weren't plastered all over the paper they were six photos online,he got his day in court and won.
It was just the reaction of his wife to the introduction that she wants of a law,that would be draconian by any measure that i felt i had a right to disagree with.
As for the rest we will have agree to disagree on
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Without getting into the grand scheme, this really doesn't strike me as a woman courting the press.
MRS Weller posted a pg pic. Big deal. Hundreds of thousands of women do that every day. How many other celeb pics of her and the kids can you find?
The simple fact is that clearly the images were unwelcome, they were out on a family outing, and without doubt the scum pap knew that As they were asked to stop. They chose to continue anyway.
Laws aren't needed, and indeed almost impossible to implement. Respect and sense however should be an easy call. Sadly it's not the case.
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Then attack the idea, not the person.
You appear to be obsessed with framing Mrs Weller as a 'media whore' despite that being irrelevant to her kids.
Cheap and nasty. You consider superior to a paparazzo why?
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
its not irreleant to the kids because if the parent courtspublicity the media are bound to also have an interest in her/his/their kids - particularly if she encourages it by for example tweeting pictures of her baby bump
But potentially true - this is wife 3 who started out as one of his backing vocalists while wife 2 was stuck at home and he was out on the road - now that wife 3 is the one stuck at home with baby vomit and such, do we really believe he won't be doing the funky monkey with backing vocalists etc - not thats anyones business but theres, but there is a certain symetary to these things
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Seriously? One pic of a baby bump is 'courting' the press?
And how exactly is his fidelity (or lack of it) any of your business or relevant to a privacy debate.
Oh, it isn't.
I assume you have a valid point to make at some point in between the gossip you pretend to disdain?
And how exactly is his fidelity (or lack of it) any of your business or relevant to a privacy debate.
Oh, it isn't.
I assume you have a valid point to make at some point in between the gossip you pretend to disdain?
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I have no more beef with the Daily Fail than you do with 'celebrities'.
We agree about the law, everyone does, but my reaction is meh! Because we all know it won't happen. Whereas you seem to have taken it both seriously and personally.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
yeah but you protect your kids by not attracting attention to them - speaking generally rather than about the wellers in isolation - a lot of celebs seem to use their kids as a fashion accessory and or as a way of demonstrating how right on they are in adopting children from third world countries etc - posh and becks and brangelina are two that spring to mind, although there are shed load more examples .
If you regularly braught your kids about in the media , and do stuff like giving a certain magazine an exclusive of their adoption/birthday/whatver ... then you can't turn round one day and say oh but the evil photographers won't leave us alone ... well yeah thats what youwanted... you made your bed so lie in that baby
Also a lot of celebs have a real credibility problem because they don't live in the real world - for example charlize theron ( I think it was her) recently reckoned that the media intrusion into her life was like being raped ... erm excuse me ? say what ? .. you picked this life, you went to the red carpet events and promoted yourself as a commodity ... howexavtly is that like someon forcing you to have sex against your will ... get a f*****g grip.
Likewise with this case in point hannah weller is upset because someone photographed her kids - fair enough sue the daily heil - but change the law soley because something happened that you don't like ? .. ahh diddums ... maybe she should have thought of that before she got involved with a rock star (its not exactly a secret that the media are interested in paul .. and they are only interested in her by asociation... no one gabe much of a toss when she was hannah andrews unknown backing vocalist.
jakeblu
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,874
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You assume wrong Andy, although I fancy you knew that already
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
one baby bump picture (actually there were a whole set) is an example of courting the press - rather like the various contreversial interviews paul weller regularly gives the media in which he discusses his 'private' life ... if you want to keep it private not discussing it in public would e a good start.
well actually yes it is, because if you chose to live you life in the spotight - as mr Weller does , changing wives on a regular basis is bound to stimulate the gossip presses interest in your 'private' life ....
actually yes - ive just made two , the third one was that your assertion to simon that his post was nasty and cheap was flawed - it is remarkably common for celebrity exes to 'tell all' to the gossip press so as simon says it would be interesting to see if Ms wellers disdain for the media remains the same if she does go the same way as wives 1 and 2
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
another valuable contrbution
do you and andy actually have a valid point to make , or shall we just stick to Paul Weller is god and can do no wrong , his wife is virttuous princess (despite, i believe, getting involved with him when he was married to someone else) and they are being victmised by the nasty press because at no point have either of them ever courted the media (apart from maybe his interviews in the guardian, telegraphy, NME,.... )
If you get involved in the music scene or indeed any celebrity culture this kind of thing happens ... both the wellers should have known that going in (or if they didnt they must have been very naive) , so if you want to protect your kids from the glare of the media spotlight... may be not having a career that depends on your exposure too it might be an option...
jakeblu
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,874
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's probably the most asinine post yet despite Simons best efforts
You keep banging the same drum Pete, and it's completely irrelevant. The children have a right to privacy, despite what you think, seems the judge thought so too
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
It ends there though, we're not discussing an abstract idea of a media whore, we're discussing a very specific case. So; no, there is no generalisation where 'these people deserve it'.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
paul weller keeping his private life private in the guardian in 2010
and again keeping his kids completely out of the public eye in 2012 (in the guardian again - he seems to like the guardian)
and again this time in the big issue 2012 (in an aricle sub titled Paul weller shaes parenting tips)
abnd so on (lots more examples)
heres an idea if you want to protect your kid's privacy and not have any media interest in them - perhaps not metioning them repeatedly in media interviews might be an idea ? Admittedly you'll then have to find a new way of appearing right on to the fans who also have kids and with whom you want to appear to empathise...
and again keeping his kids completely out of the public eye in 2012 (in the guardian again - he seems to like the guardian)
and again this time in the big issue 2012 (in an aricle sub titled Paul weller shaes parenting tips)
abnd so on (lots more examples)
heres an idea if you want to protect your kid's privacy and not have any media interest in them - perhaps not metioning them repeatedly in media interviews might be an idea ? Admittedly you'll then have to find a new way of appearing right on to the fans who also have kids and with whom you want to appear to empathise...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've never said anything of the sort. In fact, as I've made perfectly clear, I couldn't care less about what they get up to. I thought this was a debate about privacy laws not a gossip thread?
This afternoon the new MP for Newark asked a question in PMQs about flood defences. Should the question be considered because of his private life, or on the merits of the question?
Or maybe the media could recognise that children are not their parents, a walk in the street isn't a PR shoot, and crop or pixelate the kids out of the shot?
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
well techinically we're not because hannah wellers call for a change in the law wasnt just to protect her , it was to protect people like her (ie celebrities) so it is a general thing
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and vis my post #115 - may be if paul weller didnt go on and on and on and on and on about his children in the media there wouldn't be media interest in them .. also a walk in the street is a public place , as has been repeatedly discussed here when talking about street photography you don't have a reasonable expectationof privacy in a public place.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Does the new MP for newark regularly court the media and tell them intimate details about his private life and tha of his children ? if he doesnt then its not really a comparable situation
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's directly comparable. Either suggestions are to be judged on the merits of the suggestion or on the merits of the suggestor. Which is it?