SYD STALKER ????

J Ed · Post by **J Ed** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:45 pm

what about all those "news"papers, whose sales depend upon the supply of photos of Liz Taylor coming out of detox, or Pricess Di sunbathing topless, etc etc
they've been sued a billion times and never seem to go away, there must be a whole subdiscipline of lawschool grads purely occupied with keeping such publishing alive
and there must be thousands of pages of legal precedent

J Ed

TheDoctor · Post by **TheDoctor** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:56 pm

J Ed wrote:what about all those "news"papers, whose sales depend upon the supply of photos of Liz Taylor coming out of detox, or Pricess Di sunbathing topless, etc etc
they've been sued a billion times and never seem to go away, there must be a whole subdiscipline of lawschool grads purely occupied with keeping such publishing alive
and there must be thousands of pages of legal precedent

J Ed

Sued, yes... but not successfully. Thats why they never seem to go away. All those examples you cited, were in plain view...even with a telescopic lens.

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:16 pm

i think a statute SHOULD be made up under certain circumstances. there is a line and soooooooo many magazines cross it. i dont know how women can read all those "women's weekly's" and all those crappy mags. its all lined with stalking pics. like britney at her so called wedding and crap like that.
"Celebrities Without Make-up"
if they wanted to be photographed they would've have organised a professional and not have someone spying on them. its something that worries me deeply cos i want my music to take me places, but i dont wana get to the point where i have no privacy. i remember John Lennon saying that he hated the fact that there were constantly camera's around him.
more food for thought... Mmmmmm food...

TheDoctor · Post by **TheDoctor** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:39 pm

fat_old_sun wrote:i think a statute SHOULD be made up under certain circumstances. there is a line and soooooooo many magazines cross it. i dont know how women can read all those "women's weekly's" and all those crappy mags. its all lined with stalking pics. like britney at her so called wedding and crap like that.
"Celebrities Without Make-up"
if they wanted to be photographed they would've have organised a professional and not have someone spying on them. its something that worries me deeply cos i want my music to take me places, but i dont wana get to the point where i have no privacy. i remember John Lennon saying that he hated the fact that there were constantly camera's around him.
more food for thought... Mmmmmm food...

I see what you mean and I agree to some extent... but they really have no reason nor should they complain about cameras being around them. They chose the profession they're in. It didn't choose them.

What?s even more creepy... big brother is always watching you. George Orwell was on to something with his book, "1984" Everywhere you look there's a camera. It?s only going to get worse.

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:53 pm

TheDoctor wrote: I see what you mean and I agree to some extent... but they really have no reason nor should they complain about cameras being around them. They chose the profession they're in. It didn't choose them.

What?s even more creepy... big brother is always watching you. George Orwell was on to something with his book, "1984" Everywhere you look there's a camera. It?s only going to get worse.

for the bit that i put in bold, its still an invasion of privacy. its a really cheap way for low people to make money and i mean no offence to u personally, but photographers shouldn't stoop to that level. yes stalking is a different thing but its a moral thing.

a few bands have done this but i'll mention the metallica one. one of the band members had a mate who was into film and they had this great idea to video tape the making of the Black Album and the next year of touring too. its great to see them jam in the studio and see how they did things ect, but Lars and Bob Rock really hated the cameras being around so often. yes there was some funny stuff away from the playing side of things but sometimes it got a bit too private... like interupting Lars taking a shower and Kirt after he had just woken up in his hotel room. there is a line.

when its controlled its fantasitic but too many magazines just go way way too far. so what if the statute is made about celebrities and thier privacy...
"oh no, now we will only know them for what made them famous, what is the world becoming!!!"

TheDoctor · Post by **TheDoctor** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:59 pm

fat_old_sun wrote:its a really cheap way for low people to make money and i mean no offence to u personally, but photographers shouldn't stoop to that level. yes stalking is a different thing but its a moral thing.

no offence taken at all. i totally agree with you. Those guys are working for themselves looking for a fast buck. They have very little morals. I was not one of "those guys". News gathering is quite different.

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:08 pm

TheDoctor wrote: no offence taken at all.

Great

TheDoctor wrote:I totally agree with you.

thats good too

TheDoctor wrote:Those guys are working for themselves looking for a fast buck. They have very little morals.

there are many ways of making a quick buck but yes, morality does get in the way of many strategies

TheDoctor wrote: I was not one of "those guys". News gathering is quite different.

good, very good to hear

sandstormkiss · Post by **sandstormkiss** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:58 pm

but they really have no reason nor should they complain about cameras being around them. They chose the profession they're in. It didn't choose them.

(Please accept apologies in advance The Doctor, I am just replying to your quote, and generally ranting, not striking out at you personally. If it comes off as rude or an attack on you, I'm sorry. It isn't meant to come across that way)

But...(Staying on topic here) As was stated here many times, Syd Barrett as a public figure ceased to exist years ago. Roger Barrett the private citizen remains, and should be respected as such. Unfortunately, Some people don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of respect for others though.

Whether by his own silence, or by his family speaking publicly on his behalf, we all had our proof as to whether the guy wanted to live as a public figure or preferred his privacy...years ago. If he is a public figure today,*in my opinion* it is not a role he is responsible in propagating. So, I would hardly believe that HE should be held as culpable for the continuing stalking of him, because he used to be an active rock star years ago. That stinks of a certain sense of obscene entitlement that *again IMO* no one has the right to lay claim to.

(Paraphrasing something I read when Wouldn't You Miss Me came out) I think he said something along the lines of "I think you'd better leave it. I don't do that anymore." What else is there to say? How else are we supposed to respond, but to respect the man, and leave him alone? Again, a reporter who didn't set up and might not have requested permission, or cared to ask for permission to be granted a valid interview, just felt entiled to track the guy down.

It isn't something that can be rationalized by saying that "Syd Barrett came back" either. We all know that he did not. His record company decided to release a box set of his music, that happened to be very much in demand by people like my husband and I, who appreciate the music. Whether he approved it, or the approval was by proxy of someone handling his affairs , regardless- Excuse my rudeness in being blunt in saying this- We as "fans" have no right to expect our artists to "say a few words to us", just because we buy their music.
.

The very nature of the "stalker" that is on display here is well represented by their obnoxious and thoughtless action in videotaping the man, and then selling that film. But, unfortunately Karma is like a powerful boomerang, and comes back to leave nasty welts all over your behind if one isn't careful in the handling. The effects may be very unkind sometimes (in this case: preferably in the form of gnats in their pants, and fingers too knarled with arthritic knots to scratch the itch

), and when it returns, it just might come back with more power than that energy is sent out.

Unfortunately there are always going to be chiggers in human form who deal in the type of trade that exploits others- intrudes on others right to peace and privacy, who get under the skin of us who rather like to consider the feelings of other people, and live and let live in kind. That's got to be a pretty sad way to make a living. (Not referring to you personally here the doctor.)

I don't know much about the legal workings of this subject in the UK, but hopefully there are statutes that protect private citizens their right to stroll down to the shops to buy a paper in peace and privacy without being photgraphed or videotaped by someone, and having that tape sold for their avaricious gain. (As a fellow private citizen, who is so grateful that there is no one who would want to videotape me on my way to get the paper or bread...I thank whoever put this slimesucking greedmongering maggott out of business, using whatever means within reason!).

General question- but doesn't it seem very unfair to go along with the belief that because a person is a public figure, they have basically cast their lot, and are fair game for stalking and general intrusion every time they step on public ground? When did it happen, this sense of entitlement within some people?

What?s even more creepy... big brother is always watching you. George Orwell was on to something with his book, "1984" Everywhere you look there's a camera. It?s only going to get worse.

Yes! It certainly is. I don't know where you are from, but in the US there used to be laws against photgraphing, video or audio-taping anyone in the private sector without their consent, or knowledge. It seems as though a lot of those civil liberties have been thrown out the window.

In the Pink- I had also seen this video also, and was a bit- surprised. Took us a while to even figure out what is was supposed to be in regard to. My husband downloaded it, thinking that it might have been a rare performance of Dominoes. Then it turned out to be some guy walking, and cars running down a busy street. We thought it was someone's home movie at first. Then it clicked. The weird music, the cheesy clow-mo stuff. What a weirdo for even taping the guy. It would have been so cool if it were a Dominoes performance caught on video. We were pretty bumme to find that unfortunately, it was what it was. No, he doesn't look bad in it. Actually, for someone hitting 60 years old., I'd say he looked quite good. We deleted it, though. What's the sense in keeping that?

I'm sure he would apprecitate a bunch of internet strangers being so interested in his daily errand runs. (NOT! LOL)

Sorry about the long rant. If there are typos in there, sorry about them too.

Peace everybody!

*and don't close the topic please. It's nice to be able to chat about here and read other's opinions.*

Cluster One · Post by **Cluster One** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:04 pm

WOW! Now THAT is how you make your first post! Welcome sandstormkiss

Flame-Sky Diver · Post by **Flame-Sky Diver** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:10 pm

Yeah, welcome to the board!

sandstormkiss · Post by **sandstormkiss** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:22 pm

cluster one and flame sky diver- HI! Thanks for the kind words of welcome!

I've enjoyed reading this board for a while now. Like the vibes here. Even those that seem to be a bit volatile. Keeps things lively.

*yeah, that last post of mine was a bit wordy, wasn't it?*

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:12 pm

sandstormkiss wrote: Even those that seem to be a bit volatile. Keeps things lively.

yes, that would be the ME

:smt006

dorothy · Post by **dorothy** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:10 pm

id like to raise a toast - To all those great, noble people who keep things lively!!! !!! may they live long, post a lot and... keep things lively

lol

sandstormkiss · Post by **sandstormkiss** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm

fat_old_sun wrote:
sandstormkiss wrote: Even those that seem to be a bit volatile. Keeps things lively.
yes, that would be the ME
:smt006

Oh, no fat old sun. I didn't mean it that way.

I was referring to the "vibe" of the threads themselves. I wasn't pointing fingers, or making personal judgements regarding any of the people who post in them!

I just hate to see threads shut down because of arguing within them.

id like to raise a toast - To all those great, noble people who keep things lively!!! !!! may they live long, post a lot and... keep things lively Confused lol
Very Happy

Okay, I'll clarify.

I am not saying I enjoy seeing personal arguments. But if people are going to feel the need, then who are we to criticize or censor them? There are people here to do that. But, on topic debates that can get heated without personal attacks, are enjoyable to read and post in.

the noble sport of rubbernecking - that is participated in by only the most high minded individuals- is the reason for the meager view counts on those threads...

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:23 pm

sandstormkiss wrote: the noble sport of rubbernecking - that is participated in by only the most high minded individuals- is the reason for the meager view counts on those threads...

why do you think i'm in most of the arguements

:D:D:D