Inappropriate pictures of Princess Diana

Wang · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:55

ballistic said:
nothing wrong with releasing the pictures

Honestly I find this disgusting. Please tell me exactly how we can benefit from seeing pictures of a dead human?

I'm assuming that you are just posting this response to provoke some sort of reaction as you haven't given details of what is right with showing them. Maybe you do have a valid reason.... but I suspect not.

But if you do feel it is so right to show them, then please.... pretty please... with sugar on... the next family funeral you attend, dont forget the camera so you can share some of your misfortune with all of us, after all.. nothing wrong with releasing the pictures. :rolleyes:

JRS · 14 Jul 2006 at 22:11

Ah splendid. Another story which will no doubt be whipped up into a frenzy by certain quarters of the press, when there is actually bugger all story there.

It's a picture of an injured and unconcious woman having an oxygen mask put on her (who died because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt I should add, if she'd had an ounce of common sense she'd still be on our TV screens making videos about landmines). How is that any different to the pictures of dying children in Africa that we get on TV around Comic Relief time?

Al Vallario · 14 Jul 2006 at 22:21

Wang said:
Honestly I find this disgusting. Please tell me exactly how we can benefit from seeing pictures of a dead human?

I'm assuming that you are just posting this response to provoke some sort of reaction as you haven't given details of what is right with showing them. Maybe you do have a valid reason.... but I suspect not.

But if you do feel it is so right to show them, then please.... pretty please... with sugar on... the next family funeral you attend, dont forget the camera so you can share some of your misfortune with all of us, after all.. nothing wrong with releasing the pictures.

She's not dead in the photo; she's alive and is having an oxygen mask placed on her. As I stated somewhere up there, it's a low resolution, grainy, black and white photo. There is no blood and guts, no horrific imagery; Princess Diana is just sat there looking peaceful as described by the editor who decided to publish it.

There is nothing wrong with the photo itself - all the media are moaning about is the painful memories the release of this photo will bring back to the Princess' family.

Klytus · 14 Jul 2006 at 22:45

Unfortunately/Fortunately (depending on how you look at it) pretty much anything is available on the net. Now I am pretty sure there are people out there who are interested/curious/sick/twisted enough to want to see these photos and because of the net this is now possible.
Personally I have no interest in viewing them but that's my choice. I am not forced to view them but equally I have no right to stop others viewing them, that's their choice.
so I don't have a problem with them being published on the net or in a paper I wouldn't buy.

Will Gill · 14 Jul 2006 at 22:50

Big Kev said:
Explain yourself then and your reasons for asking for the link in the first place.

he needed something to line his troll lair with

qwerty · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:05

Big Kev said:
Explain yourself then and your reasons for asking for the link in the first place.

I want to have my own opinion about this issue. Without seeing the pictures my opinion is "the press are all evil, they should all die, how could they print a picture of the mangled corpse of one of the finest ladies ever to have lived" because that's what I've been force fed in the news.

I just assumed that if it had been published it would be freely available on the internet and one of you could point me to it.

Yewen · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:07

Pictures of this nature are not allowed on the forums though, not quite family friendly.

qwerty · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:09

Yewen said:
Pictures of this nature are not allowed on the forums though, not quite family friendly.

They'll be in all the papers (well they should be), I think they're family friendly.

I don't see what's so family unfriendly about them :confused:

but then I haven't seen them.

PrettyInPink · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:19

qwerty said:
They'll be in all the papers (well they should be), I think they're family friendly.

I don't see what's so family unfriendly about them but then I haven't seen them.

No offence but i don't see why people need to see someone minutes away from death.

What is the fascination? i think you should remember the person when they were alive.

I feel sorry for the princes.Put yourself in their shoes.

I think people should just let her R.I.P.

Al Vallario · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:24

qwerty said:
I want to have my own opinion about this issue. Without seeing the pictures my opinion is "the press are all evil, they should all die, how could they print a picture of the mangled corpse of one of the finest ladies ever to have lived" because that's what I've been force fed in the news.

I just assumed that if it had been published it would be freely available on the internet and one of you could point me to it.

The title of the article is "Lady Diana, l'ultima foto" if you are interested. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the image; whether people want to use that information to find the image is up to them.

I agree that we should remember Princess Diana for her life, not for her death, but at the same time I don't think it appropriate that the Italian magazine in question should be shot down in a huge media frenzy for publishing this relatively harmless photograph. I'm sure if you were to see the photograph in question you would agree with me on that.

Will Gill · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:28

qwerty said:
They'll be in all the papers (well they should be), I think they're family friendly.

I don't see what's so family unfriendly about them but then I haven't seen them.

if I ever have a family one of the last things i would consider " family friendly" would be a picture of a dying woman, but then again you claim in one sentance that the photos are fine for public viewing then seconds later you reveal you havent actually ever seen them.

I'd give up if I was you

qwerty · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:29

Will Gill said:
if I ever have a family one of the last things i would consider " family friendly" would be a picture of a dying woman, but then again you claim in one sentance that the photos are fine for public viewing then seconds later you reveal you havent actually ever seen them.

I'd give up if I was you

were

Will Gill · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:31

qwerty said:
were

aren't we the nit picker, did my point find you lacking with an appropriate response so you had to resort to grammar policing?

if i were you I'd listen to your mother and go to bed it's way past your bed time

PrettyInPink · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:34

qwerty said:
were

Why if people disagree with you do you correct them on their grammer????

If you don't want people disagreeing with you why post on the forum???

awaybreaktoday · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:36

I think its great that they published them!! Its only up her nose diana!!

McDaniel · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:37

JRS said:
Ah splendid. Another story which will no doubt be whipped up into a frenzy by certain quarters of the press, when there is actually bugger all story there.

It's a picture of an injured and unconcious woman having an oxygen mask put on her (who died because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt I should add, if she'd had an ounce of common sense she'd still be on our TV screens making videos about landmines). How is that any different to the pictures of dying children in Africa that we get on TV around Comic Relief time?

I agree

Mundu · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:37

bam0 said:
How is it any more distasteful than when we see dead bodies on the TV in reports from war zones? Fair enough you get a warning but they have no qualms about showing bodies at the side of the road in various states of decay or injury.

All those people had family too and, to me, Diana is no more important than they are. I'm sure they had families of their own too.

There is a strange cult and mythos surrounding Diana, and I really can't understand why its perpetuated anymore, it's been how long now since she died?

I agree.

Al Vallario · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:38

PrettyInPink said:
If you don't want people disagreeing with you why post on the forum???

Dictionary said:
fo·rum
n. pl. fo·rums, also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

1. A public meeting place for open discussion.
2. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.

Can we get back on topic now please?

Will Gill · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:38

PrettyInPink said:
Why if people disagree with you do you correct them on their grammer????

If you don't want people disagreeing with you why post on the forum???

its to try and detract away from the fact he/she/it has created a post without actually having the slightest idea about its relevance and/or content, I think its a reliance on shock factor and expected extreme responses the kind of material that a forum troll revels in, this one however isnt really worthy of that accolade so lets hope he/she/it has to get up early for his/her/its paper round and can leave the relatively sane people of this forum to argue the toss over Diana's death photos

PrettyInPink · 14 Jul 2006 at 23:39

Will Gill said:
its to try and detract away from the fact he/she/it has created a post without actually having the slightest idea about its relevance and/or content, I think its a reliance on shock factor and expected extreme responses the kind of material that a forum troll revels in, this one however isnt really worthy of that accolade so lets hope he/she/it has to get up early for his/her/its paper round

Lol very true