Di quietly

[firkin@netconnect.com.au (Alastair Firkin)]

I have tried to stay out of this argument, but one thing has not been
mentioned. We may in some way be to blame for "buying" the magazines which
publish intrusive material, but in this respect, I see the end users more a
victims. It is human nature to be inquisitive. Who amongst us will not
sneak a peek a much of this sort of material, even if only to satisfy
oneself that it is not for him/her. No, the readers are not to blame.
Editors feed on the weaknesses of people and seek out these weaknesses in
the same way as a drug dealer. There are so many of us who have these
weaknesses. Di was loved by many for the person she was or was portrayed to
be. Once firmly entrenched as an icon of love, the worlds press knows we
will all have Di ideas and Di opinions, so they begin to play on them to
induce our curiosity. As for the pararazzi, they have the age old weakness
of greed without the decency, but they are no different from any other
fortune hunters. The only way to deal with fortune hunters is to make the
game too expensive or illegal, and as the law cannot really afford to hunt
the individuals down, it must turn its attention to the real source of the
poison and fine the magazines heavily for clear intrusions on privacy. If
my mate Rupert lost money each time he published an image, he would not
publish. The greed of the press cannot be trusted, it is human nature, in
an age where it is easier than ever to be intrusive we must make it harder
for that intrusion to pay.

In the end, the cumulative effects of being hounded drove this woman to do
her untimely death. None of us would enjoy the endless "pursuit". May she
and her friends rest in peace.

Alastair Firkin

New September Page now up with;
Images of North Queensland in the exhibition
A travel page dedicated to Tasmania

http://users.netconnect.com.au/~firkin/AGFhmpg.html