Ok for papers to publish the picture of a 16yo grieving for her murdered mother?

askitnice

I'm just a bit distrubed at the amount of pictures of poor Georgina Cawley that seem's to be very prominent in todays papers.

With the indo actually remarking on the fact she wasn't in tears, the poor girl is more than likely still in shock and it's completely irrelevant if she cried or not.

But the point is she is still a minor and now she can be identified for ever as "that girl" by anyone who read the papers today. I just don't think it's right.

Don't the media have some sort of guidlines in place for treatment of children. If they do I think they forgot about them today, if they don't they f***ing should have....

Fighting Irish

what else do you want to censor?

seanybiker

I see your point. I dont want to see the poor girl grieving its none of my business and very disrespectful towards the girl.
Media dont care who they hurt as long as its nothing to do with them. That fool gerry ryan be talking about everyone but when he split with wife he asked everyone to mind there own business and not be nosy.

askitnice

Cencorship no not at all, but a bit of common deceny would be nice. Rathar than the purely cynical view of selling papers with pictures of a grieving child.

She is in the eyes of the law still a child. Surely the rights and privacy of children need to be protected. I honestly thought there were already restrictions on what can be reported regarding children but maybe im wrong.

She will of course be forever marked by what happened but is it right for the media to make her identifiable to us all?

I don't think so, but sure Fighting Irish if you think shes fair game you must be right. It was a question and your response was sadly lacking in any justification.

Fighting Irish

askitnice wrote: »

Cencorship no not at all, but a bit of common deceny would be nice. Rathar than the purely cynical view of selling papers with pictures of a grieving child.

She is in the eyes of the law still a child. Surely the rights and privacy of children need to be protected. I honestly thought there were already restrictions on what can be reported regarding children but maybe im wrong.

She will of course be forever marked by what happened but is it right for the media to make her identifiable to us all?

I don't think so, but sure Fighting Irish if you think shes fair game you must be right. It was a question and your response was sadly lacking in any justification.

I don't think shes fair game, i wouldn't take the picture, but i also wouldnt want rules in place that say the picture can't be taken, thats all

lostexpectation

well it was far off shot atleast, the one in the indo.

askitnice

lostexpectation wrote: »

well it was far off shot atleast, the one in the indo.

have a look at the independant home page that is no far off shot. I know that I would recognise her in the street from the pictures.

Simi

Cpaw wrote: »

I have thought about banning you but left it, but I change my mind. How about you take a month off, Infracted.

Eh?

tman

Just some dude who likes people to believe that they're a mod, despite the fact that they're obviously not...

seanybiker

tman wrote: »

Just some dude who likes people to believe that they're a mod, despite the fact that they're obviously not...

oh right, was kinda wondering what me man was on about meself.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fighting Irish wrote: »

what else do you want to censor?

Who else would you like to abuse?

Fighting Irish

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Who else would you like to abuse?

abuse?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fighting Irish wrote: »

abuse?

Yes, abuse. Unless you consider publishing unauthorised pictures of privcy invasion correct usage of usch material.

monument

askitnice wrote: »

have a look at the independant home page that is no far off shot. I know that I would recognise her in the street from the pictures.

A far off shot in that it was taken from far away from her.

I think the poster was implying that the subject was unlikely or less likely to see the photographer, thus lessening the invasion of privacy. I'd tend to agree, but whether it was still an invasion of privacy is still debatable.

Fighting Irish

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yes, abuse. Unless you consider publishing unauthorised pictures of privcy invasion correct usage of usch material.

I didn't take the pic