You know she's right

[Daniel]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22310632-2,00.html

But I doubt a lot of people will come out and publicly agree with her.

[Dave B]

I've just been reading that same article in the Sunday Times, as it happens.

If it weren't for the fact that the GP is starting in ten minutes I'd post a huge diatribe about Diana, and yet I can't shake the feeling that it would make me somewhat hypocritical - wasting time complaining about what a waste of time celebrity obsession is.

[airshifter]

I think she's completely wrong myself.

If her claim is that Diana was a person falsely representing herself and seeking publicity, then she must have a problem with the fact that she is keeping the image of Diana alive by writing these articles.

Besides that, she must be wearing blinders. A person can do nothing of good these days and get publicity for it, and that was not the case with Diana.


In reality probably only Diana herself and maybe a handfull of her closest friends knew why she did things. It amazes me that the press can't accept that they don't know any more than the rest of us.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Germaine Greer is wrong again, and that is nothing new. She attacks Diana for trying to manipulate people to be famous and the "queen of hearts" If so, why would Diana tromp about Bosnia on the land mine campaign? Hardly a charity that is glamourous. As for her being naive if she didn't know what misery she was in marrying Charles, hell a lot of women are naive when they marry boobs. I thought that was one of the things Greer thought women shouldn't smarten up on. She is always dumping on how men control their women and women are naive. Diana should be a heroine to her because she overthrew the orthodoxy, dumped Charles and made herself the heroine in the PR battle.

No, Germaine Greer is dragging Diana through the mud because the reality is the feminism she espouses cant get traction with today's women, who go get jobs, prove themselves, and do what they want on their terms. Germaine loves to portray women as victims, but Diana took control of her life. The fact that the press made everything she did into a circus isn't her fault, it is the idiots that cant get enough of worrying about what someone else is doing....like Germaine Greer.

[Drew]

I get fed up of hearing about her all the time. It seems there is a story about her every week.

And Camilla must be something special in the sack :p :

[MadCat]

Germaine Greer can hardly talk about Diana "seeking applause" when she went on Celebrity Big Brother FFS, she's obviously the desperate one.

But, I do think the whole Diana saga that is in the media at the moment is f'in annoying. Its everything we've heard before and its getting tiresome.

[Daniel]

Germaine Greer is wrong again, and that is nothing new. She attacks Diana for trying to manipulate people to be famous and the "queen of hearts" If so, why would Diana tromp about Bosnia on the land mine campaign? Hardly a charity that is glamourous. As for her being naive if she didn't know what misery she was in marrying Charles, hell a lot of women are naive when they marry boobs. I thought that was one of the things Greer thought women shouldn't smarten up on. She is always dumping on how men control their women and women are naive. Diana should be a heroine to her because she overthrew the orthodoxy, dumped Charles and made herself the heroine in the PR battle.

No, Germaine Greer is dragging Diana through the mud because the reality is the feminism she espouses cant get traction with today's women, who go get jobs, prove themselves, and do what they want on their terms. Germaine loves to portray women as victims, but Diana took control of her life. The fact that the press made everything she did into a circus isn't her fault, it is the idiots that cant get enough of worrying about what someone else is doing....like Germaine Greer.

Errrrrr..... getting jobs and proving themselves is exactly what Greer was on about originally.

The thing is with Diana it's not so much her fault that she has this image. It's silly women that think she's some kind of goddess/role model.

Charles is considered to be an arse and he's never really done much wrong in my mind. Yet Diana was involved with a lot of men and just because she went around saying "ooh you've got AID's, that's nasty" or "ooh you lost your leg to a landmine, that's nasty" she's seen as some kind of heroine :mark: She's just some bint who dressed in boring and bland clothes who would on occasion go to Africa and say "Ooh that's terrible" :mark: Oh and she married the heir to the throne too.

Diana was the stereotypical woman (by that I don't mean all women are like that. Just the ones wanting to get away with murder while smelling like roses) that is just as bad if not worse as her husband in the way she contributed to the breakup but because she plays sweet and innocent the man is *******ised and she get cannonised.

[LotusElise]

I used to be a great admirer of Germaine Greer - the Celebrity BB thing pushed her down in my estimation, as have some of her more bizarre outbursts in the past couple of years. However, she's someone I still have a lot of time for and people are quick to criticise her for the sole reason that she's a feminist. Germaine moved on from the "victim" scenario years ago and she is definitely one of the more "accessible" feminist thinkers; a feminist woman who recognises that most women, herself included, love men and want to be with men, just on better terms than they are now.
In many ways she is right about Diana, who manipulated the most appalling scenarios to promote herself and had an awful habit of refusing to admit any fault in anything, ever. I think some of the naivety in the beginning was genuine, but after that, she must have known the score, unless she was extremely dim, she which she obviously wasn't.

[Hazell B]

... Diana, who manipulated the most appalling scenarios to promote herself and had an awful habit of refusing to admit any fault in anything, ever. I think some of the naivety in the beginning was genuine, but after that, she must have known the score, unless she was extremely dim, she which she obviously wasn't.

My view too.

A Royal journalist once told a story about Diana from the days Sarah Ferguson first came on the horizon. They had all been on holiday, skiing, when Fergie walked along the street with Prince Andrew behind Diana and Prince Charles past a collection of photographers. The camera clicked, then clicked harder for the first pictures of Sarah and Andrew together. Diana dropped Charles' hand as if electrocuted and went back and stood with the most photographed couple, leaving Charles alone.

The journalist thought this a sweet thing to do, as she was "adding her weight" to the new couple's relationship. Weight? No, image me thinks :mark:

Same sight, different views. Some adore her even now. Some see her as a fame-seeking clothes horse who did good to start with then discovered power for herself in those good deeds.

[BDunnell]

I used to be a great admirer of Germaine Greer - the Celebrity BB thing pushed her down in my estimation, as have some of her more bizarre outbursts in the past couple of years. However, she's someone I still have a lot of time for and people are quick to criticise her for the sole reason that she's a feminist. Germaine moved on from the "victim" scenario years ago and she is definitely one of the more "accessible" feminist thinkers; a feminist woman who recognises that most women, herself included, love men and want to be with men, just on better terms than they are now.
In many ways she is right about Diana, who manipulated the most appalling scenarios to promote herself and had an awful habit of refusing to admit any fault in anything, ever. I think some of the naivety in the beginning was genuine, but after that, she must have known the score, unless she was extremely dim, she which she obviously wasn't.

I agree with all of that, and the sentiments that Germaine Greer expressed. Diana's efforts to 'find a role' for herself may have been well-meant to some extent, but like many people, I find it hard to take seriously the notions either that it was all altruistic, or that she was in some way mould-breaking.

And as for the grief that everyone started expressing close on 10 years ago now, and will no doubt do again, like Dave, don't get me started...

[allycat228]

I never liked diana, i am sorry she died but that is mostly for her sons
I do think she was a user in the biggest sense of the word

[BDunnell]

I never liked diana, i am sorry she died but that is mostly for her sons
I do think she was a user in the biggest sense of the word

The foreign press has sometimes reported along similar lines, if you're referring to what I think you're referring to.

[Azumanga Davo]

I get fed up of hearing about her all the time. It seems there is a story about her every week.

And Camilla must be something special in the sack :p :

"Nice one, Ern, that put me off my dinner, that has." :D

[millencolin]

oh great, here we go again. Germaine greer is on her high horse talking crap. i still haven't forgive her for her attacks on Steve Irwin. Why does she only target dead people? is it because they can't speak back?

why hasn't anyone shot her yet?

[Daniel]

oh great, here we go again. Germaine greer is on her high horse talking crap. i still haven't forgive her for her attacks on Steve Irwin. Why does she only target dead people? is it because they can't speak back?

why hasn't anyone shot her yet?
All she said about Steve Irwin is that it was not surprising that he died how he did. Is it that hard to understand that someone who regularly plays with dangerous animals is in more danger than you or I who tend to stay away from dangerous animals? :rolleyes: If you don't understand that then there's little hope. Not everyone loved Steve Irwin. I thought he was OK but didn't like his style of presenting and the way he felt the need to interact with the animals and in many cases provoke them rather than just observing them like say David Attenborough would.

Irwin died ironically not prodding something dangerous that then went and killed him when all he seemed to do was prod crocodiles, snakes, spiders and the like telling us how dangerous they were and how they could kill you. Surely no one would be surprised to see that he died due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time with a dangerous animal.

Why is it that when a celebrity (Diana or Irwin for example) dies do they obtain immediate sainthood and no one is allowed to speak ill of them for fear of bogan retribution? She never expressed happiness at the death of either Diana or Steve so I fail to see the issue. It just seems that people like you will threaten her for having an opinion :rolleyes: Shooting someone for not living some guy in khaki shorts or someone who married Prince Charles is hardly mature now is it?

[Flat.tyres]

I think GG is a vile, venomous snake that courts colume inches for her own self serving ambition to promote herself.

I'm not going to defend Diana because she was a woman with a lot of problems but her Legacy, as in Life, has delivered great benefits to a lot of people.

Celebraties like GG and Diana have no interest for me but I respect the work Diana has done highlighting, and taking direct action, to help people around the globe that cannot help themselves. Much of that work continiews today.

That is her Legacy. What is Greers?

[Daniel]

I value commentators be they social or otherwise as much as the people in life themselves. That's why although I don't agree with everything Greer says and when she says things but her opinions are still a lot more interesting than that of most people on this planet :)

[LotusElise]

I think GG is a vile, venomous snake that courts colume inches for her own self serving ambition to promote herself.

She may have started courted the tabloids a little too often now, but her work in the field of women's rights is much more tangible than any "legacy" of Diana's, which, to me, appears to consist of a thriving souvenir business and lots of people who really need to move on.


That is her Legacy. What is Greers?

The Female Eunuch? The Whole Woman? More than one generation of women (although not all women, before the backlash starts) has sought strength and inspiration from Germaine's words.
You don't have to agree with her criticism of Steve Irwin to understand it, either. And it's worth noting that Germaine is something of a conservationist herself, having bought her own reserve in Queensland.

[Daniel]

She may have started courted the tabloids a little too often now, but her work in the field of women's rights is much more tangible than any "legacy" of Diana's, which, to me, appears to consist of a thriving souvenir business and lots of people who really need to move on.



The Female Eunuch? The Whole Woman? More than one generation of women (although not all women, before the backlash starts) has sought strength and inspiration from Germaine's words.
You don't have to agree with her criticism of Steve Irwin to understand it, either. And it's worth noting that Germaine is something of a conservationist herself, having bought her own reserve in Queensland.
:rotflmao: @ Diana's legacy :D All she did was go to unfortunate people and say "oooh that's not nice" or "ooh that's unfortunate"

If you want to see someone who's done a lot for people then look no further than Mother Theresa (sp?) or Bill Gates.

One devoted her life to helping the poor and the other has pumped a lot of money into charities to help people. Simply going around and shaking hands and appearing sympathetic is nothing compared to actually getting your hands dirty or giving millions to charity. If I was a starving child I wouldn't give a **** about someone caring about my plight. I'd want someone to either come and physicall help me or donate money so I can get fed. Anything else is just an attention grabbing waste of time.

[schmenke]

...If you want to see someone who's done a lot for people then look no further than Mother Theresa (sp?) or Bill Gates....

I was just about to ask where is the thread about Mother Theresa.

I agree, Diana's contributions towards helping children with AIDS or land mine victims are much overrated. She was very camera-friendly but I don't ever recall seeing her in full anti-blast gear, on her belly poking the ground with a stick :mark:

[Daniel]

I was just about to ask where is the thread about Mother Theresa.

I agree, Diana's contributions towards helping children with AIDS or land mine victims are much overrated. She was very camera-friendly but I don't ever recall seeing her in full anti-blast gear, on her belly poking the ground with a stick :mark:

:rotflmao:

Problem with Mother Theresa was that she wasn't an attention grabbing person who married into the royal family and she didn't sleep around and she made the mistake of actually making a practical difference to people's lives with what she did every day :(

[Flat.tyres]

:rotflmao:

Problem with Mother Theresa was that she wasn't an attention grabbing person who married into the royal family and she didn't sleep around and she made the mistake of actually making a practical difference to people's lives with what she did every day :(

I dont really agree with being so cruel about anyone that has died in this manner and think your callous tone reflects badly on you.

I know that Diana did a lot of good and I know she didn't go around laughing at other people and insulting them like you and Miss Greer.

She might have had problems and I'm not going to castigate her for her sex life. However, I bet if she was alive today, she would like to be more of a humanitarian like you Daniel.

Keep up the good work son. You're an inspiration to us all.

[Daniel]

I dont really agree with being so cruel about anyone that has died in this manner and think your callous tone reflects badly on you.

I know that Diana did a lot of good and I know she didn't go around laughing at other people and insulting them like you and Miss Greer.

She might have had problems and I'm not going to castigate her for her sex life. However, I bet if she was alive today, she would like to be more of a humanitarian like you Daniel.

Keep up the good work son. You're an inspiration to us all.
I'm not necessarily speaking ill of Diana. Merely the people who think she's some kind of saint who is worthy of their love and adoration.

Answer me this. Why when someone like Bill Gates devotes millions to charity is there no "love" and why when someone like Mother Theresa gives the whole of her life to helping people is there nowhere near enough the amount of love there should be? It's because they don't play the PR game and don't give a crap about it.

I don't make a song and dance about being a humanitatian and then do very little so don't try and bring me into it :)

Would it be OK for me to have the same attitude if she'd been executed for murdering someone? If she'd fallen and bumped her head? Please list the ways in which she could have died which would mean that I could legitimately voice a negative opinion without enduring your wrath.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What did people really want from Diana? She wasn't going to go out in the field with mine detector and blast gear on. The Royals would have had a conniption if she did that. Her main attraction was the glamour and attention she could bring just by showing up. The fact does remain however that she used her time and her name to promote these causes, and they were not glamourous causes nor were they being given a lot of support until she came along. People used to run from the whole idea of touching people with Aids, yet she was shown hugging them and holding their hands. She humanized a disease that had a lot of scary unknowns and mistruth's about it. On the land mines campaign, no one was paying it the attention it deserved until she went to Bosnia and forced the world to look at the consequences.

Listen, Diana was no saint, I have a problem with the myth making machine around her, but from all accounts, she was a good person, and had her faults, as we all do. From what I read, Charles has deserved all the abuse he got because the relationship was one he controlled for his uses, and that was to give him legitmacy and heirs while he continued to romp around with Charles. Diana being screwed over by Charles was everything Greer fought against, and for her to turn on Diana sounds like petty jealousy to me.

Germaine Greer is a big bag of hot air on this one, and for that matter, on Steve Irwin.

Steve Irwin's legacy touched more people and raised more awareness than the intellectual spin that Greer peddles, and as for Diana, well Diana took the one thing she could really use, and turned that spotlight onto causes that were not being given a fair shake. Doing the best with what you have is what it is called, and Greer just seems to have the ability to go after people after they are gone....not exactly a fair argument is it?

[Daniel]

Listen, Diana was no saint, I have a problem with the myth making machine around her, but from all accounts, she was a good person, and had her faults, as we all do. From what I read, Charles has deserved all the abuse he got because the relationship was one he controlled for his uses, and that was to give him legitmacy and heirs while he continued to romp around with Charles. Diana being screwed over by Charles was everything Greer fought against, and for her to turn on Diana sounds like petty jealousy to me.

Germaine Greer is a big bag of hot air on this one, and for that matter, on Steve Irwin.

Steve Irwin's legacy touched more people and raised more awareness than the intellectual spin that Greer peddles, and as for Diana, well Diana took the one thing she could really use, and turned that spotlight onto causes that were not being given a fair shake. Doing the best with what you have is what it is called, and Greer just seems to have the ability to go after people after they are gone....not exactly a fair argument is it?

Listen. She didn't even go after Steve Irwin. People mistook some comments that weren't sickeningly glowingly positive for an attack on the guy. I didn't particularly like the way he did what he did and if I was a public figure I would have said about the same as she did. I've always agreed that you shouldn't speak ill of the dead but she wasn't attacking him......

It's not so much Diana that people have a problem with. It's the fact that so many people look up to her as some kind of saintly figure and never stop thinking about her when really she was no better than a lot of people. It's people's inflated opinions of her as some kind of saintly figure.

My cat says Hi! Well Miaow actually!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Daniel, I didn't read her thoughts on Irwin, so I guess I will grant her the benefit of the doubt. As for her slagging people for keeping Diana's memory alive, it is a bit much, but it just boils down to the fact people just liked the glamour Diana had and envied the way she came back as a woman. Lets face it, she went through hell married to ole big ears there and had a ton of pressure on her. Yet she survived it all, and was starting to live a pretty free and emotionally rewarding life in the end when she died.

Greer can slag people for getting all weepy about it, but the fact is the lady mattered to people. Diana was an escape for some....who are we to criticize really? Heck, I was shocked as anyone when I found out she was on death's door and later when she died. It was a "where were you moment". (I was coming home from a race at Mosport and was on Regional Road 9 not 6km from the track..so THERE)

[Daniel]

Daniel, I didn't read her thoughts on Irwin, so I guess I will grant her the benefit of the doubt. As for her slagging people for keeping Diana's memory alive, it is a bit much, but it just boils down to the fact people just liked the glamour Diana had and envied the way she came back as a woman. Lets face it, she went through hell married to ole big ears there and had a ton of pressure on her. Yet she survived it all, and was starting to live a pretty free and emotionally rewarding life in the end when she died.

Greer can slag people for getting all weepy about it, but the fact is the lady mattered to people. Diana was an escape for some....who are we to criticize really? Heck, I was shocked as anyone when I found out she was on death's door and later when she died. It was a "where were you moment". (I was coming home from a race at Mosport and was on Regional Road 9 not 6km from the track..so THERE)

Here's the Steve Irwin article :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1865124,00.html

My cat's playing with a ball of wool now. I've tried to explain how important this is but she just won't pay attention!

[Daniel]

My cat's playing with a ball of wool now. I've tried to explain how important this is but she just won't pay attention!
In the words of that guy on that one episode of the Sweeney I saw a while ago "Shut it!"

Cat says Regan! Well Miaow actually... but I know what she means!

[BDunnell]

What did people really want from Diana? She wasn't going to go out in the field with mine detector and blast gear on. The Royals would have had a conniption if she did that. Her main attraction was the glamour and attention she could bring just by showing up. The fact does remain however that she used her time and her name to promote these causes, and they were not glamourous causes nor were they being given a lot of support until she came along. People used to run from the whole idea of touching people with Aids, yet she was shown hugging them and holding their hands. She humanized a disease that had a lot of scary unknowns and mistruth's about it. On the land mines campaign, no one was paying it the attention it deserved until she went to Bosnia and forced the world to look at the consequences.

Listen, Diana was no saint, I have a problem with the myth making machine around her, but from all accounts, she was a good person, and had her faults, as we all do. From what I read, Charles has deserved all the abuse he got because the relationship was one he controlled for his uses, and that was to give him legitmacy and heirs while he continued to romp around with Charles. Diana being screwed over by Charles was everything Greer fought against, and for her to turn on Diana sounds like petty jealousy to me.

Germaine Greer is a big bag of hot air on this one, and for that matter, on Steve Irwin.

Steve Irwin's legacy touched more people and raised more awareness than the intellectual spin that Greer peddles, and as for Diana, well Diana took the one thing she could really use, and turned that spotlight onto causes that were not being given a fair shake. Doing the best with what you have is what it is called, and Greer just seems to have the ability to go after people after they are gone....not exactly a fair argument is it?

Does any of this justify the horribly disturbing display of collective grief and, in my view, utter madness that swept through large parts of the UK after Diana's death, then, the vast majority of it on the part of people who never knew her and who probably never gave two hoots about AIDS or landmines? For me and many others, this was a genuinely disturbing time. It felt as though much of the UK had taken leave of its senses.

Cat's washing her face. How can I make her understand the importance of all this?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mr. Dunnell, don't most people overreact to celebrity death? We see ordinary people just go overboard. It is no different than the death of Dale Earnhardt or the death of Elvis. Some famous people trancend all logic. I don't blame Diana for that, I blame society for getting too caught up this form of escapism, but I know it is a bit shocking to see the UK go all goofy like that. Stiff upper lips must be in short supply now...

[Mark in Oshawa]

After reading Greer's article, she took some gratitious shots at Irwin because he liked Howard, and it is obvious that Greer doesn't like Howard (or Bush for that matter). She has a point, Irwin did probably poke or prod things a bit more than they would like, but please, you don't criticize the man for that if he turns a whole generation of people onto preserving animal habitats. His criticism of the croc zoo that he owns is a bit much in a world that if full of zoos which is where most of the endangered species are going to be protected.

Slagging the bloke after he did, and in the freak way he died is a bit much. Greer makes it sound he asked to get stung, but from all accounts, he was just swimming over top. No provoking.......

[Hazell B]

.... don't most people overreact to celebrity death? We see ordinary people just go overboard. I don't blame Diana for that, I blame society for getting too caught up this form of escapism ....

That's a large part of why I'm no fan of Diana's memory, though while she was alive she irritated me too. Thing is, I hadn't realised half of my dislike was down to the reactions of the media and a minority of sad, lonely people with nobody 'real' to care for. Ta for making me see that.

Daniel, before you go off on one about speaking ill or not of the dead, I suggest you re-read a certain George Best thread. Seem to remember a certain forum member's outrage at my dislike of that wife-beating waster ;)

As for Diana and her sleeping about, WTF? She probably slept with fewer people than the average! That's just being pointlessly picky mentioning her relationships. Why shouldn't she spend time with men? It stopped her prodding sick people and looking sad on TV for a few weeks, didn't it? Frankly if she'd been a raving nympho it would have been better for all of us :p :

[BDunnell]

Mr. Dunnell, don't most people overreact to celebrity death? We see ordinary people just go overboard. It is no different than the death of Dale Earnhardt or the death of Elvis. Some famous people trancend all logic. I don't blame Diana for that, I blame society for getting too caught up this form of escapism, but I know it is a bit shocking to see the UK go all goofy like that. Stiff upper lips must be in short supply now...

I don't actually see it as being a case of having a stiff upper lip — rather, of having normal human emotions. We had certainly never seen anything similar in the UK. As you say, in the USA, there had been prior examples, like the deaths of Elvis or Rudolf Valentino. But what I think may have been different in the aftermath of Diana's death was the way in which people who didn't buy into the mass grief were castigated for not feeling the same way as everyone else. Please correct me if this is wrong.

[Hazell B]

I sure as hell wasn't castigated for not caring either way.
Don't know anyone who was.

[BDunnell]

That's a large part of why I'm no fan of Diana's memory, though while she was alive she irritated me too. Thing is, I hadn't realised half of my dislike was down to the reactions of the media and a minority of sad, lonely people with nobody 'real' to care for.

I basically go along with this absolutely.

Added to this, the hypocrisy shown by large parts of the media and many prominent individuals after she died was nothing short of breathtaking, and when placed in the hands of Private Eye, very funny and more than a little controversial. It shouldn't have been, but this was another example of the way in which views that dissented from the 'norm' to any extent found themselves being the target of much criticism.

[LotusElise]

...while she was alive she irritated me too. Thing is, I hadn't realised half of my dislike was down to the reactions of the media and a minority of sad, lonely people with nobody 'real' to care for.

See also: Tim Henman. It was quite difficult to take him seriously at Wimbledon due to his erm, bizarre, fanbase and their behaviour.

[BDunnell]

I sure as hell wasn't castigated for not caring either way.
Don't know anyone who was.

There are all sorts of examples, in fact.

The way in which hardly any dissenting opinions not of Diana herself, but of the way in which her death was mourned, were allowed in much of the media illustrates the point in general terms. I mentioned Private Eye in my last post — it was banned from sale in many outlets not because it made fun of the fact that Diana had died, but because it dared to satirise the response to what had happened. In my view, it did so in a way that was far from distasteful and, more to the point, very necessary at a time when any opinion other than 'wasn't she wonderful' was being stifled by the media and the hypocrisy of certain commentators. The Guardian ran a brilliant piece not that long afterwards in which the views of various people who were criticised or had bad experiences for daring to voice contrary opinions were aired, for the first time in any of the mainstream newspapers. I am sure that similar stories of individuals being criticised or told to shut up by others when they did so were repeated around the country on an individual basis.

[Hazell B]

Well, in the real world of pubs, neighbours chatting and friends ringing up, nobody I know cared much about the whole thing - besides saying we were all sick of newspaper and TV coverage being 99% Diana fact and fiction.

I do know one person who went to the funeral and became a pile of gibbering wreck. But she's an idiot who makes sure everyone knows her daughter was raped whenever she's not the centre of attention, so we take no notice of her .... she's too lonely to worry about.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ya Ben, we always like to see satire on someone's life while they are laying in state. I think at some point, there has to be some sort of balance in the coverage. It was fawning and silly, but alas, that is because people don't seem to get how death should be treated anymore. People overreact to total strangers passing if they feel any connection. 50 years ago, it wasn't that way. Maybe it is a by-product of living in a society that is relatively safe compared to the WW2 generation's world.

[BDunnell]

Ya Ben, we always like to see satire on someone's life while they are laying in state.

What I was describing was not any form of satirisation of someone's life. This is a key point.


I think at some point, there has to be some sort of balance in the coverage. It was fawning and silly, but alas, that is because people don't seem to get how death should be treated anymore. People overreact to total strangers passing if they feel any connection. 50 years ago, it wasn't that way. Maybe it is a by-product of living in a society that is relatively safe compared to the WW2 generation's world.

I have no problem with different treatments of death in terms of the way in which, for example, funeral/memorial services are conducted on an individual level. That's a matter of choice, whether on the part of the dead person's prior wishes or those of their family or friends.

However, on the issue of well-known people dying, I think there's a lack of objectiveness and probably more than that. Why this is, I don't know. I wouldn't like to go back to old-fashioned stoicism in the face of any death, because I know that I'm an emotional person and couldn't always live up to that expectation, which certainly used to exist. But when it's someone I don't actually know, I don't understand why others have such deep feelings. I can only envisage being emotional about those I know personally.

[BDunnell]

Well, in the real world of pubs, neighbours chatting and friends ringing up, nobody I know cared much about the whole thing - besides saying we were all sick of newspaper and TV coverage being 99% Diana fact and fiction.

Well, in my case, it did happen amongst friends ringing each other up and talking about the absurdity of the whole thing, but I realise that different people had different experiences.

[Hazell B]

See also: Tim Henman. It was quite difficult to take him seriously at Wimbledon due to his erm, bizarre, fanbase and their behaviour.


Meant to reply to this earlier and forgot :rolleyes:

Isn't it funny how we quite like the comedy mob at the England cricket, yet dislike it when poor Henman is concerned. I'm no tennis fan, and again don't care either way for him, but also cannot for the life of me work out why he had this fanbase that were plainly living in a fantasy world :crazy:

On the Camilla in the sack question, as it happens I suspect she is rather eagre. Thanks to being in the right place at the right time and asking a question, I was invited to go Hunting with Prince Charles and Camilla from Sledmere Hall once. Didn't go, but a friend went instead of me and again several times by invite. He said she has the most wicked, dirty sense of humour of any woman he's met.
And he stood for the Tories, so he's met a few :laugh:

[BDunnell]

On the Camilla in the sack question, as it happens I suspect she is rather eagre. Thanks to being in the right place at the right time and asking a question, I was invited to go Hunting with Prince Charles and Camilla from Sledmere Hall once. Didn't go, but a friend went instead of me and again several times by invite. He said she has the most wicked, dirty sense of humour of any woman he's met.

Leaving aside her... er, 'abilities', I am sure that she is rather a good egg. I feel very sorry for the position she now finds herself in, basically through no fault of her own.

[Flat.tyres]

I'm not necessarily speaking ill of Diana. Merely the people who think she's some kind of saint who is worthy of their love and adoration.

Answer me this. Why when someone like Bill Gates devotes millions to charity is there no "love" and why when someone like Mother Theresa gives the whole of her life to helping people is there nowhere near enough the amount of love there should be? It's because they don't play the PR game and don't give a crap about it.

It seemed to me that you were pretty critical of the way she conducted her personal affairs and publicised her charity work.

As I said, I'm no particular fan of hers but I do recognise and respect the contribution she made and the visibility she gave to hitherto unfashionable charities.

Bill Gates has given a huge amount of money through his foundation and I respect that. He has not sought to use his wealth and power to publicise many of his causes but rather works in the background with his wife doing what he thinks is best. I also am happy to acknowledge the supurb humanitarian acts he has accomplished. Same with Mother Teressa.

Why then disrespect someone like Diana that used her profile and "celebrity" if you like to maximum effect. I agree, the way some people go OTT is quite sickening but their actions shouldn't detract from the womans good deeds, should they?


I don't make a song and dance about being a humanitatian and then do very little so don't try and bring me into it :)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about?


Would it be OK for me to have the same attitude if she'd been executed for murdering someone? If she'd fallen and bumped her head? Please list the ways in which she could have died which would mean that I could legitimately voice a negative opinion without enduring your wrath.


You didn't endure my wrath otherwise I wouldn't have bothered explaining myself further. You did create an impression on me that you were rather callous and judgemental which I hope is wrong and have given you the chance to rectify.

I think if it was Myra Hindley we were talking about, you would get no sympathy out of me for the woman and the only recognition of her action I would have would be entirely negitive.

BUT, we are talking about someone that made a real difference to a lot of people in a positive way. OK, she was no Mother Teressa but can't we acknowledge the good she did do and leave the woman in peace?
Just because the media spin some story up and make a bit hubaballoo over it isn't a reason to be hoodwinked like the masses and drawn into it ;)

[Dave B]

But what I think may have been different in the aftermath of Diana's death was the way in which people who didn't buy into the mass grief were castigated for not feeling the same way as everyone else. Please correct me if this is wrong.
Speaking of somebody who was trying to drive across north London - a route which meant using a bridge over the M1 - on the day of her funeral, I totally agree.

The police tried directing me to a car park, and when I explained that I didn't wish to park up and watch a hearse, rather I wanted to use a public road for the purpose it was built, I got a horrified response. Trying to cross a bridge blocked by hundreds of hysterical women (and a good few equally sad looking men) took an age, and at least one person asked me why I had no respect for the dead before I wound the window up and locked the doors.


OK, she was no Mother Teressa ...

Funny you should mention Mother Teresa, she died just a short time afterwards and in the UK at least you'd barely have noticed amid all the Diana hullaballoo [great word, that!]. She devoted her entire life to doing good work, back in a day when headlines were for news, not celebrities.

Diana did a decent bit for charity, don't get me wrong. but she's by no means unique. Charles quietly but loyally patronises The Princes Trust; Edward does work for the Duke of Edinburgh foundation. Princess Anne does a huge amount of work for Save The Children, but happens to have a face like a horse so rarely gets in the papers.

I'm just hoping that this 10-year memorial service will allow the nation to draw a line under the whole affair, but somehow I doubt it. Conspiracy theorists will bleat on about whatever useless crap they've just read in every Monday's Daily Express, al Fayed will continue to refuse to accept that one of his employees was fallible, the obsessives will still buy the limited edition plates from their Sunday suppliments.

To them I simply say this. It's been ten years. She's still dead. Get over it.

[BeansBeansBeans]

There's a great piece by Mark Steel in the Independant today. Sadly, it's highly inflammatory nature is likely to result in a bulging mailbag for him tomorrow morning.

[BDunnell]

There's a great piece by Mark Steel in the Independant today. Sadly, it's highly inflammatory nature is likely to result in a bulging mailbag for him tomorrow morning.

I read it on my way home. Thank goodness some people, and some media outlets, are willing to write and publish such things.

[Dave B]

The article can be found online here:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/mark_steel/article2903522.ece

I'm just having a look now.

[BDunnell]

Personally, I find Mark Steel's writing rather wearing to read, owing (as with many comedians who try their hand at such things) to the constant use of lines beginning 'It's as if...', or equivalent, in order to shoehorn jokes in. However, he does make me laugh, and it is good that there is still the odd left-wing firebrand around.