I'm surprised at the amount of people sneering at him in this thread. I say good for him. I have seen the paparazzi at work and it's amazing they haven't caused someone to be crushed to death or somehow else killed. It's not as simple as someone who wants to be famous needing to suck it up. The paps are a genuine danger to people and it's disgusting there aren't tougher regulations against them. I've seen and heard of absolutely horrendous behaviour from the paps and I don't know how they get away with what they do. It's good to see a celebrity taking a stand and I hope more will in the future. Not all celebs want to "play the game" as it were.
the other side of the coin, however, is that if there wasn't an over-hyped market for what the paparazzi sell, there wouldn't be such a feeding frenzy, and therefore media, publicists, and the artists themselves are all to some extent complcit in creating the conditions for such egregious behaviour to take hold.
As, also, are we the public, for buying so heavily into the hype that a vicious circle of ever-increasing intrusiveness develops.
Paps may be 'scum' but we must be counted amongst their 'enablers'
the other side of the coin, however, is that if there wasn't an over-hyped market for what the paparazzi sell, there wouldn't be such a feeding frenzy, and therefore media, publicists, and the artists themselves are all to some extent complcit in creating the conditions for such egregious behaviour to take hold.
As, also, are we the public, for buying so heavily into the hype that a vicious circle of ever-increasing intrusiveness develops.
Paps may be 'scum' but we must be counted amongst their 'enablers'
I think papping them in the street and at events is different from camping outside their front door. Whatever your job is people should be allowed down time
Much as I know many celebs want the attention- to be recognised, the money, the fame (or notoriety) and much as most of them revel in it, I'm glad Harry Styles has done this. The paps need to stop being so ruthlessly invasive. I understand that the fame-hungry sometimes bring unwanted attention upon themselves and can't always complain when they are shown in a negative light but some of the lengths the paps go to are not only ridiculous but dangerous and abusive.
Agree, I think he wants to be a singer but I don't think he's keen on the 'fame' side of it...he seems to be pretty pissed off with it all.
Ive yet to see any proof of "Paps" being camped outside his door,yet members here keep referring to it.Just because Harry Styles says they are?
Oh dear did you read the article. I quote
The injunction against "Paparazzi AAA and others" prevents them from pursuing the singer by car or motorcycle, placing him under surveillance, loitering or waiting within 50 metres of his place of residence to monitor his movements or take photos of him.
They don't just place injunctions because the person asks them to!
Ive yet to see any proof of "Paps" being camped outside his door,yet members here keep referring to it.Just because Harry Styles says they are?
Usually when he's in london there are pics of him just about everywhere he goes. The daily mail usually has articles of him doing things as tedious as using a cashpoint. If they weren't following him constantly from his home, how on earth would they know where he was?
I would have thought he would just enjoy his five minutes of fame. In five years time I doubt he will still be famous.
You might be right. They might have loyal fans once their popularity starts to decrease, but I don't think their current popularity will last for more than another 3-5 years. They'll know this though. They should continue touring while their popularity's this good. I don't mean touring constantly but the usual amount, with decent breaks.
I don't think anybody should put up with people constantly camped outside of their home for pictures or being chased by fast cars/motorbikes. I remember seeing a bit of that Britney: Off the Record documentary, and at times it looked genuinely frightening.
But there's also the other side of fame - there's so many rumours of celebs being in alleged 'showmances' with other celebs and the media being tipped off for photos.
I don't think anybody should put up with people constantly camped outside of their home for pictures or being chased by fast cars/motorbikes. I remember seeing a bit of that Britney: Off the Record documentary, and at times it looked genuinely frightening.
But there's also the other side of fame - there's so many rumours of celebs being in alleged 'showmances' with other celebs and the media being tipped off for photos.
Can a celeb really have it both ways?
American paps are different to UK.But you cant have a fast car chase unless both cars are going fast. If celeb is doing 30mph then not much of a chase.
There are many major well known celebs who are rarely if ever photographed walking down the street or shopping. Jay Z & Chris Martin travelled on the tube not a pap in sight.
Unfortunately we have dorks like Chantelle Houghton & Pete Andre who pretend they are constantly followed by the media, when they've paid to be snapped or photographed. It is these lower order cretins and their management who generate a culture of what certain photographers and reporters. Such as creating a story to match a photo.
The papers cry 'cover up' & 'we made them famous' but it's those very same papers that colluded with the celebs & management. Yet those papers will bang on about the truth!! Many editors of tabloids began their sewer life on the showbiz pages working with such characters as Max Clifford, so their standards aren't high, hence the all the phone hacking etc stories.
Yes there are major celebs taking the pith, such as Victoria Beckham not smiling on camera, it's her gimmick to get attention, and it works.
The cult of celeb is taken far too seriously and has become an industry itself generating people who don't act, sing or have business or academic success. Just know how to shag, put on weight and lose it again in time for the New Year DVD.
There is now a repertoire company of 'actors' who appear on so called reality shows.
If the paps & newspapers objected to Styles injunction they can go to court and provide evidence to have it overturned, but so far they haven't....mmmm.
the other side of the coin, however, is that if there wasn't an over-hyped market for what the paparazzi sell, there wouldn't be such a feeding frenzy, and therefore media, publicists, and the artists themselves are all to some extent complcit in creating the conditions for such egregious behaviour to take hold.
As, also, are we the public, for buying so heavily into the hype that a vicious circle of ever-increasing intrusiveness develops.
Paps may be 'scum' but we must be counted amongst their 'enablers'
I think this is really the thing people have to acknowledge.
The market is there. The paps can just say they are supplying demand for celebrity culture.
On a more mundane note, whilst all stars seem keen to court the paps when it suits them, it is possible Harry's actions were because the paps are becoming a general nuisance to his own neighbours who were also having their privacy intruded and children crossing the road might be affected by speeding vehicles, etc.
Liam Payne tweeted someone had tried to "force open" the balcony of his hotel room during their Australian tour in October.
Firstly I doubt a Paparazzi would be trying to force his door,as Liam has no idea who it is why does he mention it,trying to blame paps fro something a fan most likely achieved.
Louis Tomlinson reported they were under siege from photographers, saying: "It's a beautiful day and we can't leave the hotel."
Firstly I doubt a Paparazzi would be trying to force his door,as Liam has no idea who it is why does he mention it,trying to blame paps fro something a fan most likely achieved.
They want it both ways.It comes with being famous and earning millions they should quit bitching.
Please just give it up. Three people have responded to your last post about no proof of paps camping outside Harry's house and you haven't responded to say you got it wrong!
If you knew the whole story, it wasn't a pap but a fan who pinched his underwear from the balcony and was trying to prize open the door while he was asleep. Now that really is taking things too far!
I understand your point that they can't have it both ways BUT they shouldn't have to put up with paps crossing the line nor fans for that matter. These boys continually give to fans and paps on a daily basis so they deserve to be left alone on the very few days down time they get.
Please just give it up. Three people have responded to your last post about no proof of paps camping outside Harry's house and you haven't responded to say you got it wrong!
Missed the replies,I didnt get it wrong,the judge has issued a temporary "ban" until january to consider facts.
If you knew the whole story, it wasn't a pap but a fan who pinched his underwear from the balcony and was trying to prize open the door while he was asleep. Now that really is taking things too far!
I didnt say it WAS a pap,he was insinuating it was.No mention of it being a fan in the article.
I understand your point that they can't have it both ways BUT they shouldn't have to put up with paps crossing the line nor fans for that matter. These boys continually give to fans and paps on a daily basis so they deserve to be left alone on the very few days down time they get.
Plenty other celebs manage to have privacy on time off.Only see 1D complaining.
Plenty other celebs manage to have privacy on time off.Only see 1D complaining.
Well he obviously wasn't getting privacy, because even in the last few days the amount of pointless articles and papped pics of him out and about has gone down massively. As in, there aren't any. If other celebs are getting hassled to an unreasonable extent maybe they should complain. As I've said before, being a celebrity doesn't give anyone the right to invade your private life because you're somehow 'asking' for it.
I would have thought he would just enjoy his five minutes of fame. In five years time I doubt he will still be famous.
Have you ever seen how some paps behave? Whether a person wants a career in the public eye or not, there is no defending it. I continue to be surprised at the people in the thread who think the way paps behave is okay.
Firstly I doubt a Paparazzi would be trying to force his door,as Liam has no idea who it is why does he mention it,trying to blame paps fro something a fan most likely achieved.
Harry Styles has said via his lawyer that he is not trying to get a 'privacy order' or stopping fans taking pics in the street with him.
He makes himself available to his fans almost all of the time he's out and about.
This is about harrassment, likely danger to others and noise and activity near his HOME. Like being a danger to his neighbours.
Just because a bunch of you begrudge people a shot at privacy because you think they should 'suck it up' for being famous doesn't mean they, and their neighbours/other road users, should not be afforded the same basic decencies as road users/pedestrians we all enjoy.
I might not agree with how One D's mgmt go about things but these lads pay their taxes as well, you know!
Have you ever seen how some paps behave? Whether a person wants a career in the public eye or not, there is no defending it. I continue to be surprised at the people in the thread who think the way paps behave is okay.
I agree with this.
1D are completely not my cup of tea but they are young lads doing a job they love and deserve to live their lives without being hounded and harassed. Like them or not, these kids are not famous for bugger all z listers who have the paps on speed dial and they deserve to have a private life
1D are completely not my cup of tea but they are young lads doing a job they love and deserve to live their lives without being hounded and harassed. Like them or not, these kids are not famous for bugger all z listers who have the paps on speed dial and they deserve to have a private life
I'm not a huge fan of 1D either but I completely agree with you Blondie. I do get a feeling that if it was anyone other than Harry Styles who had won this order people would be a lot more supportive. I know people are very supportive of those like J.K Rowling and Johnny Depp for disallowing pictures of their children, and of Hugh Grant when he took on the hackers.
Comments
the other side of the coin, however, is that if there wasn't an over-hyped market for what the paparazzi sell, there wouldn't be such a feeding frenzy, and therefore media, publicists, and the artists themselves are all to some extent complcit in creating the conditions for such egregious behaviour to take hold.
As, also, are we the public, for buying so heavily into the hype that a vicious circle of ever-increasing intrusiveness develops.
Paps may be 'scum' but we must be counted amongst their 'enablers'
I think papping them in the street and at events is different from camping outside their front door. Whatever your job is people should be allowed down time
Agree, I think he wants to be a singer but I don't think he's keen on the 'fame' side of it...he seems to be pretty pissed off with it all.
Oh dear did you read the article. I quote
The injunction against "Paparazzi AAA and others" prevents them from pursuing the singer by car or motorcycle, placing him under surveillance, loitering or waiting within 50 metres of his place of residence to monitor his movements or take photos of him.
They don't just place injunctions because the person asks them to!
Usually when he's in london there are pics of him just about everywhere he goes. The daily mail usually has articles of him doing things as tedious as using a cashpoint. If they weren't following him constantly from his home, how on earth would they know where he was?
It's not hard to find if you know how to use a search engine
You might be right. They might have loyal fans once their popularity starts to decrease, but I don't think their current popularity will last for more than another 3-5 years. They'll know this though. They should continue touring while their popularity's this good. I don't mean touring constantly but the usual amount, with decent breaks.
But there's also the other side of fame - there's so many rumours of celebs being in alleged 'showmances' with other celebs and the media being tipped off for photos.
Can a celeb really have it both ways?
American paps are different to UK.But you cant have a fast car chase unless both cars are going fast. If celeb is doing 30mph then not much of a chase.
Unfortunately we have dorks like Chantelle Houghton & Pete Andre who pretend they are constantly followed by the media, when they've paid to be snapped or photographed. It is these lower order cretins and their management who generate a culture of what certain photographers and reporters. Such as creating a story to match a photo.
The papers cry 'cover up' & 'we made them famous' but it's those very same papers that colluded with the celebs & management. Yet those papers will bang on about the truth!! Many editors of tabloids began their sewer life on the showbiz pages working with such characters as Max Clifford, so their standards aren't high, hence the all the phone hacking etc stories.
Yes there are major celebs taking the pith, such as Victoria Beckham not smiling on camera, it's her gimmick to get attention, and it works.
The cult of celeb is taken far too seriously and has become an industry itself generating people who don't act, sing or have business or academic success. Just know how to shag, put on weight and lose it again in time for the New Year DVD.
There is now a repertoire company of 'actors' who appear on so called reality shows.
If the paps & newspapers objected to Styles injunction they can go to court and provide evidence to have it overturned, but so far they haven't....mmmm.
I think this is really the thing people have to acknowledge.
The market is there. The paps can just say they are supplying demand for celebrity culture.
On a more mundane note, whilst all stars seem keen to court the paps when it suits them, it is possible Harry's actions were because the paps are becoming a general nuisance to his own neighbours who were also having their privacy intruded and children crossing the road might be affected by speeding vehicles, etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25399724 Firstly I doubt a Paparazzi would be trying to force his door,as Liam has no idea who it is why does he mention it,trying to blame paps fro something a fan most likely achieved.
So nothing to do with this lot?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2474745/One-Directions-Harry-Styles-mobbed-Australian-fans.html
They want it both ways.It comes with being famous and earning millions they should quit bitching.
Please just give it up. Three people have responded to your last post about no proof of paps camping outside Harry's house and you haven't responded to say you got it wrong!
If you knew the whole story, it wasn't a pap but a fan who pinched his underwear from the balcony and was trying to prize open the door while he was asleep. Now that really is taking things too far!
I understand your point that they can't have it both ways BUT they shouldn't have to put up with paps crossing the line nor fans for that matter. These boys continually give to fans and paps on a daily basis so they deserve to be left alone on the very few days down time they get.
Plenty other celebs manage to have privacy on time off.Only see 1D complaining.
Well he obviously wasn't getting privacy, because even in the last few days the amount of pointless articles and papped pics of him out and about has gone down massively. As in, there aren't any. If other celebs are getting hassled to an unreasonable extent maybe they should complain. As I've said before, being a celebrity doesn't give anyone the right to invade your private life because you're somehow 'asking' for it.
Have you ever seen how some paps behave? Whether a person wants a career in the public eye or not, there is no defending it. I continue to be surprised at the people in the thread who think the way paps behave is okay.
Those were probably over obsessed 1D fans doing that, not paparazzi.
He makes himself available to his fans almost all of the time he's out and about.
This is about harrassment, likely danger to others and noise and activity near his HOME. Like being a danger to his neighbours.
Just because a bunch of you begrudge people a shot at privacy because you think they should 'suck it up' for being famous doesn't mean they, and their neighbours/other road users, should not be afforded the same basic decencies as road users/pedestrians we all enjoy.
I might not agree with how One D's mgmt go about things but these lads pay their taxes as well, you know!
I agree with this.
1D are completely not my cup of tea but they are young lads doing a job they love and deserve to live their lives without being hounded and harassed. Like them or not, these kids are not famous for bugger all z listers who have the paps on speed dial and they deserve to have a private life
I'm not a huge fan of 1D either but I completely agree with you Blondie. I do get a feeling that if it was anyone other than Harry Styles who had won this order people would be a lot more supportive. I know people are very supportive of those like J.K Rowling and Johnny Depp for disallowing pictures of their children, and of Hugh Grant when he took on the hackers.