Should the general public be privy to photo's depicting Diana in her final moments of life?

Read about it here (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1267737,00.html)

From a personal perspective, I believe it is completely wrong. The media once again have taken a step too far, and C4 should have a very severe slap on the wrists for even thinking of airing it.

She has been dead 10 years this August and I for one do not wish to see her portrayed in this way.

Feel free to discuss away :biggrin: I do hope that we can have a good debate about this one!

I'm with you on this one, TF. It's been 10 years, and they keep digging it back up again and again, as is expected when it comes to the media. Sure, people are curious and want the details, but I think it's wrong. They can't even think about her poor sons. /whack the media.

Edit: I just saw this (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/wenn/20070528/ten-knightley-to-play-princess-diana-c60bd6d.html) on the front page of UK yahoo. Sorry, that's a bit unrelated.

Yeah. Enough is enough. Granted it's the ten year anniversary soon so you got to expect somethingin the media, but thats just morbid and serves no good purpose.
And it seems some 'new' revelation about her crops up ever few months, generally from some knob like Paul Burrell.
Don't get me wrong i'm not into the Royals nor was i big into Diana. But i do think her treatment since her death is all wrong and her family suffer because of it.

Why not? Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are some of the undeniable principles upon which society is built.

If their ability to produce and promulgate such material is withdrawn, then it is no longer a free state.

Privacy legislation provides:

"Every individual has a right to privacy comprising:

(a) a right to be free from harassment and molestation; and

(b) a right to privacy of personal information, communications, and documents."

But was any of this tragic incident actually ever going to be private? These people lead their lives in the full public view and in many cases it suits them to do so.

If people don't want to see it, they have a choice. If people do want to see it, they too have a choice. It's just like surfing the net. There is so much information (and indeed misinformation) available that you could probably search for and get a bunch of results on "Three Legged Donkeys Sex On A Barstool".

You have the choice - search and click the links you find - search and don't click the links you find - not search.

Regardless of how sad it is/was (and yeah sure she was a breath of fresh air in that stuffy monarchy) it's really about information availability and above all freedom of choice.

The world today has changed so much that we can get live updates on the war, beamed straight into our living rooms, from correspondents "embedded" with military units.

Do we complain about seeing dead bodies strewn throughout a recently bombed ♥♥♥♥hole in Iraq? Do we whine when they show the bodies in mass graves from the holocaust? Is it offensive that they show the dead students laying on the ground after the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings?

At the end of the day there are far worse images on the telly and the internet than those the British TV chose to promulgate of Diana. As far as they are concerned it's most likely about ratings - after all her funeral rated better than her wedding - and I'll warrant the latest offering rated better than Charles and the Horsey Looking Woman's wedding.

But the bottom line is you still have the freedom choice to view or not to view.

I kinda agree with BM. I also think she deserves respect, but don't pictures of bloody corpses and people dying get shown on TV, internet and news media every day? So it's ok to show people dying in rwanda and darfur, but not of a car crash that happened 10 years ago?

Quite simply what bothers me is that everyone who talks about her says "Rest in peace" and then they blatantly dig up some kind of crap about her that does the exact opposite!

Anything like this is instant paper fodder. I'd like to say as well, what is it with the media and "The People's <insert job title/legal title/expletive here" because I'd like to know what makes one person shine out from the others in the media other than simply being someone who's good for a story or a photograph.

What about the people who put in effort day in and day out to help save lives, like those in the fire brigade or ambulance service? They only get a mention when they go on strike. What about those people who do charity work regularly, going to places stricken by poverty and famine? Only if they've been in a film or on tv before. There are millions of people who every day do something important or worthwhile that we will never hear of and would find just as inspiring or important as someone who is/was famous. Surely a people's champion is someone who actually does something for people and isn't just doing it to gain a few more shots in a headline newspaper or on television!

OK, rant over. I should get on and do some work, really.

I may be in the minority here, but in response to BM and 2.0 I have to say I really hate seeing such images on the news or anywhere else. I find them shocking and disturbing and disrespectful. I don't want to see dead people anywhere, thanks!

There are some things in this life we should be allowed to do with some privacy where possible, and dying is one of them, imo. No-one NEEDS to see that, except possibly a criminal investigator. I find it completely ghoulish, no matter who it is. This is on reason I never put money into the pockets of people who make a living out of this by buying a newspaper.

I may be in the minority here, but in response to BM and 2.0 I have to say I really hate seeing such images on the news or anywhere else. I find them shocking and disturbing and disrespectful. I don't want to see dead people anywhere, thanks!

There are some things in this life we should be allowed to do with some privacy where possible, and dying is one of them, imo. No-one NEEDS to see that, except possibly a criminal investigator. I find it completely ghoulish, no matter who it is. This is on reason I never put money into the pockets of people who make a living out of this by buying a newspaper.

I see your point, I don't like to see it either. I get enough guts and bloody live dissections in my line of work as it is. Perhaps a ban on such images altogether? But then again, we could just not watch, so perhaps a warning that nasty pictures or footage is coming up if they're going to show such images.

You're absolutely right Vik - that's why I choose not to watch those things anyway - I see enough ugliness in my job. Some stuff you just never get used to. Like Paris Hilton - now THAT is somethingthat should NOT be on telly!