Is this our Paddy? (aka PCPhoto)

AnimalRights

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4679621/andy-carroll-hammers-photographer.html

I am 99% sure it is him.

AnimalRights

It is, I just found his website, same surname.

challengemaster

The one and only....

That had to hurt! Messed with the wrong person this time though. PCP isn't one to back down...

Saint_Mel

Just heard it on the radio this morning and thought it was him straight away

Hope your Ok Paddy

tororosso

Yeah I saw that last night and was going to post up a thread but thought better of it in case it wasn't him. Newspaper was shown on the Vincent Brown show last night. Were the Gardai involved?

basill

So in a nutshell...........a papp gets done over for taking a photo without the permission of the said person.......

5uspect

basill wrote: »

So in a nutshell...........a papp gets done over for taking a photo without the permission of the said person.......

Permission?
Why would you need permission to take photographs in a public place?

tororosso

basill wrote: »

So in a nutshell...........a papp gets done over for taking a photo without the permission of the said person.......

There is no excuse for gouging somebody's eye and a photographer is entitled to take a photo of a celebrity in a public place. However from the gist of your post I think it could open a discussion on photographers and their behaviour in public. Is the real issue not that Carroll was supposed to be injured and using a crutch but was seen without it later on and he got annoyed over that!?

Matt_Trakker

I've no sympathy for any pap that get's a hiding. Ever.
Pap's are the lowest of the low. No time for them at all. Not photographers in any sense of the word. Point-and-shoot is all they do.

He said: “I didn’t provoke it. I was doing my job.”

Yea, actually you did.

Kenny Logins

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I've no sympathy for any pap that get's a hiding. Ever.
Pap's are the lowest of the low. No time for them at all. Not photographers in any sense of the word. Point-and-shoot is all they do.


Yea, actually you did.

I bet you still buy the papers these glorified thugs appear in though, right?

Paulw

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I've no sympathy for any pap that get's a hiding. Ever.
Pap's are the lowest of the low. No time for them at all. Not photographers in any sense of the word. Point-and-shoot is all they do.

That "pap" is a boards member, an active member in the boards photography section, and is a full time professional photographer, who covers sport, courts, news stories, and in this instance was sent to cover this event.

Paddy is certainly not a point and shoot photographer.

Splinters

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I've no sympathy for any pap that get's a hiding. Ever.

So you're prepared to overlook the thug who commited an assault because the victim was a pap? If you're in the habit of passing the blame then why stop there...why not overlook the photographer and blame the papers who pay money for these kind of pictures. But then why stop there, why not blame the public, for turning these morons into celebrities who sell newspapers. After all if this was some taxi driver or civil servant out on the town who'd give a rats?

The simple fact is, somebody was assaulted in an unprovoked attack. Somebody doing a perfectly legal, tax paying job, whether or not you agree with the ethics, is NOT justifiable provocation.

Matt_Trakker

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I've no sympathy for any pap that get's a hiding. Ever.
Pap's are the lowest of the low. No time for them at all. Not photographers in any sense of the word. Point-and-shoot is all they do.


Yea, actually you did.

When you become a celebrity, by any means (sports, acting, singing, etc.) then you accept that this is part of the lifestyle that goes hand in hand with that.

From what I can see, the incident occurred because the footballer suddenly didn't need his leg wrapped up, obviously wasn't expecting a photographer to catch him, got annoyed, and decided the best course of action was to assault the photographer (turning a non-story into a case of criminal assault).


If there weren't photographers, there'd be no news. People love to take this high-horse about photographers/journalists/etc. but are the first to rush out and buy the papers/magazines, or search online for all these stories.


If Paddy got a stiletto in the eye because he was hiding underneath Jordan's bed waiting to get a tit shot, then yeah, I'd agree that he was asking for it. Standing in a public road taking photographs of people, who are also in a public place is fine by me. If that person's a celebrity they should well expect it.


I notice that, in that article, none of the footballers seem upset that there's a photographer there for their group shot!

Matt_Trakker

Kenny Logins wrote: »

I bet you still buy the papers these glorified thugs appear in though, right?

You lose that bet

Paulw wrote: »

That "pap" is a boards member

So? Sure that footballer could be one too, that means nothing.
If he's so experienced then he shouda known not to approach a drunk footballer at 2am trying to get a photo of him 'faking' injury.

Splinters wrote: »

why not overlook the photographer and blame the papers who pay money for these kind of pictures. But then why stop there, why not blame the public, for turning these morons into celebrities who sell newspapers.

I do. Society just gets dumber and dumber coz they insist on believing the crap they see and read in these 'newspapers'

Deleted User wrote: »

When you become a celebrity, by any means (sports, acting, singing, etc.) then you accept that this is part of the lifestyle that goes hand in hand with that.

No, I doubt you do. Most footballers just want to be footballer, y'know, play football and not be harrassed by 'photographers' when they're out on the tear with their colleagues.

Deleted User wrote: »

If there weren't photographers, there'd be no news.

Now, that just ain't true. Were there newspapers before photography was invented? Also a pap isn't a photojournalist. This is photojournalism, http://lightbox.time.com/2011/12/19/times-best-photojournalism-of-2011/#1 what this chap was doing outside coppers wasn't.

Imagine for a second someone taking a photo of you when you're the worse for wear after your xmas party, would you be happy? I'm sure you'd be delighted.

What Carrol done was wrong, OK, it was illegal and wrong and he'll doubthlessly have to appear in court and he'll get away with it coz he's a 'celebrity' (even though he's actually a footballer and not a celebrity at all at all). But what this pap did wasn't exactly savoury too. And sure it's not like he got the sh!te beat out of him, it's just a black eye.

Paulw

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

If he's so experienced then he shouda known not to approach a drunk footballer at 2am trying to get a photo of him 'faking' injury.

But a photojournalist takes photos of things that are newsworthy, such as a footballer faking an injury. :rolleyes:

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Imagine for a second someone taking a photo of you when you're the worse for wear after your xmas party, would you be happy? I'm sure you'd be delighted.

I wouldn't be worth photographing after a night out. Nothing newsworthy there. Even if I was photographed, I wouldn't be that bothered, and I certainly wouldn't go assault someone.

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

What Carrol done was wrong, OK, it was illegal and wrong and he'll doubthlessly have to appear in court. But what this pap did wasn't exactly savoury too. And sure it's not like he got the sh!te beat out of him, it's just a black eye.

Yes, what Carrol did was wrong. But, what Paddy did was well within the law, and something that any celeb should be used to, including football players.

Maybe next time someone beats you and gives you a black eye you will have a little sympathy.

Splinters

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Most footballers just want to be footballer, y'know, play football and not be harrassed by 'photographers' when they're out on the tear with their colleagues.

Come on, everybody knows the frenzy and attention that surrounds professional footballers on that level. Dont get me wrong I dont think many of us would turn down that amount of money if it was offered to us but its very obvious what comes hand in hand with that.

I do think paps can be guilty over over stepping the line at times when it comes to taking shots of people in the privacy of their homes etc. But in this case its not like he was hiding up a tree to get the shot. The lad was on the street outside a pub where it appears this footballer moron took objection to being photographed out without his leg brace.

Maybe, and I know this is a mad idea, but maybe if he didnt want to be photographed without it for whatever reason (I cant say I know anything about his injury, and dont care enough to google it) then would it not have made more sense to just not go out, rather then try to attack a person who is ultimately just doing his job by photographing him. I mean this is hardly the first time this guy has been photographed in public, surely this isnt new to him.

the_syco

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

And sure it's not like he got the sh!te beat out of him, it's just a black eye.

If the scum had pressed any harder, Paddy would be blind in one eye.

You may remeber the rugby player loses sight in alleged eye-gouging

I hope Andy Carroll gets thrown into prison for a year or so.

Matt_Trakker

Paulw wrote: »

But a photojournalist takes photos of things that are newsworthy, such as a footballer faking an injury. :rolleyes:

No, it's not newsworthy. Footballers aren't even celebrities. I wish people would realise that. Yea, they are sports stars but that's all, nothing more.

Paulw wrote: »

I wouldn't be worth photographing after a night out. Nothing newsworthy there. Even if I was photographed, I wouldn't be that bothered, and I certainly wouldn't go assault someone.

You might.

Paulw wrote: »

Paddy did was well within the law

Just because something is OK within the law doesn't really mean that it's OK...see property developers, bank chairmans etc. They all acted within our laws, so I guess that's why they got away with everything & it's fine and dandy with you?

Paulw wrote: »

Maybe next time someone beats you and gives you a black eye you will have a little sympathy.

Are you threatening me?
Naw, I'm a lover not a fighter, haven't been in a physical row since I was in secondary school.

Splinters wrote: »

Dont get me wrong I dont think many of us would turn down that amount of money if it was offered to us but its very obvious what comes hand in hand with that.

I don't agree with that. Other than a few footballers, like Beckham, Ashley Cole, Giggs, Rooney, the vast majority are not fame hungry celeb wannabes.
Why does the media pick on Carroll? He's just a kid really, what age is he? 22 or 23 something like that?

Splinters wrote: »

Maybe, and I know this is a mad idea, but maybe if he didnt want to be photographed without it for whatever reason (I cant say I know anything about his injury, and dont care enough to google it) then would it not have made more sense to just not go out, rather then try to attack a person who is ultimately just doing his job by photographing him. I mean this is hardly the first time this guy has been photographed in public, surely this isnt new to him.

I would presume that he didn't think that going to his work xmas party in a foreign country would entail having paps trying to photograph him coming out of a night club drunk. Would you miss your xmas party coz you'd a (insert injury)? Miss all that free booze & grub? Ya would yea :P

Matt_Trakker

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

No, I doubt you do. Most footballers just want to be footballer, y'know, play football and not be harrassed by 'photographers' when they're out on the tear with their colleagues.

Of course you do! If they just want to play football then there's plenty of football pitches around the place. However if they want to make hundreds of thousands of Euro and 'follow the dream' then they accept there is a trade-off and with that comes a level of celebrity wherein you accept that you'll be approached by fans a lot, signing autographs a lot and, yes, be photographed a lot.

Now, that just ain't true. Were there newspapers before photography was invented? Also a pap isn't a photojournalist. This is photojournalism, http://lightbox.time.com/2011/12/19/times-best-photojournalism-of-2011/#1 what this chap was doing outside coppers wasn't.

But that link has photographs of people after they've been horrifically injured. Surely it's more ethically wrong to take those photos, as those people aren't celebrities and are just trying to survive their day to day lives?

Imagine for a second someone taking a photo of you when you're the worse for wear after your xmas party, would you be happy? I'm sure you'd be delighted.

Probably wouldn't pass any remarks. There's no outlet for that photograph where anybody would care. If I was a celebrity, then I'd either be annoyed that I was unlucky enough to be caught in such a situation, or I'd have a bit more decorum and realise that there'll be people waiting to shoot me, and therefore try not to put myself in a situation where I'll be so annoyed that I'd physically attack someone.


I'm not a celebrity, but I know that if I was, I'd be getting photographed a lot. I know that now, before the opportunity to become a celebrity exists. So if someone turns to me tomorrow and says "argh, DeNiro pulled out, want to take his place in this new big budget film?", I know that I can take the money, but I also know that a celebrity status comes with that decision. It's up to the individual to act professionally throughout.

What Carrol done was wrong, OK, it was illegal and wrong and he'll doubthlessly have to appear in court and he'll get away with it coz he's a 'celebrity' (even though he's actually a footballer and not a celebrity at all at all). But what this pap did wasn't exactly savoury too. And sure it's not like he got the sh!te beat out of him, it's just a black eye.

But he is a celebrity. He has chosen to play football for a certain team that perform in front of a certain amount of people because he wants to make a certain amount of money (i say "certain" because he's obviously made these decisions, but the also apply to other football teams too, of course).

I don't begrudge anyone a living - If he wants to play football then that's his business. But if he wants to play football and make a living from it, then he has to play in front of lots of people. And this creates a celebrity status. He has opted into it and should respect it.

Teferi

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Society just gets dumber and dumber coz

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

dumber and dumber coz

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

coz

Quite.

Splinters

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Why does the media pick on Carroll? He's just a kid really, what age is he? 22 or 23 something like that?

Yep whenever I want to live a quiet life under the radar I go around assaulting photographers too.

As already pointed out, none of the team were objecting to the group pic of them all out on the town, but when the it didnt suit him because it highlighted his apparent fake injury he turned into a thug. Very suprised to see any rational person attempt to defend this.

Cienciano

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I've no sympathy for any pap that get's a hiding. Ever.
Pap's are the lowest of the low. No time for them at all. Not photographers in any sense of the word. Point-and-shoot is all they do.


Yea, actually you did.

Strange moral compass you have. Sympathy lies with the guy that assaults someone. Last person Andy Carroll beat up outside a nightclub was a woman. Suppose she deserved that too if she dared take a photo of him.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andy-carroll-paid-compo-to-woman-262349
Yes, poor andy carroll, he's the victim here again :rolleyes:

EyeBlinks

Get well soon Paddy.

kensutz

Jesus the trolls are out in force today.

amiable

It must be true. It's in The Sun

Matt_Trakker

Teferi wrote: »

Quite.

coz, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coz#Etymology_1

Cienciano wrote: »

Strange moral compass you have. Sympathy lies with the guy that assaults someone. Last person Andy Carroll beat up outside a nightclub was a woman. Suppose she deserved that too if she dared take a photo of him.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andy-carroll-paid-compo-to-woman-262349
Yes, poor andy carroll, he's the victim here again :rolleyes:

Shoulda known better than to bother. You're all mates with this pap chap so not like you'll ever say that he shouldn't have been takin pics of some random drunk footballer.

I don't symphatise with the pap, but I also don't think what Carroll did was right.
I think he shouldn't have been takin photos, simple as that. The team photo has no relevance whatsoever. It was taken long before it and it was planned obviously. Nothing at all to do with what happened a few hours later.

Hitting a random woman and hitting some chap with a nikon in your face are two very very different things.

Paulw

amiable wrote: »

It must be true. It's in The Sun

It's also in the Independent - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/liverpool-striker-andy-carroll-probed-over-claim-of-assault-in-dublin-3315602.html

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Shoulda known better than to bother. You're all mates with this pap chap so not like you'll ever say that he shouldn't have been takin pics of some random drunk footballer.

Again, Paddy is not a pap, he's a photojournalist.

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I also don't think what Carroll did was right.

But yet you continue to defend him. :rolleyes:

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I think he shouldn't have been takin photos, simple as that. The team photo has no relevance whatsoever. It was taken long before it and it was planned obviously.

Why should he not be taking photos? As for the team shot, it was taken by Paddy too. Same photographer, same night, unplanned.

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Hitting a random woman and hitting some chap with a nikon in your face are two very very different things.

Paddy uses Canon, not nikon. And, it shows that after a few drinks, Andy Carrol can be aggressive towards anyone he doesn't like, camera or no camera. Again, assault is considered news.

Matt_Trakker

Paulw wrote: »

Again, Paddy is not a pap, he's a photojournalist.

We differ quite a lot on that.

Paulw wrote: »

But yet you continue to defend him. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Just defending his right to not be pestered by paps when he's on a night out.

Paulw wrote: »

Why should he not be taking photos? As for the team shot, it was taken by Paddy too. Same photographer, same night, unplanned.

So, if his job was done why the fuq didn't he just go home and submit his photos? Looks to me that he may have hung around to start some sh!t and get some action.

Paulw wrote: »

Paddy uses Canon, not nikon.

Cool story, bro

Paulw wrote: »

And, it shows that after a few drinks, Andy Carrol can be aggressive towards anyone he doesn't like, camera or no camera. Again, assault is considered news.

Now, that's a story, young under-talented english footballer battles with drink. Photographing an under-talented footballer as he leave Coppers isn't.

amiable

Paulw wrote: »

It's also in the Independent - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/liverpool-striker-andy-carroll-probed-over-claim-of-assault-in-dublin-3315602.html



Again, Paddy is not a pap, he's a photojournalist.



But yet you continue to defend him. :rolleyes:




Why should he not be taking photos? As for the team shot, it was taken by Paddy too. Same photographer, same night, unplanned.



Paddy uses Canon, not nikon. And, it shows that after a few drinks, Andy Carrol can be aggressive towards anyone he doesn't like, camera or no camera. Again, assault is considered news.

Again its alleged it happened.

"Paddy" works for in my opinion the worst rag out there. You can understand why people would consider him "pap".

Cienciano

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

coz, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coz#Etymology_1



Shoulda known better than to bother. You're all mates with this pap chap so not like you'll ever say that he shouldn't have been takin pics of some random drunk footballer.

I don't symphatise with the pap, but I also don't think what Carroll did was right.
I think he shouldn't have been takin photos, simple as that. The team photo has no relevance whatsoever. It was taken long before it and it was planned obviously. Nothing at all to do with what happened a few hours later.

Hitting a random woman and hitting some chap with a nikon in your face are two very very different things.

The 2 assaults have something in common. First, Andy Carroll is an agressive drunk. Secondly, he thinks it's ok to hit anyone that "annoys" him. To me he's no different to any scumbag down the pub that hits someone because they spilled their pint.
And for the record, I don't know PCphoto and rarely, if ever post on the photography section.
There's nothing wrong with taking photos in a public place, if you're famous and don't want the limelight, do what 99% of the footballers that are never photographed in public do and go out the back door to a waiting taxi.

amiable

Cienciano wrote: »

The 2 assaults have something in common. First, Andy Carroll is an agressive drunk. Secondly, he thinks it's ok to hit anyone that "annoys" him. To me he's no different to any scumbag down the pub that hits someone because they spilled their pint.
And for the record, I don't know PCphoto and rarely, if ever post on the photography section.
There's nothing wrong with taking photos in a public place, if you're famous and don't want the limelight, do what 99% of the footballers that are never photographed in public do and go out the back door to a waiting taxi.

I've not seen anyone say that if Andy Carroll did do it then it was ok or acceptable.
Sun employees always behave to a high moral and legal standard of course.
Funny you call/imply someone a scumbag while talking so heroically about something to do with The Sun

Paulw

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Just defending his right to not be pestered by paps when he's on a night out.

What pestering? You are making assumptions with no basis for it.

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

So, if his job was done why didn't he just go home and submit his photos? Looks to me that he may have hung around to start some sh!t and get some action.

Who said his job was done? Again, you're making assumptions. Hung around to start something? Seems to me that his assignment was to get photos of the night (which would include the start and end of the night). The other players had no issue, were happy to pose for the group photo, and I gather Paddy would also have images of them leaving the club too.

If you knew Paddy, which you clearly don't, you would know that he doesn't start stuff. He is a quiet guy who does his job well. He has been in the photography business for a good number of years, as a professional press photographer. You will find his work in many papers - Irish Times, Independent, Herald, as well as Sun, Star, Mirror, etc, depending on his assignments.

Matt_Trakker

Paulw wrote: »

If you knew Paddy, which you clearly don't, you would know that he doesn't start stuff. He is a quiet guy who does his job well. He has been in the photography business for a good number of years, as a professional press photographer. You will find his work in many papers - Irish Times, Independent, Herald, as well as Sun, Star, Mirror, etc, depending on his assignments.

I fail to see what knowing this Paddy chap has to do with anything?

Paulw wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with taking photos in a public place, if you're famous and don't want the limelight, do what 99% of the footballers that are never photographed in public do and go out the back door to a waiting taxi.

Ah yes, many a times, I've gone out the back door of Coppers to an awaiting taxi...it's funny how the taxi gets there though when you consider that the back door of Coppers leads out to an enclosed space. :eek:

Andy agreed to have a number of pictures taken at the request of a photographer who was waiting on the street.

Despite this, the photographer then carried on taking photos in the close proximity of Andy and was politely asked to stop by the private security team working on the trip. When he then continued taking more photos he was restrained by the security team for Andy’s safety.

Eyewitnesses state at no point was there any physical contact between Andy and the photographer. The Garda took statements from the group back at the hotel and no further action was taken.

source
So you can belive the Sun, that he works for, the Irish Indo, or the English Daily Mail.
Tough choices I know, but I reckon the vast majority of everything written in all 3 is BS.

Cienciano

amiable wrote: »

I've not seen anyone say that if Andy Carroll did do it then it was ok or acceptable.
Sun employees always behave to a high moral and legal standard of course.
Funny you call/imply someone a scumbag while talking so heroically about something to do with The Sun

If you're saying andy carroll was completely wrong, why are you arguing? That's what everyone else is saying too.
As for the company someone works for is immoral, what difference does that make? What laws was he breaking?
There's nothing wrong with taking a photo in a private place.

amiable

Cienciano wrote: »

If you're saying andy carroll was completely wrong, why are you arguing? That's what everyone else is saying too.
As for the company someone works for is immoral, what difference does that make? What laws was he breaking?
There's nothing wrong with taking a photo in a private place.

Please read my post again as you seem to have read it incorrectly or perhaps read what you wanted to read?

Melion

I hope this goes some way to stopping this kind of scumbag behaviour, fcking paparazzi thinking they can get away with whatever they like.

Effects

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I fail to see what knowing this Paddy chap has to do with anything?

It has everything to do with it. People stick up for their mates. He's a decent and nice dude. He's doing his job. He probably would prefer to be covering something else but people have to pay the bills. It's no reason to assault him. It's pretty obvious this footballer is question is a scum bag.

Cienciano

amiable wrote: »

Please read my post again as you seem to have read it incorrectly or perhaps read what you wanted to read?

I read it. It was badly made and irrelevant. Where did I make out that the guy was a hero? Why is it funny for me to call a woman beating drunk a "scumbag" because you don't like the company he works for?

Anyway, I hope PCphoto charges andy carroll and he gets punished for his scumbag actions. Just because you're famous and don't want your photo taken doesn't give you the right to punch people doing a days work.

Melion

Effects wrote: »

It has everything to do with it. People stick up for their mates. He's a decent and nice dude. He's doing his job. He probably would prefer to be covering something else but people have to pay the bills. It's no reason to assault him. It's pretty obvious this footballer is question is a scum bag.

Paparazzi, ALL OF THEM, are the scum bags. Dont try and kid yourself otherwise because you know this guy.

Great photography :rolleyes:

amiable

Cienciano wrote: »

I read it. It was badly made and irrelevant. Where did I make out that the guy was a hero? Why is it funny for me to call a woman beating drunk a "scumbag" because you don't like the company he works for?

Anyway, I hope PCphoto charges andy carroll and he gets punished for his scumbag actions. Just because you're famous and don't want your photo taken doesn't give you the right to punch people doing a days work.

So it all definitely happened the way a papparazzi photographer who works for The Sun of all papers alleges?
If Andy Carroll assaulted someone I hope he is dealt with by the law properly.

The bit in bold makes no sense. Ironic really considering

magicbastarder

is it right to punch someone taking your photo? no.

is standing outside a nightclub waiting to take photos of celebrities an honourable profession? different debate.

some people seem to be confusing the two.

Melion

magicbastarder wrote: »

is it right to punch someone taking your photo? no.

is standing outside a nightclub waiting to take photos of celebrities an honourable profession? different debate.

some people seem to be confusing the two.

If someone was hounding me while i was on a work night out then it would take a lot of restraint for me not to do something to him.

amiable

magicbastarder wrote: »

is it right to punch someone taking your photo? no.

is standing outside a nightclub waiting to take photos of celebrities an honourable profession? different debate.

some people seem to be confusing the two.

I think some people have heard one side of the story and have taken the word of a ''Pap'' as gospel.
Even ''scumbags'' deserve to give their side of the story and fair treatment.

Vanolder

Being photographed maybe part and parcel of being a celeb.. But the people that feed off celeb culture and the rags they represent deserve everything they have coming to them. These people set the tone in papers as to what we deem important or news worthy, if they raised the bar a little then some of the mindless who read these rags may raise their aspirations also. Instead these bottom feeders think following a footballer around becuae he is not usuing a crutch when he should be is news. This is the same culture that thinks it's ok to tap phones, it's sick and I dont care if the guy posts here or donates to charity in his spare time- I'm not excusing the violence, but I have no sympathy for the injured party either.

amiable

Is this the same Paddy?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79760997&postcount=23

dirtyghettokid

Melion wrote: »

Paparazzi, ALL OF THEM, are the scum bags. Dont try and kid yourself otherwise because you know this guy.

please refrain from using terms like the above. there's no need for it. please keep this discussion going in a civil matter!

Splinters

Vanolder wrote: »

But the people that feed off celeb culture and the rags they represent deserve everything they have coming to them.

Vanolder wrote: »

I'm not excusing the violence

Thats funny, it sounds like thats exactly what you're doing.

I think people really need to make the distinction between a photojournalist and a paparazzi. He wasnt climbing some tree outside the guys house to get a shot. He was in a public place and had every right to take those pictures. It doesnt matter if you don't agree...luckily theres this thing called the law which supersedes the narrow minded opinions of some people on here.

Splinters

magicbastarder wrote: »

is it right to punch someone taking your photo? no.

is standing outside a nightclub waiting to take photos of celebrities an honourable profession? different debate.

some people seem to be confusing the two.

Could not agree more with this.

Hold on, how does anyone know he was punched?

amiable

rarnes1 wrote: »

Hold on, how does anyone know he was punched?

He doesn't even seem to have a black eye. Seems more like bloodshot to me.
It would appear that the truth is being exaggerated at the very least by some