We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Nice one, ‘arry

So hapless Prince Harry takes a swing at some paparazzo who bashes him in the face with a camera, and the British press have apoplexy tut-tutting over his behaviour.

To use internet parlance, WTF? If some pushy bastard negligently clips you in the mouth with a camera whilst in search of a few quid, the correct response is to return the favour with interest. That is not ill-advised or thuggish or incorrect, it is an entirely appropriate means of male-to-male comminication at such a time. I am glad to see that there is a member of the royal family who actually has personality traits that approach those of the Crown’s normal everyday subjects.

It seem quite appropriate that not only should he not apologise for his reaction to the incident, he should be advising Christopher Uncle that if there is a next time, there should be some expectations of a royal boot in the bollocks as well.

23 comments to Nice one, ‘arry

  • Albion

    Quite so! It’s not like he set his minder on the bloke, he tried to sort him out himself! Respect, Harry!

  • Rowina

    it is an entirely appropriate means of male-to-male comminication

    So if a lady such as myself takes a swing in this situation, that would be inappropriate? Or reason to apologise?

  • I think the criteria for when it is appropriate to try and lay waste to a lady sets the bar quite a bit higher.

  • Jake

    Paparazzos are the scum of the earth. They now regularly violently attack celebrities. If the celebrity responds with force, the resulting picture is worth over 10,000 pounds. Plus they get to sue the celebrity.

    It is essential for celebrities to have bodyguards at all times.

  • Pham Nuwen

    Considering what happened to his mother, because of these dogs, I’m personally surprised that:

    a) he hasn’t hauled off and knocked one (or more) of them on his ass a long time ago.

    b) any of them who got within a mile of him, wouldn’t be on their best behaviour, and show him a good deal of respect.

    as Perry said “Nice One ‘arry!”

  • Jake, can you say a little more on this? It’s not that I’m sceptical – I’ve heard accounts of celebrities being hounded on holiday by strone-throwing photographers hoping to provoke some reaction – I’m just keen to know more.

  • Steph Houghton

    < >

    No HRH Prince Harry has it right, just smack the SOB. This is the sort of thing that makes me thing the house of Windsor has some good left in it. If more celebrities took this line. The reporters would be more damn respectful. BTW I was a paid reporter for 3 years. I did not then nor do I now resent people who stand up for them selves. Many reporters are vermin. We used to have conversation on this point at work.
    We did not mind people standing up for their privacy, unless they had deliberatly put them selves in the public eye.
    It is not just the free lance photographers. A lot of MSM reporters are just scum. They have no loyalty to their own country. They will do anything for a story, even if it is not conguent with being a citizen of their nation.
    If you expect your nation (i.e. your fellow citizens) to stand up for you them you have to accept the responsabilities of being a citizen. If is so strange to see reporters who don’t see that.
    At the paper were I worked we resented the hell out of that sort of basterd.

  • Jake

    Peter:

    These guys usually work in teams especially on the streets of LA and New York. One guy with a camera will come right up within a foot or two of a celebrity, point the camera in the face of the celebrity and start walking backwards keeping the camera within a foot of the celebrity’s face.

    If the celebrity does not slug him, the guy will suddenly stop and cause a collision. The other guy takes pictures of the collision and the resulting melee.

    The whole thing is blamed on the celebrity and by picking the right pictures from the right angles they can “prove it”. The celebrity can complain but because of free press laws the Paparazzos usually get away with it.

  • Shawn

    This is one area where regulation or some kind of law reform is clearly needed. The behaviour of these scum is unacceptable.

    I’m not a huge fan of the current crop of royals, but good on Harry for standing up for himself and giving this slug what he deserved.

  • Ted Schuerzinger

    Pham Nuwen wrote:

    Considering what happened to his mother, because of these dogs,

    Sorry, but the drunken wench died because:

    1) She got in a car with a drunk driver;

    2) She wasn’t wearing a seat belt.

    I’ve always found it amazing that whenever anybody else dies in a car accident, and the deceased wasn’t wearing a seat belt, that fact gets mentioned prominently — it’s part of the Health Nannies’ campaign to get us all to buckle up. But when Diana, the Princess of Blotto, died, this only gets mentioned in hushed tones, becuase the “traditional” media want to blame the tabloids and the paparazzi.

  • snide

    Bit more to it than that, Ted. They were indeed being chased at high speed by several cars full of the loathsome paparazzi and that had no small effect on what happened.

  • Tim Sturm

    Shawn

    What are you talking about? The last thing needed is more regulation. Just leave it to jurisprudence.

  • James

    What’s the solution though? I think there should be privacy laws such as in France. You can’t go around hitting people — surely the paparazzi should be able to sue for loss of trade?

  • Walter Wallis

    Hear hear! [Or is it here, here?]
    There are times when an unwanted intrusion into someone’s personal space must be construed as an assault and responded to appropriately.
    As for Diana’s death, there is blame to go around, including bad highway design and lousy emergency medical response and drunk driving, but no one has denied that paparazis were driving dangerously attempting to photograph inside the limo.

  • James:

    “What’s the solution though? I think there should be privacy laws such as in France.”

    That’s just compounding one mischief with another. The solution is property rights. Streets are unowned so they’re a free-for-all. This kind of thing doesn’t happen on private property.

    Draw your own conclusions …

  • Pete_London

    That’s right James, what we need are privacy laws just like those which prevent any meaningful examination of the endemic corruption of French politicians. Of course it takes place wherever politicians are to be found but at least in the UK it is still possible for those inclined to investigate and uncover corruption. In fact I am amazed that this government hasn’t yet tried to bring in privacy laws to protect themselves more from from prying eyes.

    I realise that I may not be the most sophisticated creature, but a smack on the nose is often the best way of ridding oneself of unwelcome attention.

  • James

    “This kind of thing doesn’t happen on private property”

    But that’s exactly where France’s privacy laws apply. You (essentially) can’t be photographed when on private property.

    How would privatising the street prevent paparazzi photographs?

  • Shawn

    “What are you talking about? The last thing needed is more regulation. Just leave it to jurisprudence.”

    Jurisprudence has clearly failed.

    At the very least the actions of these scum amount to incitement to violence. But rrivacy laws would be a good start.

  • sfp

    Forgive the musings of someone across the pond, but I’d like to see a little more “Harry in the night” like this. Sometimes you’ve got to give as good as you get!

  • Tim Sturm

    Jurisprudence has clearly failed.

    My firm’s “Style Crimes” guide stipulates the following:

    “‘Clearly’ is not a substitute for explanation. Any author who writes ‘clearly’ has failed to work out an argument and is hoping that the reader won’t notice!”

    Seems farily appropriate in thise case.

  • diablo blanco

    Ted Schuerzinger has it right.

    1) She got in a car with a drunk driver;

    2) She wasn’t wearing a seat belt.

    Not to defend the paparazzi however, they are a special kind of scum, not unlike people who create auto accidents to collect insurance, or those occasional nutballs who instigate crimes so as to later “uncover” them and be credited as heroes. Paparazzi are in the business of creating sensational news for a celebrity obsessed public. Until the public stops worshiping the famous few and buying fake news about them, these clowns will be with us.

    I say right on to Harry, he was well within his rights to respond in kind, perhaps even obliged to do so unless he wants to attract more of the same. But, anti-paparazzi legislation sounds as superfluous as hate crime laws. We already have rules against harassment, assault, etc. Just enforce them. Whether it happens because the perp needs an exciting photograph or just the thrill of picking a fight makes no difference at all to the clearly (heh) criminal nature of of the act. Bullys must be punished.

  • What a relief to see written what I felt while watching those talking heads discuss this matter. Perhaps the Paparazzi wouldn’t be so annoying if the people whom they annoyed popped them in the mouth a few times.

    The claims that “he’s a public figure” and should expect that sort of thing is just nonsense. Since when did being a “public figure” mean that you had to accept rude and boorish behavior?

    Anyway… made me nuts. Good for Harry!

  • Julian Taylor

    At grave risk of being seen as defending the defenceless – i.e. the scum of the earth who proudly label themselves “paparazzi” – Harry, or at least his detective, should have used a bit more commonsense before leaving the club.

    It pretty common in this age for some sad, aging, publicity-starved A/B/C/D list ‘celebrity’ to make sure that the paparazzi are ready and prepped for his or her exit from some club; they are generally infomed that there will be a ‘scene’ or something maybe worthy of at least a brief paragraph in The Sun’s Bizarre column next day. To illustrate this one may well recall the fights staged by the gruesome Gallagher brothers and their drunken friends for the benefit of the paparazzi.

    In this particular case it would seem that Graham Norton (hasn’t had a show on air for some time now, poor soul) was about to exit the club and that Harry left just before him. What IS worth noting is that Harry’s detective did absolutely nothing to help him whatsoever – in fact a number of photographers took shots of him almost going the other way, thus proving that the Royal Protection Squad is living up to its civil service reputation in doing precisely the opposite of its title.