For discussion: Who is in the right?

i think the celebrity is in the right. Although they (most of the time) choose to be in the public eye and obviously that comes with paparazzi following them everywhere, the celebrity still has a personal right to do their business, shop, eat out, etc. without being harassed. Paparazzi are doing their job but they take it too far a lot of the time and should know better than to scream, chase, and so on. Any reasonable person would lose their cool at some point especially if they have paps chasing them 24/7. She didn't intend to break the cameras and she wouldn't have done it but for the paps screaming at her.

She did not intend to break the cameras but she did intend to squirt water at him, which can be seen as a directly affecting violation of his personal space, right? Whereas he did not violate her personal space at all. What if a child had been screaming in the background. It would be unacceptable for a person to turn around and flick the child on the head.

they probably wouldn't lose their temper through a baby screaming (as it is expected of a baby).

You'd think so - but R v Woollin?

I think the photographers are in the wrong for harrassing the celebrity and hunting her like an animal. In fact, if this was a regular thing she could probably bring an action under the Protection from Harrassment Act but that doesn't give her the right to assault them. So yeah, they're both in the wrong but it all stems back to the photographers.

I said a typical person. I certainly wouldn't hit a baby for screaming and I'm sure most other people wouldn't. BUT the same people would get angry if they were constantly chased. Re. stemming back to photographers - that's what I said "but for" the photogrpahers chasing and screaming

oh i know you weren't disagreeing but, realisitically, i think there are few people who would hit a child for screaming compared to the number of people who wouldn't do it. On the other hand, i think there are more people who would lose their temper with paparazzi than the number of people who wouldn't. I think it's a question of degree/extent of the reaction

\

Chronicles, is this for a mini essay or just a debate post? just curious

i think the celebrity is in the right. Although they (most of the time) choose to be in the public eye and obviously that comes with paparazzi following them everywhere, the celebrity still has a personal right to do their business, shop, eat out, etc. without being harassed. Paparazzi are doing their job but they take it too far a lot of the time and should know better than to scream, chase, and so on. Any reasonable person would lose their cool at some point especially if they have paps chasing them 24/7. She didn't intend to break the cameras and she wouldn't have done it but for the paps screaming at her.

Personally, I blame the water.

oh please. I'm preparing for my A levels now and not even taking a subject related to this stuff.

And yes, I'm aware celebrities are human and I'm well aware that they have legal action brought against them. But in a formal paper for A levels (YES, i know that in everyday homework tasks/ class informal discussion questions of all sorts get set), teachers do tend to be close-minded in that they would rather we hit the library for research than tabloid magazines.

Either way, if you do not wish to respond to the topic at hand, you are welcome not to. Coming to hasty conclusions and in a fairly rude manner will not bode well with anyone.