Jump to content

Recommended Posts

EDTers while Louisa was on the juice, EDFers after Louisa was on the juice.


DDL was fab in The Gang Activity of New York.



owlwise Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks Administrator. I was starting to get

> worried that everyone's more interested in someone

> called Louisa on this forum and not so interested

> in DDL, a major achiever/actor who's done

> something with his life, won 3 Oscars (the first

> man to do so) and was Knighted only last November,

> who was in Dulwich a couple of days ago. Seems

> like this Louisa has achieved more interesting

> things that keep the EDTers chattering... I must

> admit it's a bit disappointing that noone was

> impressed to hear that DDL was in the area. Oh

> well.

I don't totally agree edcam, if someone has chosen to pursue a career in the public eye then they have to expect a certain amount of this kind of thing (although clearly there are limits).


Although I agree with what maxxi said, it's really not particularly surprising that the odd celebrity pops up, even one as apparently high calibre as this.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Scootingover Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > He is in the area reasonably frequently as is

> Liam

> > Neeson. Friends of a resident.

>

>

Quite right Scootingover, all three are very good friends and are in the village regularly. DDL, LN and local resident. Out and about regularly. DDL slightly less so.

> Liam Neeson. Really? Funny how noone has ever

> mentioned seeing him.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't totally agree edcam, if someone has chosen

> to pursue a career in the public eye then they

> have to expect a certain amount of this kind of

> thing (although clearly there are limits).

>

> Although I agree with what maxxi said, it's really

> not particularly surprising that the odd celebrity

> pops up, even one as apparently high calibre as

> this.



Agree. Can't remember who it was now but remember an A lister saying exactly this, they just said they wanted people to leave them alone whilst they were eating, but other than that they felt posing for photos or signing autographs was part of their (VERY well paid) job.

I agree to an extent that it is to be expected but still think it's not unreasonable to be allowed to go about your business without your personal space being constantly invaded.


Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't totally agree edcam, if someone has chosen

> to pursue a career in the public eye then they

> have to expect a certain amount of this kind of

> thing (although clearly there are limits).

>

> Although I agree with what maxxi said, it's really

> not particularly surprising that the odd celebrity

> pops up, even one as apparently high calibre as

> this.

I can never understand why people you see on television or films are regarded as 'famous'. They are just doing a job they are good at - the same as a solicitor or a carpenter.

When you see one of these people sitting next to you in the doctor's waiting room or eating egg and chips in the BBC canteen you realise they are just ordinary people doing an ordinary job. They deserve not to be pointed at in the supermarket aisle.

Politicians are the only ones who deliberately put themselves in the public eye.

edcam - well there's a limit. But I would of thought that someone coming up to you and shaking your hand is surely well within that limit. It's not like he was being mobbed by selfie-stick wielding morons.


lesalden - film stars are doing an ordinary job, and haven't deliberately put themselves in the public eye? Couldn't disagree more.

"Politicians are the only ones who deliberately put themselves in the public eye."



That is utter nonsense.


I'm not suggesting that anyone should have any ownership over their private lives, but if you choose a career as an entertainer of any sort, then by definition you are choosing to put yourself in the public eye. In fact your success in your chosen career (actor / comedian / band member) depends on what the public think of your performance.

Yes but that doesn't mean you are public property.


Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Politicians are the only ones who deliberately

> put themselves in the public eye."

>

>

> That is utter nonsense.

>

> I'm not suggesting that anyone should have any

> ownership over their private lives, but if you

> choose a career as an entertainer of any sort,

> then by definition you are choosing to put

> yourself in the public eye. In fact your success

> in your chosen career (actor / comedian / band

> member) depends on what the public think of your

> performance.

No but it's still quite creepy.


Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edcam - well there's a limit. But I would of

> thought that someone coming up to you and shaking

> your hand is surely well within that limit. It's

> not like he was being mobbed by selfie-stick

> wielding morons.

>

> lesalden - film stars are doing an ordinary job,

> and haven't deliberately put themselves in the

> public eye? Couldn't disagree more.

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes but that doesn't mean you are public

> property.


> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "Politicians are the only ones who deliberately

> > put themselves in the public eye."

> >

> >

> > That is utter nonsense.

> >

> > I'm not suggesting that anyone should have any ownership over their private lives

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree to an extent that it is to be expected but

> still think it's not unreasonable to be allowed to

> go about your business without your personal space

> being constantly invaded.

>

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------


I agree with this it is only fair to allow people some ordinary life, without people treating them differently. Happened to my husband at one time, when our children were small, and our lives were made so miserable that we eventually went out as a family but without him.

> -----

> > I don't totally agree edcam, if someone has

> chosen

> > to pursue a career in the public eye then they

> > have to expect a certain amount of this kind of

> > thing (although clearly there are limits).

> >

> > Although I agree with what maxxi said, it's

> really

> > not particularly surprising that the odd

> celebrity

> > pops up, even one as apparently high calibre as

> > this.

sandyman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only thing that irritated me about Louisa was

> her habit of putting her name at the bottom of her

> posts!



I totally agree with you. Other people do it and that's fine, yet when she does it is particularly irritating.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Good advice Kipper!  The 1.0 early Ecoboost and 1.2 Puretech engines have wet cam belts that fail and failure with a cam belt invariably result in catastrophic  damage to valves and pistons. Later ones were changed to chains. Avoid at all costs!
    • Sorry. Link wasn't working on my phone, but it is now, and I couldn't delete the post.
    • Sent you a pm
    • I think there's a fair number of "participating" sub offices that do passports or, at least, play the "check and send" game (£16 for glancing at your form), so some degree of cherry-picking seems to be permitted. Though it does look as if Post Offices "Indentity Services" are where it things the future lies, and "Right to Rent" (though it's more an eligibility check) looks a bit of an earner, along with DBS checks and the Age Verification services that, if the government gets its way, we'll all need to subscribe to before we're allowed on mumsnet. Those services, incidentally, seem mostly outsourced to an outfit called "Yoti", a privately-owned, loss-making "identity platform" with debts of £150m, a tardy approach to filings, and a finger in a bunch of questionable pies ("Passive Facial Liveness Recognition" sounds gloriously sinister) so what the Post Office gets out of the arrangement isn't clear, but I'm sure they think it worthwhile. That said, they once thought the same of funeral plans which, for some peculiar reason, failed to set fire to the shuffling queues, even metaphorically. For most, it seems, Post Office work is mostly a dead loss, and even the parcel-juggling is more nuisance than blessing. As a nonchalant retailer of other people's services the organisation can only survive now on the back of subsidies, and we're not even sure what they are. The taxpayer-funded subsidies from government (a £136m hand-out to keep Horizon going, £1bn for its compensation scheme, around £50m for the network, and perhaps a loan or two) are clearish, but the cross-subsidies provided by other retail activities in branches are murkier. As are the "phantom shortfalls" created by the Horizon system, which secretly lined Post Office's coffers as postmasters balanced the books with contributions from their own pockets. Those never showed up in the accounts though - because Horizon *was* the accounting system - so we can't tell how much of a subsidy that was. We might get an idea of the scale, however, from Post Office's belated Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is handing £75k to every branch that's complained, though it's anyone's guess if that's fair or not. Still, that's all supposed to be behind us now, and Post Office's CEO-of-the-week recently promised an "extra" £250m a year for the branches (roughly enough to cover a minimum wage worker in each), which might make it worth the candle for some. Though he didn't expect that would happen before 2030 (we can only wonder when his pension will mature) and then it'd be "subject to government funding", so it might have to be a very short candle as it doesn't look like a promise that he can make. Still, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from applying for a franchise, and it's possible that, this time, Post Office will be telling the truth. And, you never know, we might all be back in the Post Office soon, and eagerly buying stamps, if only for existence permits, rather than for our letters.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...