Chop Chop Mr Latham

[digitor]

On the other hand...he is on a $75000 taxpayer paid pension and other perks so he has to bend a little.

Leaving aside all the other points, the guy is not really on a pension - it is the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme, which is fairly advantageous I'll grant you (well OK - bloody advantageous!) - but the only reason it is taxpayer funded is that it has not been backed over the years by investment, because the various governments of the day have decided it's easier to just pay it out of general revenue. A small point, I guess, but worth noting.

Cheers

[MattC]

That about says it Matt.

Maybe it is time to bring the news media to heel. Latham may be a public figure, but he was not acting in that capacity. As far as I can see he was acting in the role of a private citizen and a father... and, AFAIK, should be off limits to the media... even if that needs to be legislated.

Cheers

[drifter]

Unfortunately its the world we live in .Open your door and walk down the street and your fair game .Think we have a thread on here about that very topic .
Lathan has a reputation as a hot head and regardless of what the photographer did to enrage him he needs to figure out that every time he bites, the intencity of the press is going to increase . If he just sat there and ignored the photog .Yes it would have been annoying and takes a bit of will power to ignore , but the guy takes his photo of Lathan eating a whopper (oh the shame .... ) it gets printed on page 6 of the tele, ho hum no story here ,then the tele goes back to praising George,John and Tony .Instead we have a front page story that the tele will get a week out of .Plus probably the low life creeps from currant affair and today tonight will swoop on the left over fries of this story ( i feel so dirty just mentioning them ).

[hotpasta]

It doesn't matter who is wrong or right ie. should the photographer photograph him or not...Latham's behaviour was inexcusable. If he felt his privacy was being trespassed, there are ways and means of sorting that out. He is a loose cannon (not Canon) and has always been. He has a serious character flaw and thinks he's above the law. Thank God we never ended up with him as PM. He should be made to pay and be charged like anyone else. If the photographer was doing the wrong thing, then he should be charged.

It doesn't matter if he's sick, depressed, an angry man...there's no excuse. He just vomits out bitterness and anger and lives in the defeat of yesterday.

He should be made to work for Maxwells for 6 months as punishment

[nito]

I think mark latham was looking for the film compartment. When he cant find it by intuition used the sledgehammer approach.

[MCWB]

Former federal Labor leader Mark Latham will face court next month charged with assault and malicious damage following an alleged run-in with a newspaper photographer.

[the foto fanatic]

And here's what happened:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/latham-escapes-criminal-conviction/2006/06/06/1149359717691.html

As you can see from the URL, no conviction.

I wouldn't expect that to apply to me if I smashed your camera.

[avkomp]

hmmmm. again it shows that there are 2 sets of laws, one for everyday people and another for high profile members of the public.

I am sure that the outcome would have been different for us plebs.
most of whom would be flat out getting a barrister, let alone a legal team.

Steve

[birddog114]

I'll become a politician soon!

[Matt. K]

I think the outcome was fair...and anyway, I always wanted to see the inside of D2h! I am suprised that the camera couldn't survive a sledgehammer attack though. I thought Nikon cameras were tougher than that!

[birddog114]

I think the outcome was fair...and anyway, I always wanted to see the inside of D2h! I am suprised that the camera couldn't survive a sledgehammer attack though. I thought Nikon cameras were tougher than that!

Don't you know Nikon gear made by recycled plastic bags?

[MattC]

2 year good behaviour bond!!! Cripes, that's a bit stiff!

The photog deserved every bit of it and then some!

Cheers

[birddog114]

2 year good behaviour bond!!! Cripes, that's a bit stiff!

The photog deserved every bit of it and then some!

Cheers

He got the cheque and bought himself and brand new D2Xs

Mr. Little Johnny!!!
Where are you? here's my D2H, you can smash it by your own means

[MattC]

Birdy,

I meant that the photog deserved to get his head caved in

Cheers

[the foto fanatic]

Birdy,

I meant that the photog deserved to get his head caved in

Cheers

For doing his job as a photog for a daily newspaper?

For taking pictures of a public figure in a public place?

The only possible transgression I am aware of is that some pix included Mr Latham's kids. I don't see how that justifies stealing and destroying someone else's property.

You are a photographer, Matt. If you took someone's photo in the street would you expect this sort of reaction? Would you have taken Mr Latham's photo in similar circumstances? (Or Mr Howard's or Mr Beasley's if it comes to that?)

[Glen]

Trevor, I agree. Latham courted the publicity machine himself well after his public life ended. He had his book he wanted to sell, then the serialised rights. He made a lot of dramatic comments designed to keep himself in the headlines (and to kick old friends in the teeth). This succeeded as he received $100k for the serialised rights and a rumoured $100-$300k for the book advance. This was all on the top of the government pension he is on and of course on top of the satisfaction he got assualting others in print (not counting the times he assualted others physically, like the taxi driver, campaigning pensioner, etc).

You can't have it both ways. We would be shocked if one of our members was assualted for taking a candid.

[MattC]

So you guys condone the actions of the Paparazzi?

Cheers

[MattC]

And yeah, I take photos of people in public, but I do not harass my subject, and if I did I could expect a reaction.

[xerubus]

 AFAIK the photographer was not a part of the Paparazzi, he was a member of a press organisation.

Although I don't think he should have taken photos of Mr Latham's kids, violence isn't an acceptible way to handle the situation. As posted quite a few months ago, I had one of my lenses smashed by a disgruntal father and got a bit of a love tap to the head. Was i doing anything wrong? In some people's eyes yes, but I was doing my job. No matter what view you have about what is/isn't ethical to photograph, there is no excuse for violence.

my 2 cents...

cheers

[Glen]

Matt, he puts himself up as a public figure to make money (by selling books) he has to take the whole package.

If he is trying to claim this event had something to do with his kids then he shouldn't have provided the example to them that violence is an ok way to deal with a problem.

Matt the problem here isn't the photographer, it is Latham's propensity to violence. It was Latham who hit the pensioner when campaigning to be Liverpool mayor (he didn't like the way the pensioner was campaigning), it was Latham who broke the taxi drivers arm (what, he thought a taxi trip 60km from the city was going to be cheap, it costs me $20 and I can see the Harbour Bridge) and it was Latham who assaulted the photographer and destroyed his camera. I can see one common element. He was actually quite proud of the fact that he was brought up in the western suburbs and was prepared to hit someone.

[Glen]

 PS Matt, he was not harrassing his subject, he was using a 80-400mm lens and Latham was unaware of him. It was others who pointed the photographer out to him. Not really "in your face" photography.

[leek]

Apparently Latham only smashed the camera up because he was trying to find the film!!!!

Ironically enough, one of the few parts to survive intact was the CF card

I'm sure he would have made an excellent leader of this country though...

[Glen]

I'm sure he would have made an excellent leader of this country though...

Heartiest laugh all day, John. Thanks

[macka]

Saw him on the news this evening and he looks simply awful. I reckon he has aged about 10 years in 1.

[moz]

As you can see from the URL, no conviction.
I wouldn't expect that to apply to me if I smashed your camera.

Unless you have previous convictions, and they're either recent or serious, I would be surprised to see you convicted in a case like that. I'd also be surprised to see the details of the sentencing in the paper, even the abbreviated version the SMH printed.

But then I've been on the receiving end of enough violent crime to have a fair idea of exactly the sort of legal system we have, especially as it applies to public figures. Face it, if the law applied to politicians the way it applied to voters there'd be dramatically different behaviour (or to get quorum parliament would need to meet inside Long Bay). Think of the post-election fraud suits, for example.

I'd disappointed the camera hasn't been sold on ebay though... Umanga's handbag reportedly got $20k