That girl's mental. No wonder's Goldie's got no teeth left.

She should have ripped the Chav-Happy-snapper-PapaRATzi (sic) a new ass, instead...

Well done Bjork.

Why do photographers think it is perfectly acceptable to run up to someone push a camera in their face, fire off a blinding flash gun and get away with it. It is as close to a physical assault you can get.

Nice to see the whining git get his come uppance.

There is a big difference between paparazzi and the press photographer for the largest newspaper in nz. You can't just attack people 'cause you're feeling grumpy...

... you step off a plane after too many hours, there's plonkers waving mobile phones in your face. You're tired, and the kids are probably whiney. Then some **** journalist tries to interview you. Snap!

What The Reg didn't mention was that one of her "people" asked the guy not to take photographs, and he did anyway. So, tough on him.

Reading just the comments here it seems that the same guy who took the pics is sometimes a "journalist" and sometimes a "papparazzi".

Now I despise paparazzi as much as any other human being that is not a celebrity does, but hey, if he's a journo then it's not the same thing. I give much more credit to journos than to papzs (actually, I give journos some, papzs none), so I really would like to know. Was the photographer a journo from a respectable journal doing his job in a professional manner ? Or was he a piece of slime out for some celeb shot ? Or was he some piece of slime trying to pass off as a journalist ?

I think that a real journalist does not take pictures if he is asked not to. So that would make the guy a papz. If so, I'm not really sorry for him.

But still, I think events like this are going to be fewer are far between as the word gets around in the photographic circles : Björk is a no-no ! Wherever she is, whatever she is doing !

What will be funny is the day she actually wants her picture taken (like for PR-related business, album launch, whatever) and, in protest, nobody takes one.

You crazy, crazy lady! While I'm inclined to let her away with anything because she is such a genius, I bet the guy actually did have it coming. So many people just accept it when the paps get up in their face - or try to run away - or worse still, complain about it while secretly loving it and invite it back in their lives when their celebrity has gone off the boil (I'm looking at you Heather Mills). Not our Bjork. She'll just launch a crazy ass attack on them like a demented flailing cat. Not exactly Crouching Tiger kung foo - but I pity the fool who gets in front of that! "Declare independence" indeed!

If you're in any public place you have zero expectation of privacy. (Except perhaps a nudie beach.)

Anyone is perfectly entitled to take a picture of anyone if they are out and about, if you take exception to this and do something about it you are guilty of Assault.

If you think about it every shop etc are taking images of you continuously in the shop and even on the street outside and theres feck all you can do about it.

I hope he sues her, or at least got a good photo of her.

I thought I was going to read about how much she enjoyed an exotic lunch, there probably more cod than snapper fished in Iceland, red or otherwise.

As for the Bangkok incident, when you are teaching english as a foreign language, the first thing to do is explain how not to ask for a Coke.

"If the guy was a real journalist he would have respected her expressed wish not to be photographed."

Exactly. As an ex-professional photographer I agree completely. If this was a newsworthy moment (as in 'Need to Know' as opposed to the whiny, slimy justification 'Right to Know' we get from the tabloids) then it would be a different matter.

Good for Bjork!

-Ima

NZ Herald is a major mainstream paper - not saying that its any good mind you ;). The photographer is a journalist, rather than paparazzi.

"A photo being taken in a public place, against your wishes, does NOT give you the right to assault someone. Full stop."

No, it doesn't. But I can see where having thousands of pictures taken might put someone on edge.

And think of it this way: Celebrities images are worth something. Do they get a cut from these clowns or their employers? I don't think so. So maybe this could be regarded as a form of theft and the celebs are defending their property?

Oh wait. They're rich and successful so they should just have to put up with this crap. And they should be grateful for the attention no matter how annoying it is because they wouldn't be successful without allowing others to profit from their success. Huh? What? They wouldn't be getting the attention unless they were already successful.

Funny what unsuccessful people think successful (and rich) people should have to put up with.

> Funny what unsuccessful people think successful (and rich) people should have to put up with.

How is success/income relevant? If someone took photos of me while I walked down the street (even if they took lots of photos) I wouldn't be allowed to attack them.

I might be able to take out a restraining order but I can't just go over and punch them in the face. Would that change if I was rich?

"Whatever they've done to annoy you. There are too many people around (quite a few on here, I notice) who think violence is acceptable if they sympathise with the perpetrator."

While the rest of the world goes ever more pansy, whinging and whining about how violence is always wrong, I would like draw attention to the fact that this was a tiny little girl giving a fully grown man a slap for doing the very thing he had been asked not to. What was she supposed to do after he had ignored her request, ask again and again while he continued to take photos?

Violence in this situation was the simplest and most direct method of reacting. The fact that the photo guy has got the gall to lay a complaint and that the police are even considering it is crying shame.

Yes, that's just the sort of attitude the governments are begging people to take....it'd make it much easier for them to convince everyone that their lives are better when permanently monitored.

Besides which, Bjork is as mad as a box of smashed crabs, so if the pap was surprised then he's not exactly well informed is he? In fact, if he's real paparazzi then he might well have done the whole thing to try and make her react, knowing her prior reputation.

LOL the woman who got attacked said she was taking pictures when she clearly was holding a microphone in her hand.

Cracks me up.

LOL at you. The article referred to a past incident in Thailand where a reporter (yes the lady with the microphone) was attacked... The photographer was a different person at a different time in a different place. Please try to keep up.

It still makes me laugh that the same people who were outraged by the paperatzi chase that resulted in Dianas death were the same as those who couldn't get enough of the pictures taken by the same photographers and published in the same "news" papers those would have been destined for.

If I was that famous, I'd get some sort of super powerful flash device made so I could blind all the photographers.

> By Jim Lewis

> Posted Tuesday 15th January 2008 12:00 GMT

>

> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/iceland.asp

Well, well ... the creationists even manage to get in their three-ha'p'th on an item about Bjorg ripping a photographer's shirt!

Sorry, Jim, although the "1996 volcanically induced glacial mega-flood in Iceland" (the subject of your URL) was a pretty impressive geological event, it ...

a) wasn't nearly enough to wipe out all life on the Earth's surface, and

b) wasn't God's vengeance on Iceland for one of their singers hitting a journalist.

It has no relevance to the behaviour of Bjork, nor to the myth of Noah.

.. you can get very annoyed if people can never pronounce or spell your name correctly, despite being a celeb.