Bronwyn, Pelican, did both of you base your criticisms on the wrong belief he did it for profit?Then you leaped to the wrong conclusion, Pelican find another Labor poster who finds as much fault as I have in my party.
Quite frankly I expect better from both of you.
No crime moral or actual has been committed, Bronwyn says my comparisons are unfair.
How about that napalm scared girl from the Vietnam war? would we be better never knowing?
Or that gun shot to the head should we know it happened?
Not a single chance ,not for an instant in time existed to get involved in this event.
Should we have seen those planes hitting those towers or huddled in corners because some would be offended by the photos more than the act?
Tell me Bronwyn in your words exactly why if I took the photos it would be wrong.
Pelican, please do you think that joke Joe Hockey would be upset if say Tony Abbot took the photos?
It a beat up anti Labor , unrealistic beat up.

Belly
I have no doubt that the opposition would have postured a different view had it been an Liberal in Bidgood's place. That is the nature of politics.

My belief was based on the fact that Bidgood offerred the photo to the media in exchange for money and that he later went on to say he meant it for charity. This view was based on a number of articles one of which I have linked below.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24748284-5013871,00.html

This is not to say the media are not past spinning their own version of the truth.

Let's assume for a minute that Bidgood did not want the money for himself. What possible motive would he have had to offer this photo up to the media. Was it an altruistic one to bring attention to the plight of this man? Many years living and working among pollies of all persuasions leads me to think otherwise but perhaps I have become too cynical in respect of politicians.

As I said earlier the only person who can knows the real motives is Bigood himself and I guess we have to decide as individuals if we believe him.

Pelican I believe him, without any doubt I believe him.
The man is a committed Christian, now for me that earns him no browny points.
But I think he is unlikely to want to lie because he is one.
Given we can not agree on the money thing lets consider this.
Did that man want to die or just highlight his complaint?
One way or another his intention in doing that in that place must have been to publicize his cause do we agree?
Surely it is more than likely what ever else he intended he wanted news coverage?
If not he could have committed this act in the bush without intervention.
These photos rather than being unfair to him seem to be just what he wanted from his display.
This without doubt, is a beat up, this is news making by that gutter Medea outlet not news reporting.
While Bidwell reported, the paper excepted, they build a hill out of an ants nest because they do that if Labor is involved.
Selling some papers is destroying true journalism.

Dear Bronwyn....you said:

"I agree with all you say and cannot believe that five posts down and not one person has expressed an ounce of sympathy for the tragic plight of the man involved here"

Hmmmm...now is it just possible...that the person attempting self harm.. is NOT...repeate NOT the topic here?

The TOPIC just in case a few of you haven't worked it out yet is about PHOTOGRAPHS and yes..it needs to be stated rather LOUDly because clearly some have an obvious 'hearing' deficiency.

IF..the topic was about 'self harm and its tragic consequences' then we could/would focus on that person... but because it isn't... we didn't.

This actually shows a remarkable 'fit' to the pattern of those who simply don't 'get' the realities of life. They are presented with something of importance i.e. a politician indulging in controvesial behavior..but they prefer to condemn us for sticking to the actual topic and berate us for lack of compassion.. hmmmm (again).. this pattern is also evidence on the issue of assylum seekers and that kind of thing.

Reflect Bronny.... on the issue of 'what are they talking about' and then maybe you can join in rather than throwing stones.

The man (to follow your line) was an idiot, who tried to force a desired outcome for personal reasons. His desperation does not matter, IF... the outcome he desires is contrary to our law and the decisions of our courts.
IF..we followed that line..then the families of every convicted murderer would burn themselves outside a court room if they thought the verdict could be changed by doing it.

Poly
I think you are the only one getting confused about the victim here given that your last post is the only one that managed to forget the point entirely (ie. photographs) and go on to make political points about asylum seekers.

pelican: "This is not to say the media are not past spinning their own version of the truth."

Yes, indeed. Particularly in this case as one news organisation can use the incident to throw mud at the other. In situations like this, you scan several reports from different organisations to make sure you aren't being fed, errr, crap. That is why I said to Browyn it would take her 10 minutes to read up on the topic, instead of 2 it would take to read a single news story. The ABC (usually) stays above such tatics and such is a great place to start. In the google search they appeared in the first page of hits.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/04/2437524.htm

If you read it, you will see we don't just have Mr Bidgood's word for it.

I don't know the man from a bar of soap. He may well be deserving of the all the aspersions being cast at him here. But from the evidence I have seen so far, not because of this incident.

Also, can one of you girls tell me why you are so keen choosing the worst possible explanation whenever a range of possibilities present themselves? It would be nice to know why, as I still don't have a clue.