The Forum > General Discussion > Those Photographs
Those Photographs
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
"As it turns out, you are flat out wrong in each of your suppositions."
In regards to the first 'supposition' - that the charity idea was an afterthought -
"Mr Bidgood took photos of the incident and offered them to news photographers who arrived after it happened. 'Do you have shots?' he asked the photographers, according to a witness. 'How much are they worth?'
The witness said Mr Bidgood retracted that comment and said the money should be donated to a charity." (Tom Arup, Canberra, The Age, December 4).
If I'm 'flat out wrong', then so is this reporter and others who reported the incident in the same way.
Regarding the second 'supposition' - that Bidgood could have run in to stop the man -
Why am I 'flat out wrong' here?
Bidgood was right there on the spot. He had time to get a phone or camera out to take a photo. It would have taken the same amount of time to run forward and say something to the effect of, 'Don't do this. I'm a politician. I might be able to help.'
As a person openly professing to be a Christian, you would have thought that would be his first response. What are you suggesting? That he thought, 'No I won't help this man by offering a human hand of kindness in his hour of need. I'll help him by photographing him instead and publicizing his plight. Never mind that he might actually carry out his threat in front of me and kill himself while I'm doing it.'
Of course, Bidgood could have run in to try and help. I don't need to have been an eye witness to know that.
I doubt very much I'm 'flat out wrong' on either of these so-called 'suppositions', but if you can provide precise evidence to the contary, as oppposed to telling me to do my own search, I'll be the first to admit my error.