I'm disgusted with the Herald Sun posting nude and semi-nude photos of Pauline Hanson sold to them by a former boyfriend. The Herald Sun claims the photographs were taken between 1975 and 1977. It also claims she was 19 at the time, and drunk.
I'm no fan of Hanson, but a few words in your shell-hole, Herald Sun staff.
First, Nick Leys, who wrote the accompanying article. Pauline Hanson was born in 1954. If, as you claim, the photographs were taken between 1975 and 1977, she was either 21 or 23. You could have verified her age quite readily from a number of sources, and avoided a simple error. Also, why don't you know the year the photographs were taken? And why give two years as the range they could possibly have been taken between and then state unequivically she was 19?
Secondly, the tool who put a picture of a hotel room and labelled it as Pauline Hanson at a book signing.. Dude. If the Hun had time to write this story, clean up the pictures, get Robyn Riley to write an impassioned but tissue-thin defence and put together a 40-odd page gallery of photos of P-Hansey, didn't you have time to check that it was, in fact, a photo of Pauline and not a photo of a hotel bedroom?
Thirdly, Robyn. Now, if memory serves (And if it doesn't, here's the link), you're the woman who was not happy with Bill Henson "exploiting" children. Nor were you happy with Sarah Palin's clothes being the focus of an election campaign.
But, Robyn, you're apparently okay with your own paper featuring a partially nude Pauline. A drunk, 19/21/23 year old woman, who, thirty years later, has those photographs sold by a desperate, dying ex-boyfriend. You're okay with that. No, I'll rephrase. Not only are you okay with it, you go in to bat for your paper.
Funny the definition you apply to "exploitation" isn't it?
Eurythmics medley comedified
2 days ago