|
Post by howard on Feb 10, 2008 23:50:45 GMT
Hello Again,
I thought I need to come back here and clear up a couple of things.
1. I wrote that article for one purpose ONLY, to get some (even if it just a little), publicity in the USA for Hayley and for no other reasons. An article appeared about Britney, a light bulb lit in my head, and I thought this would be a good opportunity to mention Hayley.
And there are two reasons why I mentioned about what Hayley does for society...first of all this is the whole sentence that was omitted...."She also contributes to society, she is actively in the Women's Environmental Network and the youngest ever ambassador of UNICEF."
I had to mention this to show the difference between Hayley and Britney & her ilk. And also, (Jon), the press is liberal, they love stuff like this. I thought this was my only shot to get this in print and I went for it. And I am tempted to write the editor back to find out why he liked what I wrote, maybe he is a Hayley fan, huh?
This has nothing to do about politics or philosophy...Only to get Hayley's name in print, PERIOD.
2. Hayley's character, (Steve), I must agree with others, Roger, Graham, Martin to name a few. True we are not perfect but Hayley has very high moral standards. (And actually I have a couple of real close friends whose children are the same, so yes it is possible no skeletons in the closet).
I never met Hayley in person at that matter never saw her in a live-concert. But actions speak louder than words.
First off the love she has for her country, her patriotism, she just won an award for that didn't she. That right there tells me alot about a person.
She takes personal pride in herself (now somethings maybe minut but they speak loud about her character). For examples: she will go out and buy an expensive dress like she says not that she wants it but she wants to look good for her audience. She is careful in what she eats (except for chocolate), so she can be top of her game, and like she said in her book, she was able to change one of the Celtic Woman of her bad eating habits. Another small thing when she is about to use her voice professionally she will not eat any dairy, so not to ruin her voice, (which is a fact).
Things that she does as small as they are tell me about how she thinks, she is very careful and thoughtful.
And last but not the least is it necessary for me to mention her family. Her parents brought her up right! In todays world there are some children not many who speak highly of their parents in public. You tell me, do you really think that her parents would allow her to live alone in another country if they feel she could not be trusted?
Look, Hayley can travel anywhere in the world for a vacation but where does she go? Back to New Zealand to be with her family and get back to her country that she misses so much...and mentions so many times.
Her family surprised her on the 18th birthday and paid her a visit, and she thought that was the greatest thing. I would bet a million to one her family can visit her any time unannounced and find no problems. I don't know about her siblings but it is safe to say the same goes for them too.
And getting back to her social work, I really don't believe anyone had to put a gun to Hayley's head to help with UNICEF. In fact, if not all ready, she is starting a new campaign with UNICEF.
Hey I only did a simple thing...I want to see Hayley become a household name in the US.
So please don't try to add anything in my article, it stands as it is written.
Thank You All, Best Regards, Howard USA
|
|
|
Post by gra7890 on Feb 11, 2008 0:02:49 GMT
Hi Howard, well said, I think most will agree Best wishes, Graham
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Feb 11, 2008 2:01:58 GMT
Yes Steve, Hayley did say that but I suspect it was based on nothing more than her own modesty. The press have had over four years to unearth some scandelous secret but they have not done so. That strongly suggests there are none to find. Roger Hi Roger, Hayley has also mentioned with a sort of mild displeasure that she is being "put on a pedestal" - and I also had that in mind when I read that quote. The problem with that is that it is us putting her there - not really her - and it doesnt always take a real "scandal" to fall off. I think that Hayley presented a pretty uninteresting persona at first, and that the press more or less stopped looking at some point. It is a matter of first impressions...... It is perhaps relevant to note that there have been a number of instances within the past year which reveal Hayley trying to moderate her "image" to some extent. Here is just one example from the NZ Herald - I will provide the link below, but it is also buried somewhere on this site. I dont read anything more into this than the fact that a soon-to-be 21 year old might find a need for more personal freedom than a 16-18 year old..... Often she feels she is wrongly portrayed in the media. For example, despite the angelic image she does occasionally "party hard". "You can't be living in London [where she has just bought a two-bedroom flat] and not going out and partying hard occasionally." She enjoys the odd Baileys, Guinness with a little blackcurrant added, or a good red wine. "I'm still learning just how much I can drink without getting a hangover the next day. "I'm quite conscious of not drinking too much when on tour, so I do appreciate those small things."This is hardly "scandalous". It does however raise the prospect that at some point she may be photographed at something less than her best behavior simply by being in the wrong place with regard to a photographer at the wrong time. ------ Howard - I wasnt trying to single you out. I was trying to point out that when you post something like this, others will jump on that bandwagon. However, as you brought the issue up yourself , I do have to ask - why would you realize that the contrast between Hayley and Britney provided you with an opening if you didnt find that contrast personally appealing as welll? Going further into your post a bit, if getting publicity for Hayley was the only reason, why go on to spend several paragraphs "defending" the very things you do find appealing? As I said above, I dont intend to get into a cultural blow by blow discussion here. I simply fear that pedestal. Jon www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=18&objectid=10472313
|
|
|
Post by petertong on Feb 11, 2008 3:01:12 GMT
Hi Jon, I don't think I connected those together. There was a period in between there somewhere I was merely saying that she appears to me to make wise decisions. She also appears to me to have conservative values much like mine. Whether I'm wise or not remains yet to be seen though These are passing observations of mine - I don't know that these things are true about Hayley for sure since I don't know her... best guess only. I happen to be rather conservative in nature but I certainly don't condemn Britney for what she has done... if anything I'm sad for her She must be in alot of pain on so many levels Hayley on the other hand brings lots of pleasure through her singing gift... which I much appreciate i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 11, 2008 3:15:34 GMT
Back to my point about Britney getting all the attention... I think this is a good thing for Hayley. By focussing on the outrageous antics of Spears and Winehouse the others are protected, not unlike how the Earth is actually protected by Jupiter with its powerful gravity sweeping meteors and asteroids onto itself.
I'd much rather read about Britney's tragic, cautionary tale than about Hayley's forays into the London scene. Even if all they wrote about Hayley were that she danced with someone dressed up as a giant Kiwi Bird it would still have a negative association for the very fact that it's gossip and people always assume the worst when gossip is reported.
|
|
Joe
Administrator
Supporting Hayley since 2003!
Posts: 6,715
|
Post by Joe on Feb 11, 2008 4:06:53 GMT
Hello Howard, I only did a simple thing...I want to see Hayley become a household name in the US. Good job on this! I certainly appreciate what you have written to the newspaper. Sorry that some of your words regarding Hayley and UNICEF were not printed. I'd much rather read about Britney's tragic, cautionary tale than about Hayley's forays into the London scene. Steve, are you OK? How could you even say such words? I repeat to you, Howard. Well done. Best wishes, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Mr Yang on Feb 11, 2008 5:50:14 GMT
Thank you howard! Your worthy work is good and I completely agree with you. Hayley's good singer but more than just a singer with no gossips.
|
|
|
Post by Stephany on Feb 11, 2008 13:40:59 GMT
Hello Howard and all, Have a look at what I found in today's newspaper database Well-done Howard! Stephany
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 11, 2008 14:50:49 GMT
I'd much rather read about Britney's tragic, cautionary tale than about Hayley's forays into the London scene. Steve, are you OK? How could you even say such words? Heh, by isolating that line, Joe, you removed those words from their full context. The reason I'd rather read about Britney was already given, but I'll state it again: By concentrating on over-the-top Britney the media keeps the truly talented ones like Hayley out of its cynical crosshairs. I want Hayley to have a wonderful career and be forever unperturbed by the tabloids and the paparazzi. Luckily for Hayley they're all too busy with Britney, Amy, Lindsay and Paris. Also, the sad spectacle that is Britney has been the subject of way too much moralising and condemnation, so I kinda feel for her. Clearly, her over-the-top antics are a cry for help. If we're gonna be so high and mighty, let's also pray she gets all the help she so desperately needs.
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Feb 11, 2008 17:51:42 GMT
Hi Howard! Maybe it's better they write about Britney than Hayley. The more we know about anyone the more their flaws eventually turn up. Hayley herself once said: "I don't have much time to be bad. I'm not perfect, put it that way." If they were to put the spotlight on her 24/7 like the do Britney, we may learn a few things that could take her down a peg. Do you really want that? Steve She herself has been quoted in a sort of veiled criticism or 'voice of concern' that some of her fans tend to place her on a pedestal. She closes her autobiography with... 'I am just like any other twenty-year old girl...' and elsewhere, 'I'm still little ol' Hayley from Christchurch'. Of course she has flaws, she's human. Some people have commented with alarm about the 'odd heard of occasion' when she has put her foot down and some here have expressed surprise or even concern. I think of the time when she told off the guitarist for re-tuning while she was speaking. We haven't seen him since. I think of her criticism of the idiot who blocked Horner's (and hers) Pocahontas which she was doubtless expecting would launch her USA wide. She used a term similar to 'scandalous' for his blocking action and due to his ill-considered abilities the original project has sunk without trace. We do have a tendency to hold her in awe beyond respect for her singing ability. She doesn't want that. Respect her for her singing, 'yes', for her charitable works, 'fine' but then much is expected from those to whom much is given and many famous (and unknown) names take time out to do much charitable work without accolades. I think we need to recognise Hayley is a 'double person'. A performer with an extraordinary voice which we admire and for which reason, as much as our individual circumstances allow, we follow round the world. Beyond that she is a down-to-earth ordinary mortal who wants to be treated that way. That means she does have a temper and does throw the odd tantrum or is moody as every one of us is from time to time. That the press would latch upon the odd wrong moment is going to happen at some time or another and she and we are going to have to accept that but if Hayley is ever 'going to blow' she'll do it in right old style... and doubtless for a very good reason. It is not the blowing that is important, it is the reason and circumstances that determines the behaviour acceptable or unacceptable and how she behaves afterwards. Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by starbuck on Feb 11, 2008 18:09:18 GMT
I had to log in and respond to this Peter. After all that has been said that is c-r-a-p you hit the nail on the head.
Well said sir!!
Thanks Monte
|
|
|
Post by david on Feb 11, 2008 19:23:28 GMT
Just wanted to put my own personal feelings on record here. Agree with what you've said there Peter. I respect and admire Hayley for her beautiful singing voice and the music she produces, and for the fantastic work she does for charity, but like any other human being she has her flaws and is not perfect, nobody is.
It saddens and troubles me when the media seem to spend so much time focusing on the troubles of people like Britney, who in my opinion needs to be left alone to deal with her problems.
Hope I haven't said anything inappropriate here.
Best wishes David
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 11, 2008 19:25:54 GMT
... Beyond that she is a down-to-earth ordinary mortal who wants to be treated that way. That means she does have a temper and does throw the odd tantrum or is moody as every one of us is from time to time. ... She may be an "ordinary mortal" but she's lived anything but an ordinary life. She's had career success and fame at an early age, world travel on a scale only the most elite ever experience and her very own international fan club. And then there are the severe compromises that go along with all that, which most ordinary people never have to face, such as not having any time to date or socialise with her peers throughout her teens. I would think these factors, both accelerating and stunting, add up to an extraordinary individual with a unique experience that biographies cannot fully capture, or, perhaps want to downplay. Hayley certainly is entitled to the respect and dignity we accord all people, but I doubt that to know her is to relate to just anyone.
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Feb 11, 2008 19:43:44 GMT
Hi Peter T, Jon, your last post 4 in this thread.
May I suggest the nub of all this is not Hayley but our and the press's failure to separate the difference between private life and public life. The principle is absolute, regardless of who is in the spotlight. In this I am thinking of Prince Wiliam's girlfriend Kate Middleton.
There is an oft misquoted line which will be of interest to members across the spectrum and I will quote it correctly and provide its history. "Be you ever so high, the law is above you" is oft attributed to Lord Denning MR in the case of: Goriet v Union of Postal Workers [1971] 1 QB 729 (at 762).
In fact Denning was quoting someone else, a Thomas Fuller born three centuries earlier. Another of this man's sayings is also often quoted but usually without acknowledgment "A fox should not be on the jury at a goose's trial."
For those unfamiliar with MR, it stands for 'Master of the Rolls' which has nothing to do with looking after a Rolls-Royce. Incidentally, to the workers who make them they are known as Royces: Rolls was the salesman and Royce the engineer of whom it was said he could file an hexagonal nut to absolute perfection purely by eye without any measurement at any stage.
Just as the Jewish Taura is a roll on a spindle so early English law was written on parchment joined at the long edge to make a roll, hence the term 'Master of the Rolls'.
Interestingly, it was an Indian judge sitting in an Indian court who expanded the quotation: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you and be you ever so small, the law will befriend you." Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.
While there may be debate as to the public significance of Kate Middleton doing anything bizarre as opposed to anyone else, because of whom she might become, the key aspect is really that division between what is fairly a public matter of any individual's conduct and what is a private affair.
Public people have a right to a private life. The separation may become arguable when a public personality acts in a private capacity in a public place--as in a restaurant or pub.
The key point in all this, surely, is that while the British press generally is not half as bad as the continental paparazzi there is a division. Our role here, surely, is only on those matters that affect Hayley the public performer. Maintaining a debate on what should or should not be in the press is to give legitimacy to the press's concept that fudging the dividing line is acceptable.
Someone has to start somewhere to stop the rot and why not us, in following Hayley's lead?
Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 11, 2008 20:01:17 GMT
Hello all, There is no such thing as an incorrect opinion. Jon Yes there is, it is one I don't agree with! I could exound some opinions on the differences between absolute and relative moralities, but I won't for the reason Jon mentions. Martin
|
|