couchette

Many people have sent this startling image to TLA and me. My sources say it was taken earlier this month on the Midland line. I can’t quite make out the details on the signs outside the window. I don’t know who took this photo – if you want an image credit, or can add to the story, please get in touch.

This entry was posted in worst fashion, worst transport and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

176 Responses to couchette

  1. Bento says:

    Bad call dude.

    Like

  2. JaneZ says:

    I’m interested in what you mean to achieve by publishing it. This isn’t worst in the ordinary sense – it’s unfortunate or sad and possibly worse than that.

    Like

    • rottobloggo says:

      It is Worst: someone gets on a train, so drunk, they think they’re at home so take off their clothes to go to bed.

      Some blokes do a version of this: they are so blotto they piss in the wardrobe thinking they’re in the loo.

      I would happily post a pic of a bloke doing something so Worst.

      Like

      • JaneZ says:

        What reason is there to assume that’s all that has happened here?

        Like

        • rottobloggo says:

          That could feasibly be what happened. Or she might be on drugs, or mentally ill, or she might have been sober. I would welcome the account of the picture-taker.

          Like

          • JaneZ says:

            Or she’s been sexually assaulted, plus any combination of the above. You say you’d have published this if it were of a man. What if it were a white skinned woman?

            Like

          • vegan says:

            i’m not sure this is the forum to satisfy personal curiousity.

            just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

            just because it happened doesn’t make it news.

            Like

            • Rolly says:

              Where the hell do you bury your head, vegan.
              News is news whether it fits in with your version of propriety or not.
              The moralising claptrap that some of you guys have come up with, especially in view of some of your previous postings on other, but indirectly related, matters, is startling only in the degree of its middle class, affected left-wing hypocrisy.
              Excuse me a moment; my bowels are becoming insistent.

              Like

      • Pete says:

        Why. The assumption of chemical impairment? This reflects as much on the poster as the current blogtroller.

        Good on her, I’m all for moar public nudity.

        Like

  3. Juffy says:

    TLA said it best: “BTW, I have been sent multiple, multiple copies of a naked unconscious woman on a Midland train. Thanks everyone, but I couldn’t really be sure of the ownership of the photo, and she looked identifiable. ”

    Bad f***in’ taste, DFOC. And that’s ACTUAL bad taste, not the 70’s-floral-couch-on-the-verge bad taste that makes this blog normally such an internet landmark. Take it down – it’s not funny and it doesn’t achieve anything.

    Like

  4. Michael H says:

    Cropping out the distasteful part of the image and looking at it closer, It would have to be a Midland bound train at Perth Station, and taken prior to the works on Platforms 5/6.

    It’s the only station I know of that has the LED displays side by side like that mounted to a pylon of that colour, the type of roof shown in shot and lighting mounted in that configuration.

    The sign on the left also would suggest it’s a reflection of Perth Platform 5/6, as inbound Armadale trains used the platform underneath the Eastern Concourse.

    Possibly the worst photo depicting less than impressive side of Perth transit I can ever recall.

    Like

  5. skink says:

    this is why we don’t let the kids have the remote control to the TV

    Like

    • Frank Calabrese says:

      Agree – DFOC has once again provedd why he is totally unfit to moderate or run this blog – TLA should revoke his access immediately.

      What a plonker

      Like

    • Rolly says:

      Because of the nudity? In which case it’s probably time that you came out of the Victorian mindset, or because you would prefer that your children grow up ignorant of the foul realities of the human condition?
      If you are trying to prevent juvenile trauma, just imagine the young adult trauma that will ensue when they find out what it is that you have been hiding from them.

      Like

      • skink says:

        are you suggesting I should introduce my children to DFOC?

        as a warning, perhaps?

        as a kiddy we had a school trip to the police station and some plain-clothes officers showed us plastic bags full of drugs and photos of dead junkies. I imagine meeting DFOC would similarly scare the little ones into never reading local newspapers again

        Like

        • rottobloggo says:

          I once went to a house in Mt Claremont early in the morning to interview a woman.

          She took me into the kitchen for a coffee where the kids were finishing their breakfast before school.

          One look at me in my trenchcoat and the youngest girl burst into tears and ran to her bedroom.

          Like

        • Rolly says:

          ……”as a warning, perhaps?”

          Indeed!
          A warning of what can happen when someone dares to cross the line of socially acceptable bullshit.

          Like

          • skink says:

            My kids are not ‘ignorant of the foul realities of the human condition.’

            we went to Ellenbrook last week. The streets keep going round in circles so you can’t leave. It’s like a brick-and-tile remake of the village in The Prisoner.

            Like

            • poor lisa says:

              Also there is only 1 road to the place. If it’s blocked there is no escape.

              Like

              • Margeryx says:

                Oh good – it’s not only me then. I was trapped in those circular roads one dark night, getting no useful navigation help from my drunken passenger. Can’t believe I lived to tell the tale.

                Like

  6. Pete says:

    Isn’t the worst part the many who only saw fit to take photos? or those who then submit them? not so sure we can blame the messenger so quickly in this instance.

    Like

    • poor lisa says:

      True about the photographers, but the messenger did have a revealing schoolboy snigger about it (haha funny! Drunk person! It’s just like when drunk blokes piss in the cupboard in the privacy of their own homes!), instead of making what might’ve been a point with a bit of validity,
      e.g. It’s fucking disgraceful that Perth people (I’m presuming the photographers are men, but give them the benefit of the doubt) see a (non-white) woman who obviously needs help and one of the things they decide to do about it is take a photo and submit it to a blog for publication (they may have also sought help for her, but they still decided to take the photos and distribute them).

      Not that DFOC should’ve posted the pic anyway, as others have said more eloquently.

      Like

  7. Yorik says:

    Would you go over and wake up or attempt to communicate with a naked person on the train; moreso, the Midland train late at night. Hell no, I wouldn’t. I’d be keeping my distance, possibly changing cars and considering another train or to take the taxi home with the possibly; but less likely, naked taxi driver.

    Like

    • Pete says:

      Alas poor yorik they were all options available to those who submitted this pic. As were covering, assist or pressing the security button. …when good people stand idly by etc.

      Like

      • Yorik says:

        A bit like the poor young girl who had passed out/collapsed in the Train Station the other night, her friend holding her hand over her unclad nether regions as her skirt was too short and was exposing her “lady garden”. People stood by and make comments on her “planking skills” and how “it wasn’t a really good plank.. you’re not supposed to drool”. The Transit Officer seemed more interested in getting her name then calling for assistance, help or anything. It took until he radio’d in before he actually asked her friend if she was still breathing.

        Either way, I failed to snap the pic. Mostly as I didn’t see it as pic worthy.

        Like

      • Rolly says:

        Blue, black, white or bridle; pure indigene, European import, half caste or whatever, no person has the right to be so misbehaved in a public place.
        It is a record of fact, and indeed a worst.
        Whether to publish or not is a matter of taste, and, in general, there is little evidence of conventional “good taste” ever being imposed on this blog.
        What has been seen cannot be unseen and, apparently, many eyes have seen.
        If the woman objects to this being published on a private blog, albeit not restricted to viewing in any way, then she might first clean up her own act.
        In the event that this person was in some way not responsible for her actions, then the appropriate authorities have not effected their duties properly.
        How the hell did she get into this condition in the first place?
        Where were the Transit guards etc?

        Frank, how the hell can you compare a commercially sensitive newspaper that promotes itself as family reading with a rumbustious blog like this?
        Absolute bullshit.

        Like

  8. RubyRuby says:

    Dude.

    No.

    Like

    • RubyRuby says:

      For what it’s worth – I don’t like this post for several reasons. Without additional context, there are assumptions made by each viewer, some of which are more extreme/likely than others. It seems unlikely that the person in the photo has given their consent for the image to be taken, let alone for what is effectively international publication and distribution. The image itself makes me uneasy, for social reasons that have been discussed by others with far greater eloquence on this thread already. I am not convinced that this image fits the brief of this particular blog. I was discombobulated when I checked the site from work and there was NSFW heads up before the image. I have recommended this site to family members and friends as something to check out as a laugh from time to time, and I dislike the thoughts they may have that I would get a laugh from this particular image. I rather suspect that we’re being manipulated by Dee-Fock for ulterior purposes and I really don’t like that.

      BUT I cannot and will not expect the world and the people in it to conform to what I feel comfortable with at any particular time. I have my reactions and hope to always be entitled to express them, but I will not join in the chorus of “take it down” or “I’m leaving and never coming back”. I think that it is outrageous, in which case Dee-Fock is simply confirming what we already know of him, but I don’t believe that my personal reactions should have any impact on the outcome. If I were the person the subject (objectified) of the photo, things would be quite different – for a start, there would be more understanding of the context of the situation, and possibly legal advice sought.

      But as far as I am concerned as a participant in discussions on this blog, TLA and Dee-Fock post items for our edification and entertainment. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t. I chose not to comment on posts I found inappropriate or uninteresting during Dee-Fock’s last stint at the helm, but I’ve been drawn out to make this small but determined stand as the calls for censorship here are profoundly disturbing. TLA and Dee-Fock do not remove posts or censor on the basis of disagreement or even personal attacks on them. As long as we are free to express our views in response, they should be free to post, and leave posted, any chosen submissions.

      Like

  9. Pete says:

    If a midland team had just won some form of sporting contest this would be ok, wouldn’t it? Or my name’s not m.fraser, r.nixon et al.

    Like

    • Frank Calabrese says:

      Well Said Skink.

      DFOC has crossed the Rubicon BIG TIME.

      Would he publish this in The Post – I think not.

      Like

  10. NF#1 says:

    The question is not of course whether posting this photograph is morally justifiable or not, but whether it’s art or not. If it’s art it’s above morality, and art it is – a deliciously playful and yet knowing twist on the traditional reclining nude; part Gauguinian paradisiacal maiden, nobly savage reminder she is of an irretrievable and perhaps impossible Edenic never-when, and part Schielesque dissection. The subject’s time-honoured pose is one of both sensuality and vulnerability; the glorious come-hither swoon of a young woman who is at once voracious hungry for life and flesh and all pleasures besides and overcome by that very voraciousness. The photographer forces the viewer to recall the tradition but then invites us to transpose its schema onto an all-too-familiar tableau of contemporary transit, all the while evoking the sensation of transitoriness itself. There is loss – of clothing, of brain-cells, of dignity even – but in ponderous space opened up by the inevitable question of “for whom?” there is also a kind of wisdom: the wisdom of the image, so serenely apart from the irritable reaching after scruple and prudence characterizing the hopelessly divided modern conscience.

    Like

    • Jaidyn-Jaxxon says:

      I wholeheartedly agree with you

      Like

    • JaneZ says:

      That’s the amazing part. It’s a gorgeous image of a body and resonates on all sorts of levels. I just hate how open to exploitation both the picture and the person are. I’m glad this was published, it has been worth thinking about.

      Like

    • WAtching says:

      So is it funny?

      Like

      • NF#1 says:

        P’raps only as part of some arcane meta-joke perpetrated upon all the denizens of this tawdry tower of two point oh.

        Like

    • Bill O'Slatter says:

      Pure bullshit.

      Like

    • NF#1 says:

      My original comment was a joke – an admittedly lame attempt at comic juxtaposition, i.e. situating a piece of undoubted grubbiness as some kind of hip-ironic and/or high-cultural gesture. While I’m no fan of moralisation, I also don’t think for a moment that art and ethics should or even really can be separated. Nor do I think of this photograph, in the present context at least, as ‘art,’ even if it does bear some of the qualities alluded to by both myself and JaneZ . As Bill said, and points I was trying to make aside, it’s pretty much pure bullshit.

      Like

  11. MattB says:

    This actually is a “worst” though, and I guess while the blog is generally light-hearted it reserves the right to be unconstrained by what would generally be considered palatable or acceptable. Multiple worsts of Perth at its worst.

    Worst that this poor woman is in this position in the first place. Not in a trendy or cringeworthy sense, but Worst in that this kind of stuff happens in Perth and can’t be glossed over with a few in jokes and Tim Winton/dugong comments.

    Worst that some bastard thought to just take a photo rather than try and get some assistance.

    Worst that “many” people thought it would be a jolly little pic perfect for the hijinx of TWOP. I mean that’s always what comes to mind immediately whenever someone emails me a truly disturbing photograph of what (devoid of context) appears to be a photograph of someone who has been raped “I know The Lazy Aussie at TWOP will totally love this”? wtf?

    Worst that Rottoblogger seems to think it is actaully a plausible excuse that this lady has just gotten drunk and taken her clothes off and fallen asleep on the train, rather than the scenario of sexual assault as suggested earlier. That is worst enough in itself – I mean if this is “here is Perth at actual worst suck it up folks sorry to shake the foundations of your pseudo-intellectual daily little in-joke fest but it’s not all bumper stickers and willy graffiti” then so be it. But to then comment that “someone gets on a train, so drunk, they think they’re at home so take off their clothes to go to bed” as though it is just another little funny perth pic for the regulars to have a joke over – sheesh.

    Like

    • poor lisa says:

      Yes sheesh.

      Like

    • MattB says:

      I just wanted to add… IF this was art and IF it is posed then it is brilliant. IF it is posted on this site with the site moderator knowing that it is art and posed, but choosing not to reveal that to the audience, then I think that is brilliant too. It is a very challenging photo to this middle class white boy.

      If it is simply an opportunistic pic of a real life situation.. well it is actual news and I tend to think that it is innapropriate for the kind of banter typical of TWOP. But then again it has not generated that kind of typical banter…

      I still stand by my 1st post though…

      Like

  12. WAtching says:

    Deefock!

    How is this in any way funny at all? Am I missing something? I could actually frame an argument for ‘Beechboro’… but this? You’re on your own.

    Take it down.

    Like

  13. B.T. says:

    I’m not convinced that it is real. Something about the picture strikes me as fake.

    Like

    • Frank Calabrese says:

      Especially as it would’ve been taken by the Teansit Guard who would’ve been on duty and patrolling that train as there are 2 of them on EVERY train after 8pm.

      Like

      • B.T. says:

        Then it must have been taken by a guard with an eye for arty pics. Consider the camera angle it’s low like the camera was on the seat. Wouldn’t anyone who walked into the carriage be like “whoa, cool, a naked chick…. gotta get some snaps” and take them from a standing position, from above the girl? It looks like someone put some thought into the composition of the photo.

        Like

  14. Shazz says:

    Well this is most controversial and confronting. The first question that comes to mind, after wondering what DFOC’s thought process was in posting this. Is what would I have done if I entered this carriage to find the woman in this state? Taking a photo would not be the first or last thought. My first, I admit, would be that she was inebriated to the point of passing out. My second thought would be that she was now vulnerable to sexual assault (if indeed that had not already occurred) So I would immediately and gently cover her genitalia, and seek assistance from Transperth for her.

    This is not a worst of Perth, this could happen, and I am sure does, anywhere in the world. I enjoy the posts that reflect Perth specific worsts, like Patti Patti, and Smiths public art, and poxy advertising, and inane suburb names. Pictures of overweight people eating, purchasing things, walking down the road, or naked people passed out on trains are not Perth Worsts. They could happen anywhere. I dont think this is in the spirit of TWoP.

    Like

    • ronggly says:

      You and MattB have well captured my reaction.

      Like

    • skink says:

      speaking of Patti Patti – she has expanded her website
      by the looks of it she bought one of those $100 all-in web packages knocked up in India.
      please enjoy the ‘About Patti’ section

      “Patti delivers vibrant and motivational speeches. She balances professionalism with just the right amount of humour to ensure audiences are engaged and inspired.”

      the V-word!

      now THAT’S what I call a Worst:

      http://www.pattichonglawyer.com/who-is/

      Like

  15. BrownBook says:

    Dude, no

    Everyone else has made a good case for why not. And at least give us a “NSFW, after the jump” thing.

    Like

  16. The Legend 101 says:

    Erl yuck what is wrong with this guy?

    Like

  17. Burgerdee says:

    I like worst of Perth cause it’s a bit of fun. A bit of taking the piss. But this is just plain mean. Take it down.

    Like

  18. Frank Wer says:

    I don’t see the big deal.
    You can’t see any naughty bits, and you cannot identify her.

    Maybe the air-con had failed? Maybe she was protesting?

    Like

  19. Jaidyn-Jaxxon says:

    The real worst is that fabric

    Like

  20. Chris says:

    The train has come from Midland and is waiting at Perth to depart to Fremantle. This was taken before platforms 6 & 7 were closed for maintenance so it’s at least a few months old.

    A photograph depicts less than 1 second of time so there’s no evidence that whoever took it didn’t assist in some way.

    For those who find naked women offensive, perhaps the Internet isn’t the place for you!

    Like

    • Frank Calabrese says:

      You, like DFOC don’t get it – If the TLA wasn’t keen to publish it why should DFOC.

      The Reason — he is a n Amoral Gerbilist – would post pics of his mother in law naked – if it could boost circulation.

      Like

      • Rolly says:

        ….and the trouble with you, it seems, is a twisted morality born of religious dogma and blind faith.
        You, too, need to get out of the faux moralistic dark ages.

        Like

      • Chris says:

        Not interested in blog politics or censorship, just commenting on a photo :)

        Like

  21. RJ says:

    I am OUTRAGED SIR! Out-fucking-raged. I don’t like this so take it down! I am offended! Your idea of what is appropriate or not must be changed to suit mine!

    Seriously, “might have been raped” on the train? You may as well have said she “might have been abducted by aliens and anal probed!”

    Drunk person does stupid thing, next?

    Like

    • Shazz says:

      RJ if you find the concept of public sexual assault incredulous then you need to start reading the news more often. Doesnt he David?

      Like

      • rottobloggo says:

        You bet, Shazza.

        Like

        • RJ says:

          Of course, stupid me, I should read more news! Wait.. do you mean the news that this story would have been on had it actually been a rape on a train… a well lit train… that has CCTV cameras… that is patrolled by security guards?

          Like

          • Bento says:

            Too right. Midland Line is safe as houses. As a fully clothed male, it’s not like I’ve ever attracted unprovoked aggression on the train at night. I’m sure a naked unconscious female would be fine.

            No need to alert the guards, just take a pic and be on your way.

            Like

          • Shazz says:

            Yes you are right. Stupid you.

            Like

    • poor lisa says:

      Most fuckwitted comment.

      Like

  22. Annie says:

    I would have passed the picture onto the police. My first assumption is that this person has already been raped. Now I feel like vomiting! So, thanks for adding this to my day unexpected.

    Like

    • Jaidyn-Jaxxon says:

      Clothes: in situ, suggesting they were removed once on board. Photographer: seated opposite, suggesting they were present before la couchette made her entrance. Time: 6-7pm approx. Of course it’s possible that a rape has occurred but if you accept the above it would have had to have happened once on the train itself, without intervention by other passengers, let alone driver, security (deployable by 4wd to any station in theory) and so on. Possible, but doesn’t seem likely, and it seems even less likely that any person on the scene would respond by taking a photograph if the circumstances were such. (Of course the photographer’s back story would help).
      The scenario described by DFOC does seem more consistent. As such, and disregarding the ethics of posting actual human visages (rather than just their homes, workplaces, vehicles and vanity projects) the TWOP mission statement at blog’s top can be seen to have been filled. Joyless, humorless, pitiless documentation of Perth at its baseline level of shithouse, to be filed away in the State Library and referenced by future cunts.

      Like

  23. octapotamus says:

    I’m with Shazz on this one. Nothing “Perth” about it. It reminds me of that infamous Lovers and Lobbers pic of the chick getting face-fucked under the piano at Manor, that of course was within the context of the blog, but it still did great harm both to the people involved and the spirit of the blog.

    The spirit of the blog, it has been harmed, or at the least changed to a harder less jovial thing.

    I would LOVE to see this as a painting however. NF#1’s comment on the artistic merit is splendid.

    Like

    • Rolly says:

      The “Spirit of the blog” has spirited himself away.
      He may be beyond the reaches of internet communication, but, when he does return to the intertubes, it will be interesting to hear his opinion of what does, or does not, pass as appropriate to his blog.

      Like

      • Bento says:

        Um, he already declined to run the pic, and explained his reasons.

        I can’t see that there is any remaining doubt as to his feelings on the matter.

        Like

        • Shazz says:

          I did wonder if TLA deep down knew DFOC would run this while he was away? The stats must be looking sharp.

          Like

          • NF#1 says:

            I also wondered if DFOC was acting as attack dog and whipping boy. Though I scarcely doubt the sincerity of TLA’s original objections to the pic, from the little I saw the blog did seem rather inactive last week. However, it’s pointless to speculate without the relevant provocateur/s coming forward. (And Shazz: do I correctly remember your objection to all the “chest beating over analysis” of the pram post?)

            Like

            • Shazz says:

              I did wonder if that would come up NF. Do you see my comments in relation to this as chest beating hypocracy? I see the two issues as quite separate. The other pic I took issue with the class analysis and the idea we were approaching the pic from a perspective of supposed cultural superiortity. In this pic I see a woman who is genuinely as risk. Both are mean. And while I’m not above mean, I do have my own arbitrary limits.

              Like

              • NF#1 says:

                No, not hypocrisy – I understand
                the distinction and was for the most part (and with all due respect) winding you up. I agree with your position, though largely for different reasons, i.e. that the whole issue is simply dull, from the initial school-yard humour through to the all-too predictable braying, bleating, chest-beating and over-analysis. I doubt there was any “serious” intent behind the post, no stab at a photographie vérité. Rather, in the words of The Master, it is simply “a piece of ingenuity pure and simple, of cold … calculation, an amusette to catch those not easily caught … the jaded, the disillusioned, the fastidious.” The problem is that few here, myself included, have been as fastidious as we perhaps like to think ourselves. Yet this points to an editorial failure as much as our own, “the ‘fun’ of the capture of the witless being ever small.”
                And here I am, caught once more. Smarter readers and contributors have quite wisely spurned the “debate” altogether. Oh fuck I’ll shut up now.

                Like

      • poor lisa says:

        So if his opinion is all that matters why preempt his divine reckoning on his return by expressing yours and mine?

        Besides which according to earlier comments, he’s already expressed it and declined to publish this.

        Like

        • Rolly says:

          “So if his opinion is all that matters ……..”
          That was neither said nor inferred.
          His nominee, on the other hand, who he personally appointed, has done so.
          The responsibility remains with him.
          I find myself tiring of all this self promoting moralistic bullshit.
          Good day, Madam.
          I said good day!

          Like

  24. stu says:

    People find this picture amusing? That says a lot about themselves doesn’t it?

    This above all else is a human being that deserves better than this. She did not give permission for her picture to be placed on this blog. Don’t bog yourselves down with discussion on how she came to be in this situation it is all completely irrelevant. This is a human being, not a mangy dog.

    Find something else on the internet to amuse yourselves over.

    This is the second time you’ve moderated this blog in TLA’s absence yes? Also the second time you’ve seen fit to post a picture of somebody in an unfortunate situation, in which they are identifiable. Is this a particular fetish of yours? I have to ask the question because none of the reasonings as to why you posted this so far have been acceptable. Especially as TLA made it clear he would not post the picture.

    A shame, because as a frequent visitor and sometime contributor to this blog I’m not feeling the urge to revisit for the time being. TLA gets back when?

    Like

    • Grrr says:

      It’s the second time something has been posted that has been explicitly, earlier shot down by TLA too.

      The discussion has at some points been interesting, but I’d rather not have seen this either.

      Like

      • Frank Calabrese says:

        I’m with Grrr and Stu.

        DFOC has form – he is no better than Howard Sattler – and has the morals of same

        As for those defending him – you’re right at home on 6PR with Sattler and Nurry.

        Like

        • Bento says:

          Is there an Australian equivalent of Godwin’s Law?

          Like

        • Jaidyn-Jaxxon says:

          Lol, I was contemplating a ‘DFOC = SATTLER’ joke post only last night, but decided it was unfunny. How wrong I was.

          Like

        • Grrr says:

          I’m actually curious about this: did The West run this. Because you know they would (albeit pixelated) for the shocking headline.

          That they didn’t suggests that they considered it in poor taste… or that they got legal concerns raised.

          My media law knowledge is a foggy in this area (right to privacy, or the oft feared slander/libel has been shed, presumably), but I suspect it might otherwise the ‘public interest’ test.

          Anyone know?

          Like

  25. The Bartender's skills with a Manhatten says:

    If I found a woman on a NYC subway in this state I would locate the driver and tell him to alert the police.

    I would not take a picture.

    I think I’m safe in assuming that we have a much higher violent crime/assault/drug OD rate than you do in Perth, but I think that if I encountered this particular woman I would do the same.

    Past the moral question I see this picture as not part of this website’s theme. The beauty of TWOP is that it documents things that people somehow find aesthetically pleasing or “normal” and exposes their weirdness. But surely no one finds the thought of passing out (under who knows what circumstances) on public transport pleasing or normal. (The argument that her body is aesthetically pleasing is surely beside the point–if she were incapacitated by a violent accident she might look just as good.)

    Like

  26. lauren says:

    i’ve been reading the blog for a while, chuckling from the comfort of my seat in the eastern states and abroad. now i’m in perth and discovering that most of what gets posted here isn’t even the half of the ghastliness in this funny crazy city.

    it’s funny, because it’s true? sorta kinda not really. you’ve crossed the line here, kids.

    ‘in the public’s best interest’? bullshit.

    if you really consider that this is ‘news’ and needs to be published for the good of the city and concerned citizens (which might be fair enough), then why the hell aren’t you couching this in a manner that’s appropriate of that decision?

    if this has gone from ‘ha ha, look at all you weirdos’ to a public service, you’ve provided no number of the police for any further information, no sexual assault victims line if that woman has been assaulted (or for others out there who may have found themselves in this position), no links to counselling services, indigenous welfare services or alcohol recovery lines.

    you have no moderation or facilitation of the comments and you’ve not even made a final decision to leave it or take it down. you’re just trying to justify a poor decision, by a ‘in the public’s best interest’ line, by using the it’s a privately run blog.

    a blog that you’ve decided to tag such a ‘public service’ with ‘worst fashion’. like this kind of situation is akin to some random wardrobe malfunction on guilford road, or a terrible clash of colours in victoria park. really.

    congratulations. you guys have become the worst of perth. you’ve absolutely managed to show what is so wrongtown about this town: immature and heartless people unable to discern the difference between a human being and a happy snap.

    Like

    • Hutch says:

      “immature and heartless people unable to discern the difference between a human being and a happy snap.” – then every town in the world is Perth’s sister city.

      Like

  27. Ash says:

    I will put myself out as a fence sitter. I feel if this picture was of a ‘bogan’, white, male doing the same thing, it wouldn’t have generated as much comment. In fact I think everyone would have found it ‘The Worst of Perth’ and had a cheeky giggle about it.

    Do I think this woman has been exploited? Yes.

    But I certainly think this is a better forum to highlight it on than say, commercial television, or The West.

    What I am glad about is the discussion.

    Like

    • Shazz says:

      Ash I most certainly would not have had the same strength of reaction if it was a white ‘bogan’ male. That is true.

      Like

      • JaneZ says:

        I think the same about my own reaction Shazz. The white middle class guilt is strong in me. But there’s no doubt that a naked man on a train simply isn’t at risk in the same way as a woman; there’d be more room for comfort, and more room to treat it as a joke.

        I am not sure what I’d think if the woman in the picture were white. Probably as protective, probably less guilty. I know DFOC said he would have published it all the same but I wonder if that’s really so. I can’t help seeing this woman through an admittedly unjustifiable and quite despicable cultural lens, as someone who is utterly vulnerable and, more relevantly, utterly without power. But I’m sure I’m not the only person who’d have that response. One consequence of her having no power is that people are prepared to treat her naked image as an object, and to publish it on a blog for discussion/derision, without apparent regard to her personal interests or privacy.

        Am I completely off the mark?

        Like

        • Bill O'Slatter says:

          No you are not off the mark. You have covered the problem with publishing this image exactly.

          Like

        • rottobloggo says:

          Not at all.

          Once the hurly-burly of the week’s gerbalism is over I should sit down and set out my thoughts on the image, why I published it and my motivations.

          Like

          • skink says:

            please do that in a Winton style

            Like

            • rottobloggo says:

              Hmmm. I was interviewed by a reporter from the Voice on Tuesday night, so there might be something in there on Saturday.

              Like

              • MattB says:

                I always get nervous when there is a possible connection between me, the Voice, and a completely inappropriate photo.

                Like

          • Shazz says:

            DFOC, I’m really glad to hear that and I look forward to it.

            Like

            • poor lisa says:

              Yes would also be interested (especially if it’s wintoned).

              Seriously, regarding the context of the photo (i.e. a naked black woman), it reminded me of this case. The West printed a large front-page (I think) photo of him walking naked down the road before he was arrested. I think there was a Press Council ruling? don’t remember.

              He was a white guy who’d (allegedly, according to the story) committed horrific murders. I can honestly say I didn’t feel very differently from how I feel about this photo, i.e. what’s the public interest, this person is clearly vulnerable (no matter what they’ve done or whether they put themselves in that situation, etc) although there are additional emotive aspects to this photo.

              I’m not saying I’m right, or that this is anything like the Worst’s tabloid behaviour (it isn’t! and I still don’t know whether I think WOP should’ve posted it or not) it was just a point of comparison for me.

              Like

  28. RubyRuby says:

    Deefock – I suspect a publicity stunt?

    Like

  29. Nutkin says:

    I have a couple of awesome pics you might be interested in. The first is of a guy who fell of his push bike and his head got hit by a car and split open and his brain is exposed, but it’s pretty funny as the silly bugger wasn’t even wearing a helmet. The other is of a severely disabled dude in an electric wheelchair bogged in some sand, but it’s the idiots own fault that he’d had a couple of drinks. Anyway, let me know if you’re interested. I think they’d be about the right level of lowbrow for you.

    Like

  30. Chris says:

    G’day – I have been a follower of worst of perth pretty much since its inception I wont be anymore. The inclusion of this photo of the Aboriginal woman ( probably from the Kimberley by the looks) on the train has got to be one of the most appalling things I have seen on a satirical site it would be more at home at a racist hate group. To think that that is in any way funny or something to be mocked beggars belief and speaks volumes about the mentality of the person who posted it. Fucking sad and pathetic.

    Like

  31. Fiona of Mount Lawley says:

    I read about the receipt of these pictures before the decision was made to upload this example. While it must be accepted that the internet is a wild frontier, this puts me in mind of the scene near the beginning of the film “Dead Man” in which a man is depicted forcing a woman to fellate him at gunpoint. I found that gratuitous, and I find this gratuitous too.

    The context surrounding the event is not known. What may or may not have befallen her earlier in the evening, and what may or may not have befallen her later in the evening to this poor woman are not known, but she is plainly very vulnerable.

    I hope you have given due consideration to removal of this image. For me this isn’t a matter of civil liberties or abstract notions about freedom of information on the internet. It’s about privacy under a circumstance in which someone has a basic expectation of privacy (because if not for this, then for what ?). Please.

    Like

  32. rottobloggo says:

    I posted the image because it is a Worst.
    I can’t think of how you can be naked on a train and it not being Worst.
    I assumed she was drunk and took off her clothes: others suggested alternatives, including one I hadn’t thought of (it was staged).
    I was hoping publication would prompt the photographer to provide more information.
    Some other thoughts:
    Was it suitable for TWOP? Of course.
    The Voice reporter who interviewed me wondered if it was: he said TWOP is a humorous blog.
    Is it? It provides a lot of welcome laughs, but it also has a serious intent, and images like this should be published, seen, and discussed.
    I welcomed the discussion and approved all comments: people should be able to say what they want while keeping defamation law in mind.
    Some spoke about privacy, defamation and other legal issues.
    There is no law stopping people taking photographs in public places – but some people really don’t want their photo taken in public (if they are on trial in court, for example, and are going into or coming out of court).
    You can publish photos of people even if they don’t give their permission.
    Defamation? If the woman in the photo can be identified, the photo is probably defamatory, but truth is the best defence to a defamation suit, and I am guessing the photo is an accurate depiction.
    The biggest legal issue with the photo is copyright: I have breached the photographer’s copyright by publishing it without their permission.
    If the copyright holder wants it taken down, then I would oblige.
    As a reporter I am guided by the AJA’s Code of Ethics, and the Criminal Code.
    I am confident I have breached neither of these documents by publishing the image.
    Many groups have strong views on what should not be published or broadcast.
    My default position is to publish.
    But suicide prevention groups don’t want reports of suicide published…mental health advocates don’t want reports of mentally ill people accused of committing crimes published…some parents don’t want pictures of their children published…some police don’t want their photos published…the Army doesn’t want pictures of its soldiers published…some Muslims don’t want cartoons of Mohammed published…
    I assume some TWOPers didn’t like the image because indigenous Australians get a rough ride in this country.
    I agree: we stole their country, hunted some of them, got them hooked on alcohol and gave them diseases, kidnapped their children and discriminate against them.
    Even so, my default position is to publish.
    I think, for example, if the media published more images of what happens to people in armed conflict then more of us would say war is a bad thing.
    Last week we saw footage of the live animal trade published – this week cattle exports to Indonesia were stopped for six months.
    I wish people going for their driver’s licence would have to see gruesome images of what happens to drivers who don’t wear their seat belts, or what happens to people hit by drunk drivers.
    The first time he went away, TLA joked he appointed a guest editor who understood defamation but had lower standards of taste than him.
    There are some things I probably wouldn’t publish – but couchette isn’t one.

    Like

    • Bento says:

      Boo! You said you were going to Winton your explanation.

      Like

    • The Bartender's skills with a Manhatten says:

      So you would also publish a photo of someone killed by a drunk driver in Perth? Because it seems that such a photo would not violate any of the legal ramifications you cite and certainly would qualify as a “worst” in terms of public behavior.

      Like

      • Pete says:

        Bartender, the obituary column is often full of photos of people killed by a variety of causes, as is the front page of Teh Wets.
        Usually before shots though, so perhaps that doesn’t count.

        Like

        • The Bartender's skills with a Manhatten says:

          I am referring specifically to a picture that would depict the body.

          Not saying such pictures are without sociological or other merit–WeeGee is a photographer who documented precisely such occurances and I think his work is a valuable record. But surely this would change the focus of this website if similar images are a fair go?

          “Worst” meaning bad taste and “worst” meaning illness, despair, poverty, trauma, disaster and death seem like different categories to me.

          Like

    • nataliafan1 says:

      I dunno DC: you’ve given a lot of agreeable reasons for why there should be no barriers to the publication of such a photo on this site, but very few (and even then vague) positive reasons for its being here. There are many things we are in some respects permitted to do but in others perhaps should not. The positive reasons you have given are, in my view, largely meretricious, in their current form at least. While I accept that “Worst” is a broad category, why and how is the photo in question a Worst as such? Where are the “welcome laughs”? And if, as you say, there was serious intent, is it enough to say that the aim was simply to provoke “discussion”? You seem to suggest that any discussion is a good in and of itself, but this likewise seems improbable to me.

      Like

    • Shazz says:

      Lets say she did not have her clothes removed voluntarily. Lets say she was sexually assualted. Is it still Worst? And if so, surely the perpetrator rather than the victim should be on show? Without knowing the context in which this picture was taken I think a clear line was crossed. This site, and those who read it were not any better off for seeing it IMHO. As an aside I didnt have a particular problem with her racial background. I think any woman travelling a train alone, unconscious and naked is at equal risk. This is the primary issue for me. So I have to say this is a pretty weak case for printing the pic DFOC. Most of the protests were not based on legal concerns but ethical. But you know that.
      This is one of those rare cases where I respectfully disagree ( but still love your work.)

      Like

    • JaneZ says:

      You say there was a serious intent, but I don’t know that you’ve really articulated what it was.

      That said, the fact that you posted it made me think a bit and interrogate my own reactions, which is never a bad thing.

      Like

    • WAtching says:

      I’m not sure that I agree that this website has any ‘serious intent.’ For myself, it has always been about the laughs. If either yourself or TLA used the site to make a serious statement about something, then that is fine, go ahead. But what were you attemting to convey with ‘couchette?’

      It reminded me of another website I saw. It’s premise was to find a nude or semi nude photo of someone and then publish it without the subjects knowledge. C’mon DeeFock… leave it to ‘Perthspiration.’

      Like

      • The serious intent during my watch anyway would be the documenting of the ephemera of the city, especially as it vanishes, so it’s an alternative history for the future cunts to pore over. Yes I did reject the picture, but it does fit into that intention, as seen by Deefock. His case has merit,despite it not being my style of worst.

        Like

        • WAtching says:

          Oh, I get it now. She’s Ephemera.

          Like

          • Jaidyn-Jaxxon says:

            aren’t we all

            Like

          • Sure. So is Mainy.

            Like

            • WAtching says:

              Granted.
              But he was a public figure, right? I’ll only say one more thing on the matter*. The reason this post sticks out like dogs balls is because the website has always been of a really high quality. It’s a credit to yourself and DeeFock.

              Like

              • It’s a difference of opinion on what should be posted and that’s fine. Doesn’t make a difference to me if they are a public figure or not. If someone had sent me a shot of Mainy foaming at the mouth, howling at the moon and abusing the neighbours just before he carked it, I probably wouldn’t ave used it. Most others including deefock would probably gleefully use it – and they would be right in their own way. I think it’s good that there was another way of thinking at the helm for a while. I’ll continue to do what i think is worst. If anyone else wants to do a week on the provision that they are aware of what defamation means, then i will be equally happy OK with their choices too. Like troubleshooting sexy foreigner parties, it’s not as easy as it looks.

                Like

                • WAtching says:

                  Yep, that’s what I was getting at. Thankless task. Worst On.

                  Like

                • Rolly says:

                  Does that mean, then, that those persons with sexist, religious and political hang-ups will be allowed to have their say, but not actioned on?
                  If so, I say good-o, ‘cos I, for one, am totally sick of the self-righteous and ‘politically correct’ twaddle that gets posted as ‘ethical questions’ which, in the poster’s view, should be the cause of some kind of censorship.
                  As to the ‘serious’ side of this blog, I agree with you that it can have a socio-philosophical lean, where it affects Perthites generally. Daily occurrences, often going unnoticed by people of habit and those who are conditioned to the morés of conventional and/or indoctrinated society, will often carry within them a deeper significance than initially apparent.
                  P.S. And off topic: I just wish that this comments box would scroll over to the next line upon the the typing of the the first character.

                  Like

  33. Fap Fap Fap says:

    I’d hit it.

    Like

  34. Pingback: The Best Worsts of 2011 | The Worst of Perth

  35. The Legend 101 says:

    DRUNK!

    Like

    • Bob says:

      the pic is funny. don’t like it. go outside. the internet doesnt give a fuck what you think.
      its funny to see how emotional people used to be back in 2011

      Like

  36. Pingback: Outrage Sunday 60 Cranes, trains & automobiles | The Worst of Perth

  37. Pingback: Outrage Sunday 102 sexy stilettos | The Worst of Perth

  38. Rattylove says:

    I’m relieved to see that the comments on here are not of disgust towards the woman but thinking more broadly of the context of this photo. So often people take the “not my problem” approach. The nakedness is secondary to the risk of harm to the person in the photo and I’m relieved to see others share that view.

    Like

We can handle the worst

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s