I came across a webchat thing the Standard did with the comedy terrorist bloke (it's on
http://www.chortle.co.uk if you're interested).
The problem with being launched into the public eye over night is that it doesn't really give you time to acclimatise to the situation or to think things through properly. Something I think is demonstrated by the twisted logic in this exchange:
"Rosstomlin: If you were surprised that it was so easy to get into Prince William's Birthday Party, why were you so upset that a Prince William lookalike was trying to gate crash your birthday party? If you invaded his privacy, surely others should be allowed to invade yours, besides, it is all in good humour, isn't it???
Aaron: But what is strange, is that those inside [Williams party] didn't know what had happened. No, he is a public figure that is why I should be able to gatecrash his party, but after a week of the media hunting me and harassing my family and friends, I would have hoped that they would have had the decency to respect my privacy on my birthday. However, of course they didn't and I don't know why I'm surprised, because they're all sharks. "
Surely the point is that the Comedy Terrorist guy IS now a media figure (and furhtermore he made the choice to become one, which is something Prince William has had foisted upon him).
Prince William and his family have also had some time being harrassed by the media (not just a week) and in fact this media intrusion was at least a factor in his mother's death. Maybe William might feel people should have the decency to respect his privacy on his birthday too.
But the comedy terrorist didn't see it that way when it was someone else being hassles, seemingly reasoning that because William is in the media eye then he is a valid target.
Yet when that kind of intrusion was made into his own life (on a very small scale - I never heard about it - and in what is clearly an unthreatening, humorous and valid reaction to his own stunt) he suddenly feels that his privacy has been compromised.
Even though he CHOSE to make himself into a famous figure.
I can foresee a tough time for this fella in the future. Not just because he has a lot to live up to (where does he go from here?),but because of his actions he has made himself the perfect target for a string of other attention seekers.
If he has broken the convention that there is nothing to stop an audience member joining in with a show or with a member of the public gate-crashing a private event, then I don't feel he has any right to complain when people do it to him.
I woujld imagine that most nights in Edinburgh (a town that is full of desperate self-publicists in August - see my early attempts to drum up support for my show) some idiot is going to try a similar stunt during the comedy terrorists show. The first one might get a few column inches, but then interest will fade as the carbon copies get fainter and fainter.
Maybe there will be some way for the comedy terrorist to deal with this, but I think I would find it impossible and I have a bit more experience of performing than him.
The stunt at the palace may well become the comedy terrorist's emu, dogging (well emuing) him wherever he goes.
With the important exception that even at its most basic what Rod Hull did with emu was consistently funny (and it built up over the years. If he'd attacked the Pope at the start he would have had nowhere to go).
I have rambled a little, but I think maybe the lesson to learn is that just because someone is in the papers that doesn't necessarily mean their life belongs to the public.
Maybe all of us should respect the privacy that the comedy terrorist covets for himself.
