Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

cnocbui · 22-01-2020 12:51pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Exactly, I don't believe the press were that bad?
Maybe she was a little extra sensitive & he went with it.
What they are doing now is not going to make them any less tabloid fodder, maybe more so

The press have been atrocious. Here is just some evidence: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

It wouldn't surprise me at all, if one day it came out that some of the comments on the Daily Mail are actually generated by the rag itself.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2020 12:52pm

cnocbui wrote: »

The press have been atrocious. Here is just some evidence: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

It wouldn't surprise me at all, if one day it came out that some of the comments on the Daily Mail are actually generated by the rag itself.

The continuous downplaying of these nasty headlines are mind blowing. The mental gymnastics some are doing to justify them is equally as bad.

22-01-2020 1:00pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

The continuous downplaying of these nasty headlines are mind blowing. The mental gymnastics some are doing to justify them is equally as bad.

but we wouldn't really see any of them, I don't read the English papaers.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2020 1:05pm

bubblypop wrote: »

but we wouldn't really see any of them, I don't read the English papaers.

You said the press didn't treat her that bad. If you don't read the English papers, then of course you wouldn't have seen any of it, which makes your point completely moot.

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2020 1:09pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

You said the press didn't treat her that bad. If you don't read the English papers, then of course you wouldn't have seen any of it, which makes your point completely moot.

you can't argue with somebody who thinks closing their eyes means that something right in front of them doesn't exist any more.

Stateofyou · 22-01-2020 1:20pm

bubblypop wrote: »

but we wouldn't really see any of them, I don't read the English papaers.

Apparently you don't ready ANY papers or follow news sources online or tv. Because the coverage relentlessly appears on ALL of them here, too.

22-01-2020 1:31pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Apparently you don't ready ANY papers or follow news sources online or tv. Because the coverage relentlessly appears on ALL of them here, too.

seriously?
I'm not sure why the insulting tone....but, no I don't see any relentless coverage here on either of them?
apart from all this craic now, that they decided to leave! now I see a lot!

SusieBlue · 22-01-2020 1:35pm

bubblypop wrote: »

seriously?
I'm not sure why the insulting tone....but, no I don't see any relentless coverage here on either of them?
apart from all this craic now, that they decided to leave! no I see a lot!

The relentless harassment from the press is the main reason they have decided to leave. If you had seen the vile treatment they have gotten over the last few years, you would understand why they're doing it.

Stateofyou · 22-01-2020 1:43pm

bubblypop wrote: »

seriously?
I'm not sure why the insulting tone....but, no I don't see any relentless coverage here on either of them?
apart from all this craic now, that they decided to leave! no I see a lot!

If you're insulted by me pointing out that you don't read news here either, then that's your own personal issue. It's just a fact.

I've been seeing the headlines everywhere since they became engaged. I went out to do the shop last week and the whole newspaper/magazine section I walked past ALL had front page headlines on them as as per usual. It would be impossible to miss. I also follow many news sources online, and they have all posted on them regularly. Haven't even mentioned social media posts yet. It's not just English papers you don't read, it's apparently any papers, magazines, or online sources at all.
I read an article not too long ago criticizing all the coverage on them as Australia burns to the ground and WWIII nearly started. People seem to need their mindless scandals.

Raconteuse · 22-01-2020 2:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think it is all gender related?

Much of it, not all.

weldoninhio · 22-01-2020 2:59pm

bitofabind wrote: »

Doesn't look like their Canadian adventure is off to the best start - there a few days and already a threat of legal action against the Canadian press for taking unsolicited photos of Meghan in Vancouver:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51197099

I think if the overriding reason for their stepping back from the Royal Family was for less press intrusion, it may prove to be misguided. Paps are under no obligation to stay away now.

Whinging about her photo being taken in a public park ffs. There is no expectation of privacy when in a public place. She’s an awful dose.

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2020 3:15pm

bitofabind wrote: »

Doesn't look like their Canadian adventure is off to the best start - there a few days and already a threat of legal action against the Canadian press for taking unsolicited photos of Meghan in Vancouver:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51197099

I think if the overriding reason for their stepping back from the Royal Family was for less press intrusion, it may prove to be misguided. Paps are under no obligation to stay away now.

If they do take legal action, and now that they have stepped back that is more likely, that might give them the privacy they want. Being away from england should be enough though. Out of sight out of mind. the british tabloid press will soon find somebody else to harass when they get bored.

Stateofyou · 22-01-2020 3:33pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Whinging about her photo being taken in a public park ffs. There is no expectation of privacy when in a public place. She’s an awful dose.

I'm not so sure they had a right to be there. The legal warning was issued because they have camped up permanently outside their home, are using long range lens to try and invade their privacy inside their home and property, and stalking/hiding in the bushes at the park using long range lenses for the photos. Have you seen them? They're very grainy and out of focus. If it was perfectly right to do then why are they resorting to hiding in the bushes using a long lens.
The laws there are different.

weldoninhio · 22-01-2020 3:44pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

I'm not so sure they had a right to be there. The legal warning was issued because they have ALLEGEDLY camped up permanently outside their home, are ALLEGEDLY using long range lens to try and invade their privacy inside their home and property, and ALLEGEDLY stalking/hiding in the bushes at the park using long range lenses for the photos. Have you seen them? They're very grainy and out of focus. If it was perfectly right to do then why are they resorting to hiding in the bushes using a long lens.
The laws there are different.

Dean Jobb, the author of "Media Law for Canadian Journalists" and a professor of media law, journalism ethics, told Insider that he thinks Harry and Meghan's reported legal action against the paparazzi in Canada may face an obstacle arguing that their privacy was invaded in the public park.

"They have got quite an obstacle to scale there in the fact that it's a public space," Jobb said. "There are certainly no prohibitions against taking photos of someone in a public space."

cnocbui · 22-01-2020 3:44pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Whinging about her photo being taken in a public park ffs. There is no expectation of privacy when in a public place. She’s an awful dose.

If I were to stick my bazooka-like long lens on my camera, and follow you around in a public park, when you were with your young children, I very much doubt you wouldn't be very upset and very annoyed, and I would fully expect I might soon have a couple Guards than tap me on the shoulder and then give me a rough time.

There is a huge difference between being caught in the background of a photo someone else in a park was taking of their own kids and having you and your kids actively stalked and pursued as if you were game in a hunt.

I don't think she's being awful at all, her endless critics fit that bill.

weldoninhio · 22-01-2020 3:45pm

cnocbui wrote: »

If I were to stick my bazooka-like long lens on my camera, and follow you around in a public park, when you were with your young children, I very much doubt you wouldn't be very upset and very annoyed, and I would fully expect I might soon have a couple Guards than tap me on the shoulder and then give me a rough time.

There is a huge difference between being caught in the background of a photo someone else in a park was taking of their own kids and having you and your kids actively stalked and pursued as if you were game in a hunt.

I don't think she's being awful at all, her endless critics fit that bill.

"There are certainly no prohibitions against taking photos of someone in a public space."

It’s the same here in Ireland. No expectation of privacy in a public place.

MoonUnit75 · 22-01-2020 4:15pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Because the press laws in Canada are different, I should think that is obvious. It's also widely reported that they are. I read a short article yesterday on the difference, laws there are nothing like the British press laws. They have camped outside their home in Canada and also stalked her hiding in the bushes during her forest walk, using long range lenses. They have already issued a legal warning citing the laws there. They should have much more privacy once they show they mean business and apply the law if they have to.

The laws aren't significantly different at all? It's not obvious to me anyway. How do you think they are different?

MoonUnit75 · 22-01-2020 4:17pm

cnocbui wrote: »

If I were to stick my bazooka-like long lens on my camera, and follow you around in a public park, when you were with your young children, I very much doubt you wouldn't be very upset and very annoyed, and I would fully expect I might soon have a couple Guards than tap me on the shoulder and then give me a rough time.

There is a huge difference between being caught in the background of a photo someone else in a park was taking of their own kids and having you and your kids actively stalked and pursued as if you were game in a hunt.

I don't think she's being awful at all, her endless critics fit that bill.

Strangely enough, they have much better protection against this in the UK than anywhere else. Since Diana's death the UK press have a new code of practice, the only press buying paparazzi shots of them is the foreign press, but the market is so meagre that they are effectively left alone when with the children. It's more likely this will no longer apply when they are no longer HRH and living in a different country.

MoonUnit75 · 22-01-2020 4:19pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

The continuous downplaying of these nasty headlines are mind blowing. The mental gymnastics some are doing to justify them is equally as bad.

No, it's you and Buzzfeed (lol) comparing apples and oranges and concluding they are all apples.

cnocbui · 22-01-2020 4:31pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

"There are certainly no prohibitions against taking photos of someone in a public space."

It’s the same here in Ireland. No expectation of privacy in a public place.

That is true, and as a very amateur photographer, I agree with the principle, but when the line is crossed so that the photography becomes active, targeted harassment, it is no longer just about the right of the public to take photos in public.

I have read threads in the photography section where boardsie photographers have had acrimonious run-ins with the Guards for taking photos in public.

So while you don't have a right to privacy in public, you might well have a right to not be actively harassed.

Public photography has already taken a major hit due to photos being taken by terrorists to reconnoiter targets, particularly in the UK, and Police there will and can take action, but that's another topic.

I did run across this, with regards to the UK:

Update: According to external link this blog, Home Office Minister Tony McNulty MP has commented on the current legal situation regarding privacy.

"There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

It is for the Chief Constable to ensure that Officers and Police Community Support Officers are acting appropriately with regards to photography in public places, and any queries regarding this should be addressed to the Chief Constable.

However decisions may be made locally to restrict photography, for example to protect children. Any questions on such local decisions should also be addressed to the force concerned."

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

It's definitely not black and white and there are certainly grey areas.

cnocbui · 22-01-2020 4:35pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

No, it's you and Buzzfeed (lol) comparing apples and oranges and concluding they are all apples.

You clearly don't possess the ability to tell the difference between apples and oranges.

Stateofyou · 22-01-2020 4:47pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The laws aren't significantly different at all? It's not obvious to me anyway. How do you think they are different?

Here ya go

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96373_01?fbclid=IwAR2w_-31B8Z7Rbx7K5HQIhzF2QZiUWQ5JMox0hRY4arx0FTxqClQyZxh3cs

MoonUnit75 · 22-01-2020 4:50pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Here ya go

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96373_01?fbclid=IwAR2w_-31B8Z7Rbx7K5HQIhzF2QZiUWQ5JMox0hRY4arx0FTxqClQyZxh3cs

Thanks, can you point out which bits are different from UK privacy laws?

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2020 4:53pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Here ya go

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96373_01?fbclid=IwAR2w_-31B8Z7Rbx7K5HQIhzF2QZiUWQ5JMox0hRY4arx0FTxqClQyZxh3cs

I think taking photos inside somebodies home using a telephoto lens would fall foul of that law.

Stateofyou · 22-01-2020 4:58pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Thanks, can you point out which bits are different from UK privacy laws?

I'm not an expert, I only read through it and deduced what they are basing their legal warning on. There they have the Privacy Act. If they feel it's being violated (I imagine its to do with it being to the point of being stalked, harassed, use of long lenses, 24/7 house presence...) they can take action. None of those are reasonable actions.
The main difference seems to be down to a lack of consent.

(2)
The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.

(4)
Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass.

(2)
An act or conduct is not a violation of privacy if any of the following applies:
(a)
it is consented to by some person entitled to consent;

There's a couple other points made by a legal expert somewhere, but I can't find that now. If I do I'll post.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2020 4:59pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

No, it's you and Buzzfeed (lol) comparing apples and oranges and concluding they are all apples.

Several other sources shared it, I can of course provide links if you wish.

How is this comparing apples and oranges?
Do you not see the similar headlines and the differing tone/implications, or are you choosing NOT to see them?
It must be the latter, because if you still cannot comprehend what is in front of you then you are being deliberately obtuse.

[/QUOTE]

MoonUnit75 · 22-01-2020 5:00pm

cnocbui wrote: »

You clearly don't possess the ability to tell the difference between apples and oranges.

Taking them one by one. Avocados have been dropped by progressive 'socially aware' restaurants and outlets because the impact of their popularity has caused terrible social, environmental and economic problems.

The stories:
Kate is given a gift of avocado when her child is born.
Meghan, supposedly into social and economic justice, serves avocados to her guests.

Totally different things. According to Buzzfeed, they are exactly the same scenarios. Kate does not present herself as an influencer in social justice issues and didn't buy the avocados in the headlines, Meghan does present herself as an example and did serve them to her guests.

I can't believe I have to explain these obvious, intrinsic differences. Buzzfeed are not known for their impartial and measured articles.

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2020 5:03pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Several other sources shared it, I can of course provide links if you wish.

How is this comparing apples and oranges?
Do you not see the similar headlines and the differing tone/implications, or are you choosing NOT to see them?
It must be the latter, because if you still cannot comprehend what is in front of you then you are being deliberately obtuse.

The funny thing about that bottom one is that Meghan only barely falls into the definition of a millenial whereas Kate is close to being a millenial.

MoonUnit75 · 22-01-2020 5:03pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think taking photos inside somebodies home using a telephoto lens would fall foul of that law.

Yes, can anyone find examples of the royal family being photographed in their homes and then published in the UK in the last decade?

Stateofyou · 22-01-2020 5:04pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Taking them one by one. Avocados have been dropped by progressive 'socially aware' restaurants and outlets because the impact of their popularity has caused terrible social, environmental and economic problems.

The stories:
Kate is given a gift of avocado when her child is born.
Meghan, supposedly into social and economic justice, serves avocados to her guests.

Totally different things. According to Buzzfeed, they are exactly the same scenarios. Kate does not present herself as an influencer in social justice issues and didn't buy the avocados in the headlines, Meghan does present herself as an example and did serve them to her guests.

I can't believe I have to explain these obvious, intrinsic differences. Buzzfeed are not known for their impartial and measured articles.

No, Kate was given an avocado WHILST she was pregnant. Kate is also involved in social and economic justice I think you'll find. That is still beside the point. You can't say one is a healthy additive in pregnancy for one and leave it at that, and for the other it's only a sin. Just because someone speaks up when and where they can, doesn't mean they can be hyperaware and perfect on every single thing they do in their life. That's impossible and impractical. You should still do good and raise awareness where you can.

Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Comments