Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 5:24pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I didn't mention Frogmore, I was specifically talking about Kensington Palace and the roof work there.

Your opening was talking about the renovations in general.

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 5:27pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Have you and your amigos not been taking a Buzzfeed article as gospel for the last 20 pages. Frock my old boots. Buzzfeed.

I will consider something most reliable if it is reported across the mainstream press. Many royal correspondents have been doing it for years and years and won't risk their reputation on trash.

But then again, some people here seem to think their official PR website and Buzzfeed are the best available sources.

Nope.
hahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahha:pac::pac::pac::pac:

end of the road · 24-01-2020 6:03pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The thing that the press were most annoyed about when the cost of renovating Frogmore Cottage was revealed was the fact that Harry and Meghan had already spent around £1.4 million renovating their previous home beside William and Kate. They then decided to move away and renovate Frogmore Cottage, many believing it was mainly because they didn't get along with their neighbours anymore. The official explanation was apparently that their 21-room residence wasn't suitable for their growing family.

There were also articles questioning the renovations William and Kate's renovations, that was in 2013 and 2014 so you may not remember the criticism as well as the recent questioning of H & M.

Now Harry and Meghan are moving again from their new luxury home. You can imagine this raises people's heckles.

To be fair, I think most people would take the trade-off of living in a series of luxury mansions with servants and nannies in return for some headlines criticising them for holding their baby bump and promoting avocados. Not everyone would be prepared to put up with it though I suppose.

the buildings would be refurbished anyway, so the media's fo-outrage means absolutely jot

, the same for the fo-outrage from some of the british public over absolutely nothing.
the royals owe nobody absolutely nothing. it is the public who want to keep them, so the public are going to just have to get over the fact that they will have to pay for them if they wish to keep them.

KiKi III · 24-01-2020 6:34pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Have you and your amigos not been taking a Buzzfeed article as gospel for the last 20 pages. Frock my old boots. Buzzfeed.

I will consider something most reliable if it is reported across the mainstream press. Many royal correspondents have been doing it for years and years and won't risk their reputation on trash.

But then again, some people here seem to think their official PR website and Buzzfeed are the best available sources.

BuzzFeed is far more impartial and accurate than the tabloid rags you’re getting your info from.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 6:44pm

KiKi III wrote: »

BuzzFeed is far more impartial and accurate than the tabloid rags you’re getting your info from.

Now it's becoming clear what we're up against. Buzzfeed is in the top three untrustworthy news sources according to the poll below, sandwiched between 'Brietbart' and 'Occupy Democrats'. Unbelievably, Infowars gets a higher rating than Buzzfeed. It's a junk news propaganda site.

MW-FR660_Truste_20170803172454_MG.jpg?uuid=3111a66e-7892-11e7-96b1-9c8e992d421e

MW-FR660_Truste_20170803172454_MG.jpg?uuid=3111a66e-7892-11e7-96b1-9c8e992d421e

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-most-and-the-least-trusted-news-sources-in-the-us-2017-08-03

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 7:06pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Now it's becoming clear what we're up against. Buzzfeed is in the top three untrustworthy news sources according to the poll below, sandwiched between 'Brietbart' and 'Occupy Democrats'. Unbelievably, Infowars gets a higher rating than Buzzfeed. It's a junk news propaganda site.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-most-and-the-least-trusted-news-sources-in-the-us-2017-08-03

And you get your information from sources such as the Daily Mail, The Sun, etc who have been running the garbage you're repeating here, which are so bad they're not even ranked. :pac:
You're not concerned with accurate news sources, come off it.

[Deleted User] · 24-01-2020 9:05pm

At least newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Sun are subject to libel laws and the like. Buzzfeed is just a click factory. Nice and shiny and everything but I would trust it for the sum total of nothing.

[Deleted User] · 24-01-2020 9:10pm

Shocking to see the BBC and Guardian listed so highly considering they are just 'Orange Man Bad' propaganda outlets these days. The Guardian know the majority of people disagree with most of the nonsense opinion articles which is why they barely ever publish comments anymore.

blinding · 24-01-2020 9:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

At least newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Sun are subject to libel laws and the like. Buzzfeed is just a click factory. Nice and shiny and everything but I would trust it for the sum total of nothing.

Funnily enough a lot of what the tabloids said about Charles and Diana ( for example ) turned out to be true.

[Deleted User] · 24-01-2020 9:21pm

blinding wrote: »

Funnily enough a lot of what the tabloids said about Charles and Diana ( for example ) turned out to be true.

That is what I mean at least they have a semblance of an editorial process because they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.

retro:electro · 24-01-2020 9:33pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is what I mean at least they have a semblance of an editorial process because they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.

And that they are. Lol.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 24-01-2020 9:34pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Have you and your amigos not been taking a Buzzfeed article as gospel for the last 20 pages. Frock my old boots. Buzzfeed.

I will consider something most reliable if it is reported across the mainstream press. Many royal correspondents have been doing it for years and years and won't risk their reputation on trash.

But then again, some people here seem to think their official PR website and Buzzfeed are the best available sources.

Personally nothing I’ve read about it all has come from Buzzfeed. Various publications compared the headlines relating to Kate and Meghan.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 24-01-2020 9:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Shocking to see the BBC and Guardian listed so highly considering they are just 'Orange Man Bad' propaganda outlets these days. The Guardian know the majority of people disagree with most of the nonsense opinion articles which is why they barely ever publish comments anymore.

I see this repeated often. You can comment on probably more than half of the Guardian’s articles. The ones you can’t tend to be straight news reporting. The opinion pieces are usually the ones you CAN comment on.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 9:38pm

retro:electro wrote: »

And that they are. Lol.

Ironically enough, they are suing the papers for publishing something completely true, a letter she doesn’t deny writing.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 9:40pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

And you get your information from sources such as the Daily Mail, The Sun, etc who have been running the garbage you're repeating here, which are so bad they're not even ranked. :pac:
You're not concerned with accurate news sources, come off it.

I’m quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote.

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 9:53pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Ironically enough, they are suing the papers for publishing something completely true, a letter she doesn’t deny writing.

That's not why she's suing. Its nothing to do with whether or not she wrote it. You're being deliberately obtuse.

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 9:54pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I’m quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote.

Word salad... what does that statement even mean.

end of the road · 24-01-2020 9:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Shocking to see the BBC and Guardian listed so highly considering they are just 'Orange Man Bad' propaganda outlets these days.

you mean they are outlets that report facts and don't tell you what you want to hear?
the bbc is ranked highly because while it is not perfect, it is a reliable broadcaster.

Deleted User wrote: »

The Guardian know the majority of people disagree with most of the nonsense opinion articles which is why they barely ever publish comments anymore.

really? i have no doubt some don't agree with the pieces, but whether that is a majority of people i could not say with any certainty, and i suspect neither could you, more that it is wishful thinking on your part, i suspect.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 10:09pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Word salad... what does that statement even mean.

I’m (that’s me) quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail (have referred to the tabloids) because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote (because in order to discuss the ridiculous buzzfeed article I have to quote the tabloids that they quote, then you blame me for quoting the tabloids).

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 10:11pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

That's not why she's suing. Its nothing to do with whether or not she wrote it. You're being deliberately obtuse.

I (that’s me) am pointing out (illustrating an observation) that she (Meghan) is suing for something they printed that is true (ie. breach of privacy and copyright).

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 10:29pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I’m (that’s me) quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail (have referred to the tabloids) because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote (because in order to discuss the ridiculous buzzfeed article I have to quote the tabloids that they quote, then you blame me for quoting the tabloids).

Are you drunk? You're out in space on a moon unit alright. Throughout this trainwreck topic, you've shared false information and baseless smears that you've pulled from all the trashy tabloids. You've talked about these stories as if they were fact. So yeah, you'll own that one I'm afraid. You're spinning around in stupid circles now.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 10:34pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I (that’s me) am pointing out (illustrating an observation) that she (Meghan) is suing for something they printed that is true (ie. breach of privacy and copyright).

I believe you are deliberately missing the point. The truth is irrelevant here. She's not accusing them of lying, she's accusing them of breaching the law on copyright. If she took a photo over which the paper had copyright and started using that photo in a way that was intended to bring her financial gain, they could sue her for breach of copyright. If a thief broke into J.K Rowling's house and stole a manuscript of a story she was working on, and a paper then publishes any part of it verbatim, they would be breaching her copyright.

It's got nothing to do with truth; just because Rowling's manuscript is the real deal and therefore true, in the sense of being genuine, the paper still has no right to breach copyright. Her father doesn't own the copyright on the letter either, he can't give it to the paper and say 'here, publish this, and where's my cheque?'

On the copyright question, it's as clear as day they breached her copyright on the letter. They could have commented on the letter and described what it said, but no, they published it in full, verbatim.

blinding · 24-01-2020 10:47pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I believe you are deliberately missing the point. The truth is irrelevant here. She's not accusing them of lying, she's accusing them of breaching the law on copyright. If she took a photo over which the paper had copyright and started using that photo in a way that was intended to bring her financial gain, they could sue her for breach of copyright. If a thief broke into J.K Rowling's house and stole a manuscript of a story she was working on, and a paper then publishes any part of it verbatim, they would be breaching her copyright.

It's got nothing to do with truth; just because Rowling's manuscript is the real deal and therefore true, in the sense of being genuine, the paper still has no right to breach copyright. Her father doesn't own the copyright on the letter either, he can't give it to the paper and say 'here, publish this, and where's my cheque?'

On the copyright question, it's as clear as day they breached her copyright on the letter. They could have commented on the letter and described what it said, but no, they published it in full, verbatim.

Was the letter not Thomas Markle's property as soon as it reached him by post. I believe the legal situation is that as soon as the letter reach's the recipient then it is their legal property.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 10:55pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I believe you are deliberately missing the point. The truth is irrelevant here. She's not accusing them of lying, she's accusing them of breaching the law on copyright. If she took a photo over which the paper had copyright and started using that photo in a way that was intended to bring her financial gain, they could sue her for breach of copyright. If a thief broke into J.K Rowling's house and stole a manuscript of a story she was working on, and a paper then publishes any part of it verbatim, they would be breaching her copyright.

It's got nothing to do with truth; just because Rowling's manuscript is the real deal and therefore true, in the sense of being genuine, the paper still has no right to breach copyright. Her father doesn't own the copyright on the letter either, he can't give it to the paper and say 'here, publish this, and where's my cheque?'

On the copyright question, it's as clear as day they breached her copyright on the letter. They could have commented on the letter and described what it said, but no, they published it in full, verbatim.

This thread moves fast so I’ll have to repeat how the conversation went.

Wotjek said “they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.”
Retro:electro replies to this “and that they are. Lol”
I replied to electro that it is ironic that they are in fact suing because of a story that is completely true.

Then the pack comes up with this bizarre argument that I am misrepresenting why they are suing. That. Is. Not. Even. Close. To. The. Point. I. Was. Making.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 10:57pm

blinding wrote: »

Was the letter not Thomas Markle's property as soon as it reached him by post. I believe the legal situation is that as soon as the letter reach's the recipient then it is their legal property.

Yes, it becomes his property, but the copyright on it's contents remains Meghan's for at least 50 years.

Mark Stephens, a libel and privacy expert at the law firm Howard Kennedy, said Meghan would “undoubtedly win the case”, but wondered whether it would ultimately be worth the “enormous price”. While she would win what he described as a “tiny legal battle”, he warned that she and her husband would comprehensively lose the “much broader war”.

He added: “The point about copyright is that it gives control to the person who has the copyright – in this case Meghan – and in those circumstances she can allow people to use the copyright or not use the copyright.

“What can’t happen is that Thomas Markle cannot unilaterally decide, nor indeed can the Mail on Sunday unilaterally decide, that they want to publish this material,”

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 10:58pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Are you drunk? You're out in space on a moon unit alright. Throughout this trainwreck topic, you've shared false information and baseless smears that you've pulled from all the trashy tabloids. You've talked about these stories as if they were fact. So yeah, you'll own that one I'm afraid. You're spinning around in stupid circles now.

Can you be more specific please? I can’t respond to such a generalised accusation.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:01pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

This thread moves fast so I’ll have to repeat how the conversation went.

Wotjek said “they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.”
Retro:electro replies to this “and that they are. Lol”
I replied to electro that it is ironic that they are in fact suing because of a story that is completely true.

Then the pack comes up with this bizarre argument that I am misrepresenting why they are suing. That. Is. Not. Even. Close. To. The. Point. I. Was. Making.

You were wrong, don't whinge to me about the circumstances of your error. Meghan is not suing about lies vs truth, she's suing for breach of copyright and invasion of privacy.

[Deleted User] · 24-01-2020 11:07pm

cnocbui wrote: »

You were wrong, don't whinge to me about the circumstances of your error. Meghan is not suing about lies vs truth, she's suing for breach of copyright and invasion of privacy.

Strange. To read some posts here it would seem she is suing because of their campaign of lies and vitriol. Or some nonsense like that.

blinding · 24-01-2020 11:07pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes, it becomes his property, but the copyright on it's contents remains Meghan's for at least 50 years.

If something is your property can you not do with it what you wish ?

Harry and Meghan are going to look a right pair of plonkers if this goes to public court. I’m guessing it won’t for that very reason.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 11:09pm

cnocbui wrote: »

You were wrong, don't whinge to me about the circumstances of your error. Meghan is not suing about lies vs truth, she's suing for breach of copyright and invasion of privacy.

No, your replies do not follow logically from the point I was actually making. Wotjek says they can be sued for lying, electro then says that they are being sued for lying, I followed this by pointing out the contents of the article they are suing for are true, purely to contradict electro’s misunderstanding. Your point is totally irrelevant to that thread of discussion. Stop trying to make it false.

Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Comments