Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11017192)

*press play*

Oh look it's another angry big pink bald bloke, what a shock.

Oh look he's whining about Meghan's dad based on the completely nonsensical notion that offspring "owe their parents" adoration (and access to their children) "no matter what" - an argument I suspect borne out of the fear that one might find themself cut off from family because of their past behaviour. Here's a thought; how about, forge a strong relationship with your kids and you won't have to worry about that later... instead of being an arsehole parent and expecting "everything to be OK anyway because faaaamily".

No one is "owed" grandkids, or access to them, spare me the tears.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 11017280)

It's an abusive mindset, 'I can treat my kids as badly as I like and I'm still owed access to them and my grandkids because I brought them into this world and I own them.' Hideous.

People who defend Meghan Markle's dad after everything he's done are either defending him purely because doing so paints Meghan in a disingenuous bad light or because they see themselves in him which means, like you said, they fear being left out of the cold for their own sins.... Or both, honestly.

Originally Posted by rusticgal (Post 11017288)

So whats the difference between what he did and what Meghan has just done?...

Originally Posted by rusticgal (Post 11017288)

So whats the difference between what he did and what Meghan has just done?...

Originally Posted by GoldHeart (Post 11017294)

Here we go again :rolleyes:

Where has Meghan been bad mouthing her family for clout ? Please tell me?.

The Oprah interview was critism of the institution ,and was getting their story out there. They never said anything bad about the Queen .

I've lost count the amount of media who ring both Thomas & Samantha have done , as they forever drag Meghan's name through the mud . What is the goal exactly? Apart from sympathy and CASH .

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 11017295)

You mean, you need to be told the difference between a parent selling their kids out for money, painting them as the villains because they (the father) believe they are entitled to access despite doing their best to ruin their child's happiness for money? Let's not even get into the fact that his other daughter is writing a series of books about Meghan.

Versus doing an unpaid interview to highlight the mental health struggles of Meghan's situation, and going to lengths to point out the difference between the family and firm? Being complimentary about the queen and even still protecting the racist that said what they said about Archie? The Oprah interview was all about her struggles, she didn't even really slam anyone in it, it was all about her state of mind and the failures of the system to help her.

Do you really need me to point out the difference here? Really?

Originally Posted by rusticgal (Post 11017303)

Rubbish...she has accused the family of Racism and not supporting her. They later made a statement saying The Queen and Phillip were not involved...but not the rest of the family. They have made accusations that are hard to prove...
Getting their story out there...for what purpose?....what have they really achieved? If they were not rich they would be selling their story....it was unnecessary...it was for sympathy and exposure at the expense of his family...I would say they are as bad as each other wouldnt you :shrug:

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 11017295)

You mean, you need to be told the difference between a parent selling their kids out for money, painting them as the villains .

Do you really need me to point out the difference here? Really?

Originally Posted by GoldHeart (Post 11017308)

Oh so now Meghan is somehow "as bad" ? as her parasite dad & sister .

.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 11017317)

I've seen the newspapers posted on here ,I never once thought that any were pitting Kate and Megan against each other ,I am no fan of tabloids and media but I honestly did not come to the conclusion they were 'pitted' against each other, seems to me a lot is already in peoples heads and they are putting their spin on things, the same as when Harry first got with Megan ,I did not see any colour at all, it was only when some were saying she was not popular because of her skin colour that I even thought about it, again its just in some peoples heads and because someone says they don't like a person it may be because of their character NOT colour ,it's annoying now.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 11017317)

I've seen the newspapers posted on here ,I never once thought that any were pitting Kate and Megan against each other ,I am no fan of tabloids and media but I honestly did not come to the conclusion they were 'pitted' against each other, seems to me a lot is already in peoples heads and they are putting their spin on things, the same as when Harry first got with Megan ,I did not see any colour at all, it was only when some were saying she was not popular because of her skin colour that I even thought about it, again its just in some peoples heads and because someone says they don't like a person it may be because of their character NOT colour ,it's annoying now.

Originally Posted by GoldHeart (Post 11017322)

Old articles have even been reposted on this forum over the past weeks , the clear contrast of Meghan & Kate is very much obvious. There's also a dash of sexism thrown in. But the narrative of the toxic media has always been 'meghan the villian' & 'kate the angel' . You have to be blind not to see that .

Meghan was even described in one as "straight out of Compton" , which shows utter ignorance when she WASN'T even born in Compton .

Then there's this racist cow, who said disgusting things like Meghan would "taint the royal blood"

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 11017323)

It was blatantly obvious they used the Kate at the vigil picture to present the ' nice one' image.

Then added at the very top, the ' bad one ' image of Meghan Markle and the now older bullying story.

It's incredible anyone cannot see the agenda there.
Or defend it.

However, it's very clear to me and it seems to the majority of others on here.
To even have the divisive comparison at all on the back of a murder of a young Woman by a police officer.
Well that's the real sick part of it all, for me.
It's also to me unbelievable anyone would defend it.
As I've said today to only fortunately 3 people off here.
Just about everyone else I've spoken to off here find it inappropriate at best.

Originally Posted by GoldHeart (Post 11017322)

Old articles have even been reposted on this forum over the past weeks , the clear contrast of Meghan & Kate is very much obvious. There's also a dash of sexism thrown in. But the narrative of the toxic media has always been 'meghan the villian' & 'kate the angel' . You have to be blind not to see that .

Meghan was even described in one as "straight out of Compton" , which shows utter ignorance when she WASN'T even born in Compton .

Then there's this racist cow, who said disgusting things like Meghan would "taint the royal blood"

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 11017304)

I'm not angry, I'm amused.

Originally Posted by rusticgal (Post 11017307)

OMG...take away the money and replace it with exposure...they are both as bad as each other.
Harry and Meghan dont need the money...they need to stay relevant and need exposure and they have sold his family down the swanny to get just that....there was absolutely no need to do that interview and say what they did. They are 'free' they are 'happy' so what was the point of dishing the dirt on Harry's family a year later?
Im afraid if you call out Meghans family for the 'tell all' to make money...Meghan is doing exactly the same thing for exposure which ultimately translates to 'making money'.

Originally Posted by jet (Post 11017165)

Reposting this:

UK Press accused...but here's proof CBS faked it's own news

A running theme in Sunday's interview was the host's assertion that Meghan was the victim of racism at the hands of the British press.
'There were undeniable racist overtones,' Oprah insisted. 'This stands apart from the kind of coverage we've seen of any other royal. There was constant criticism, blatant sexist and racist remarks by British tabloids.'
To illustrate Ms Winfrey's point, viewers were presented with montages of supposedly-bigoted headlines.
Yet more than a third of those headlines turn out to have been from foreign publications.

For example, in a flurry of eight headlines about Meghan 'making Kate cry', five were from U.S. and Australian supermarket magazines.
A second montage of eight lurid headlines — such as 'monster Meghan exposed' and 'Harry knocks up TV star' — all came from overseas titles.

Even when Oprah did show viewers British headlines, several had been cynically edited, and in one case seemingly entirely fabricated.

The programme, for example, used footage of a Guardian headline that supposedly referred neutrally to an incident when radio DJ Danny Baker posted a picture of a chimpanzee on Twitter after Archie was born.
It read: 'BBC's Danny Baker on comparing Royal Baby Archie to a chimp.' But that image appears to have been faked by Oprah's team, since no such headline has ever appeared in that paper.

A Telegraph headline that reads 'The real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn't speak our language' was cropped by Oprah's staff in order to make it appear jingoistic.
In fact, as the second line of the headline would have made clear (were it not deleted by Oprah's staff), the author was not mocking her race or ethnicity, but was instead making fun of her habit of using what he later called: 'hippie corporate management speak'.

Perhaps the most egregious smear revolved around a January 2018 Mail on Sunday story that lead to the resignation of (then) UKIP leader Henry Bolton. The headline used by the newspaper quoted abusive text messages Mr Bolton's girlfriend had recently written.
It read: 'Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family': UKIP chief's glamour model lover, 25, is suspended from the party over racist texts about Prince Harry's wife to be.'
In a cynical attempt to portray the article as racist, the production team appear to have removed all but the first seven words, falsely suggesting that the paper had published an opinion article arguing that 'Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family.'
..............................

Originally Posted by jet (Post 11017422)

Some are saying how disgusting the DM headlines are, and I can see why they could take it that way.
But those same people have completely ignored this, one just saying "It's not the same".
I'm not asking for comparisons, I'm asking what are your thoughts on THIS article.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 11017433)

Whataboutery.

It's irrelevant. We're talking about the UK media and it's toxicity. If we were saying that the US media is perfect and holding it up as something the UK should aspire to then you might have a point, but we are not, and so this is nothing more than whataboutery.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 11017466)

The constant misrepresentation of "Meghan trashing Kate" is rather amusing.

It wasn't Meghan who brought 'the flower girls story' into the public domain. She's more than entitled to comment on stories written about her that are false to paint her in a bad light. She went to great lengths to get across that Kate made a big effort to apologise for what is always a stressful time for family with weddings, and Meghan accepted. The entire point of the story was to illustrate how stories are misrepresented to trash Meghan's reputation. Not by the family, but the institution that failed to support her and the gutter trash media.

To turn that into some form of "Meghan TRASHED Kate" is not even an opinion, it's a complete lie.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 11017415)

Sure.



Sure it's the same thing, if you disregard reality and the facts and engage in imagination and fantasy. You're just completely and utterly wrong, really.

Meghan's father and his other daughter profited from selling stories, from taking pot shots at Meghan, to ruin her happiness and then that manipulative piece of **** of a father then tried to paint himself as the victim by making out that she was in the wrong for exercising her own right of choosing who is involved in her life and who isn't. A parent is not entitled to their children or their grandchildren, they do not have ownership over their lives.

Now, compare that to Meghan and Harry's interview. They spoke mostly about their own experiences, they didn't really name anyone and, above all else, they were critical of the system more than family and the only time they were critical of a family member, they did them the kindness of not naming them. To compare the two and to call them the same is just false, Harry and Meghan didn't profit from the interview and to compare 'exposure' to actual money is just pain irrational, it is mental gymnastics.

Everyone is free to tell their side of their story including Meghan's scum family, the main thing that Meghan 'dished the dirt' on was her mental state and her own struggles and pretending that she sat there slating the royal family is just not true and pretending otherwise is not going to get you anywhere. She took strides to differentiate the family from the firm and ignoring those bits doesn't strengthen your 'argument' it just makes it easier for me to disassemble.

Your whole argument is based on a series of events that didn't happen, really, you make out that she sat there 'dishing out' like she was taking to Heat Magazine and that wasn't the case. There's a clear difference between fact and fiction and wilfully mixing up the two doesn't lead to a good argument. It just makes it really easy for me to point out where you're going wrong.

Meghan didn't slate the royal family, she didn't disrespect the queen, she didn't really throw anyone under a bus, so to make out that she did is just a straight up fallacy. To compare what her father and sister did, to what she did is just ignoring facts to present a fiction that has no bearing on reality.