[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I honestly struggle to fathom why anyone would ever spend time even in thought about someone they dislike so much and had no respect for...someone they really can’t find much positive in their character or any aspect of them...let alone the energy and time spent actively expressing such disapproval...if it were someone who in some way impacted on lives, who had some responsibility for country decision making in our own lives...but she doesn’t, she doesn’t impact in any way so spending such energy when such disdain is felt is beyond my understanding completely...


...I think sadly she has been bullied by the media and in turn, by some public as well with the constant negative comments on masse...and whatever it’s felt her character is...?...whether accurate or not or what measure of accuracy...what she’s had aimed against her is far, far worse...they’ve essentially fled for some peace and still they aren’t getting any...

I agree.

Particularly with your second paragraph.

[Tom4784]

The idea of doing 'research' (IE, reading rags) to try to justify hatred is just odd. It's all rather strange and pointless.

[Swan]

We all judge celebrities, rightly or wrongly and some more harsher than others. We can only judge on what we read, every source is questionable yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't any truth to the stories.

I don't personally dislike Meghan (again im anti-royal so by default i'll always be sceptical), but some of hers and Harry's behaviour has every right to be questioned. The "it's because she's black" argument is probably true for some, but not as many as people like to make out. It would hard for anyone to deny that she's a beautiful looking woman.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Swan

We all judge celebrities, rightly or wrongly and some more harsher than others. We can only judge on what we read, every source is questionable yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't any truth to the stories.

I don't personally dislike Meghan (again im anti-royal so by default i'll always be sceptical), but some of hers and Harry's behaviour has every right to be questioned. The "it's because she's black" argument is probably true for some, but not as many as people like to make out. It would hard for anyone to deny that she's a beautiful looking woman.

I don't think anyone would insist everyone who doesn't like her or doesn't agree with her decisions is racist.

But the irrational avalanche of abuse she has received is not compatible to anything she has done or said.

If there's anything the Brits and the British press love more than anything is to build someone up just to knock them down and vilify them like a Freak Show. And it's been done with a lot of racism, classism, xenophobia and sexism on the whole.

The tabloids are just trash. She's a gold digging, social climber for entering the Royals and she's a.... gold digging, social climber for leaving.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I don't think anyone would insist everyone who doesn't like her or doesn't agree with her decisions is racist.

But the irrational avalanche of abuse she has received is not compatible to anything she has done or said.

If there's anything the Brits and the British press love more than anything is to build someone up just to know them down and vilify them. And it's been done with a lot of racism, classism, xenophobia and sexism on the whole.

Some would.

Like many celebs have, doesn't make it right, but it's the nature of the beast. We have every right to judge. Actual hatred (which does happen) is silly though.

The last paragraph, i agree with. And also done with a mob like mentality, spearheaded by the media.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Swan

Some would.

Like many celebs have, doesn't make it right, but it's the nature of the beast. We have every right to judge. Actual hatred (which does happen) is silly though.

The last paragraph, i agree with. And also done with a mob like mentality, spearheaded by the media.

We can judge, but I think deluding yourself (the general you, not you) into believing that you are 100% correct and the information you glean from a tabloid newspaper is quality journalism would be foolish.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Imagine reading the Daily Mail and calling it "research" into a celebrity you don't like.

Do you ever comprehend a longer post? You are coming across rather dense tbf. I'll make it short for you this time.
I read the Royal Correspondents articles in the Mail or Times when they appear.
Online. That is all.
Its up to you and your level of intelligence now....

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

We can judge, but I think deluding yourself (the general you, not you) into believing that you are 100% correct and the information you glean from a tabloid newspaper is quality journalism would be foolish.

Well yeah as i said, all sources are questionable, but im sure some contain a certain level of truth.

Fwiw i don't read tabloid newspapers.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Do you ever comprehend a longer post? You are coming across rather dense tbf. I'll make it short for you this time.
I read the Royal Correspondents articles in the Mail or Times when they appear.
Online. That is all.
Its up to you and your level of intelligence now....

Up to me to what? Find sources for your silly claims? It's really not, sweetheart.

As I said before, repeating yourself ad nauseam does not make a valid argument.

You rely on tabloids, we've established that, and that is the end of the matter.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Up to me to what? Find sources for your silly claims? It's really not, sweetheart.

As I said before, repeating yourself ad nauseam does not make a valid argument.

You rely on tabloids, we've established that, and that is the end of the matter.

No, I like to listen to Royal Correspondents. I'll repeat that as often as needed to help you take it in.
What age are you Marsh? A genuine question? If you don't mind saying.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

What age are you Marsh? A genuine question? If you don't mind saying.

If you can bother to explain what relevance that has to the topic, happily.

I've a feeling you won't though.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

If you can bother to explain what relevance that has to the topic, happily.

I've a feeling you won't though.

No problem. Its relevant to how you take in information from others and process it. You seem immature? Nothing wrong with that btw, we were all immature once.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

No problem. Its relevant to how you take in information from others and process it. You seem immature? Nothing wrong with that btw, we were all immature once.

Being obsessed with a woman you've never met and are making out it's everyone else's "agenda" and "issue". That's what's immature and it is a problem. Only for you though.

[Cherie]

what is all this about, what press reports? .. all I have seen is that she felt unsupported during her pregnancy? how is that the press hounding them

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Cherie

what is all this about, what press reports? .. all I have seen is that she felt unsupported during her pregnancy? how is that the press hounding them

Lol...that’s just the point. She isn’t being hounded. Sadly negative reports here and there are being seen as being hounded.
Now Diana was hounded by the press because she was loved and everyone wanted to read about her...that’s the real tragedy.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Lol...that’s just the point. She isn’t being hounded. Sadly negative reports here and there are being seen as being hounded.
Now Diana was hounded by the press because she was loved and everyone wanted to read about her...that’s the real tragedy.

The Daily Mail has hundreds of negative stories on Meghan. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

The Daily Mail has hundreds of negative stories on Meghan. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

The Daily Mail has hundreds of negative stories on Meghan. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

How do you know? You must be obsessed reading all those hundreds. I only ever seek out articles by Royal correspondents online. I used to read a variety of papers but not any more.

Links to some of these negative stories please? I might be able to refute or verify some of them by referring to the Royal correspondents usually knowledgeable assessments.
Thanks.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

The Daily Mail has hundreds of negative stories on Meghan. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

The definition of hounding someone is to chase someone or refuse to leave them alone especially because you want to get something from them. Diana was hounded for those very reasons. Meghan receives some bad press and negative stories this does not equate to hounding. They are not chasing her quite literally like they did Diana...they don’t want anything from her like they did Diana. She and Harry quit the Royal family for a quiet life...if you keep putting yourself out there for publicity then expect it..good or bad.
In response to the OP...they don’t compare in the terms of ‘hounding’.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

I only ever seek out articles by Royal correspondents online..

The last article you brought into this thread proves this to be a lie.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The last article you brought into this thread proves this to be a lie.

It was a factual piece with no criticism of Meghan and Harry...to point out newspapers don't always pick on the poor little victim even though they could have in that article.
Seeking out decent articles and coming across them occasionally online in links and either ignoring or considering them post worthy are 2 different things.
You don't want to reveal your age then? That's okay, I'll hazard a guess, 16,17?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

It was a factual piece with no criticism of Meghan and Harry...to point out newspapers don't always pick on the poor little victim even though they could have in that article.
Seeking out decent articles and coming across them occasionally online in links and either ignoring or considering them post worthy are 2 different things.

Saying you "only seek out articles by Royal correspondents online" was a lie no matter how you're trying to rephrase it now.

Originally Posted by jet

You don't want to reveal your age then? That's okay, I'll hazard a guess, 16,17?

What's your age? I'd hazard a guess significantly older than Meghan Markle.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Saying you "only seek out articles by Royal correspondents online" was a lie no matter how you're trying to rephrase it now.



What's your age? I'd hazard a guess significantly older than Meghan Markle.

Not another 'E' grade in your comprehension paper....

My age? Older but not significantly so...someone said they read thats she's really at least 40 but I don't believe that's true.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

How do you know? You must be obsessed reading all those hundreds. I only ever seek out articles by Royal correspondents online. I used to read a variety of papers but not any more.

Links to some of these negative stories please? I might be able to refute or verify some of them by referring to the Royal correspondents usually knowledgeable assessments.
Thanks.

There’s this thing called a search function. I typed in her name and 194 pages of articles were the result.

Originally Posted by rusticgal

The definition of hounding someone is to chase someone or refuse to leave them alone especially because you want to get something from them. Diana was hounded for those very reasons. Meghan receives some bad press and negative stories this does not equate to hounding. They are not chasing her quite literally like they did Diana...they don’t want anything from her like they did Diana. She and Harry quit the Royal family for a quiet life...if you keep putting yourself out there for publicity then expect it..good or bad.
In response to the OP...they don’t compare in the terms of ‘hounding’.

It’s not ‘some’ bad press though is it. It’s a LOT of tabloid crap that idiots lap up like thirsty dogs.

[Parmy]

Only an idiot would type in someone's name so they could count how many bad articles come up about that person.