[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Zizu

It’s not something that came to mind when I saw it BUT after some reflection I can kinda understand what they’re getting at ...

Kate is portrayed as the kind , caring sort even though in my opinion it was an ill advised venture - on a few levels

Meghan however is shown looking determined and defiant with the provocative headline .. “show me the evidence that I bullied staff“


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's exactly it Zizu.

It would have been more appropriate to leave the front page only to the sick murder.

Rather than display the division elements of the Royals yet AGAIN.

It's easily seen as to their agenda if people want to even try to see it.

I've only seen it on here, I wouldn't waste a pence on any paper.
Certainly not the gutter trash the Mail is.

As I've said before, I wouldn't soil my pet Staffie's mess by picking it up the Mail.
Weekdays or Sunday's.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

The depths some people will go to rubbish the daily mail is sickening.

As the paper that has played a HUGE part in the Meghan bashing this is possibly the most hilarious post I’ve seen.

[parmnion]

You could say the sunday times front page is worse..but you all love to bash the mail for some reason...

Do you moan about the paper directly to its pr team, or ofcom?

Cause that's where you should be doing it, not on here for digs.

[Ammi]

...Their usage of Sarah’s vigil and Kate attending, aside ... Meghan and Kate, two loving mothers on Mother’s Day to be used in such a deliberate divisive way is despicable and shows no respect for any female or mother IMO...

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

As the paper that has played a HUGE part in the Meghan bashing this is possibly the most hilarious post I’ve seen.

I've seen some hilarious posts this week of people writing stuff ten times worse than anything the daily mail has printed.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

You could say the sunday times front page is worse..but you all love to bash the mail for some reason...

Do you moan about the paper directly to its pr team, or ofcom?

Cause that's where you should be doing it, not on here for digs.

I saw that front page because that's the one that was posted, I haven't seen others to comment.

I obviously have no issue with them putting Kate's attendance at the vigil on the front page, that's not the issue at all, the issue is that for even ONE day, when something so horrific and sad has happened - they couldn't just make that their front page spread. They had to put a big, bold "... And look how rubbish and petty Meghan and Harry are in comparison!!" right above it.

They are RELYING on plausible deniability, on being able to claim that it's totally unrelated/coincidental/just happens to be the two big stories but putting them side by side like that is a clear and deliberate "dig"... A misogynistic one... using the murder of a woman as bait. It's mind-boggling.

There's no point making an official complaint, it's designed to be "deniable", no one can outright prove their obvious intent. All we can do is point these things out in the hope that other people can see it too, or that people who can't will give it some thought.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not talking about the Kate story, I'm talking about the deliberate juxtaposition. The people who design front pages are not stupid, they know exactly what they're doing, and in this case they're using a horrific crime as part of doing it. Just a moral void at this point honestly.

On much the same theme:

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.'
..............................

[Toy Soldier]

It's not on the same theme at all and I'm not going to engage with you on this.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I saw that front page because that's the one that was posted, I haven't seen others to comment.

I obviously have no issue with them putting Kate's attendance at the vigil on the front page, that's not the issue at all, the issue is that for even ONE day, when something so horrific and sad has happened - they couldn't just make that their front page spread. They had to put a big, bold "... And look how rubbish and petty Meghan and Harry are in comparison!!" right above it.

They are RELYING on plausible deniability, on being able to claim that it's totally unrelated/coincidental/just happens to be the two big stories but putting them side by side like that is a clear and deliberate "dig"... A misogynistic one... using the murder of a woman as bait. It's mind-boggling.

There's no point making an official complaint, it's designed to be "deniable", no one can outright prove their obvious intent. All we can do is point these things out in the hope that other people can see it too, or that people who can't will give it some thought.

I don't know how to make your posts bold..

But the bit about making meghan and harry look rubbish and petty...how do you get those 2 words from that headline?

AlI I see is a brave and independent woman standing up to the palace..and everyone's using that positive as a negative to dig out a newspaper.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's not on the same theme at all and I'm not going to engage with you on this.

I meant to highlight the part of your post that said:
Just a moral void at this point

'Immoral' is the connection'.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I don't know how to make your posts bold..

But the bit about making meghan and harry look rubbish and petty...how do you get those 2 words from that headline?

AlI I see is a brave and independent woman standing up to the palace..and everyone's using that positive as a negative to dig out a newspaper.

The purple part is there purely to remind people that "Harry has hurt his family" and "Meghan has been accused of bullying". They've put those things there, in deliberate contrast to Kate showing support for a murdered woman. It's the Mail, the idea that those headlines are supposed to be anything other than what I've just said is in the realms of fantasy.

I've said all I have to say about it and I'm not comfortable getting into an Internet back and forth over this, it's just messed up. As always, people will see what they want to see.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Interesting bit of an article in today's ST

Identity politics – who’d have thought it? – turns out to be largely performative.
It isn’t primarily about standing up for other people. It’s about broadcasting
your own compassion. Take, for example, the most recent instalment in our
culture war, namely the question of whether we should unhesitatingly accept
the Duchess of Sussex’s version of events because she is female and of mixed
race. Those piling in to do so are not especially concerned for her, or upset on
her behalf. What they’re really saying is: “Look at me! I’m a nice person!”

Such signalling, naturally, requires an audience. Take away the prize of social
media likes and its emptiness becomes painfully apparent. All of which prompts
the unsettling thought that the madness through which we have been passing
these past six or seven years, the so-called Great Awokening, is really a
product of technology.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...tity-politics/

[parmnion]

People hardly need reminding, so I ain't buying that.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Youtube video

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

namely the question of whether we should unhesitatingly accept the Duchess of Sussex’s version of events because she is female and of mixed race.

We'll be able to weigh up the merits of the different version of events if, and when, we HAVE a different account of events but the Palace hasn't been forthcoming with one and doesn't seem likely to. There currently IS only one "version of events" from direct sources. The "other version" is a version that observers have made up in their heads. It hasn't come from the Royal Family.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Youtube video

*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.

[LeatherTrumpet]

SIR – Mental ill-health is a disorder that needs professional help. Rational
sadness, as a response to circumstances, is not an illness, however. To
encourage young people to see themselves as mentally ill whenever they
may be unhappy is dangerous and can be harmful.

It would be so good to see the beautiful and undoubtedly influential Duchess
of Sussex perhaps extol and demonstrate the virtues of strength and
humour.

Marion Wilcocks
Beare Green, Surrey


SIR – Poor Duchess: the world at her feet and still she was so unhappy.

I am 81, in declining health, and my looks have long gone. I’ve been more or
less restricted to my home for a year.

A few weeks ago, I wrote in my diary: “Sometimes I feel a great black cloud
descend on me – utter despair.” I didn’t call my GP – she’s got enough to
cope with. I didn’t contact my son or daughter, as both have problems of
serious loss of income.

What I said to myself was: “You’re not in a war zone. You’ve money in the
bank, a husband, a fine roof over your head, warmth, telephone, internet,
plenty to eat, even Zoom and an iPhone. Get a grip, be determinedly jolly,
smile, laugh a bit – otherwise you’ll go under.”

I counted my many blessings. Could the Duchess not have done the same?


Val Stevens
Carnforth, Lancashire

----------------------

two interesting opinion letters to the DT on the thread subject

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

SIR – Mental ill-health is a disorder that needs professional help. Rational
sadness, as a response to circumstances, is not an illness, however. To
encourage young people to see themselves as mentally ill whenever they
may be unhappy is dangerous and can be harmful.

It would be so good to see the beautiful and undoubtedly influential Duchess
of Sussex perhaps extol and demonstrate the virtues of strength and
humour.

Marion Wilcocks
Beare Green, Surrey


SIR – Poor Duchess: the world at her feet and still she was so unhappy.

I am 81, in declining health, and my looks have long gone. I’ve been more or
less restricted to my home for a year.

A few weeks ago, I wrote in my diary: “Sometimes I feel a great black cloud
descend on me – utter despair.” I didn’t call my GP – she’s got enough to
cope with. I didn’t contact my son or daughter, as both have problems of
serious loss of income.

What I said to myself was: “You’re not in a war zone. You’ve money in the
bank, a husband, a fine roof over your head, warmth, telephone, internet,
plenty to eat, even Zoom and an iPhone. Get a grip, be determinedly jolly,
smile, laugh a bit – otherwise you’ll go under.”

I counted my many blessings. Could the Duchess not have done the same?


Val Stevens
Carnforth, Lancashire

----------------------

two interesting opinion letters to the DT on the thread subject

Advocating stoicism in the face of emotional distress and implying that a lack of said stoicism is a weakness is not new, nor is it interesting. It's what they used to call the great British "stiff upper lip" and it's partly responsible for generation upon generation of absent coping mechanisms and casual alcoholism. Yaaay.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Advocating stoicism in the face of emotional distress and implying that a lack of said stoicism is a weakness is not new, nor is it interesting. It's what they used to call the great British "stiff upper lip" and it's partly responsible for generation upon generation of absent coping mechanisms and casual alcoholism. Yaaay.

i really dont think that is correct

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i really dont think that is correct

OK but I'd be interested to know if you can think of any old-school British advocates of stoicism who don't count "a glass of wine" as one of their primary stress coping mechanisms. Nicotine used to be another one of course, though that seems to be becoming less popular.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Farage is a desperate rat trying to stay relevant, he pops up everywhere .

Sounds like Harry and Meghan...

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

*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.

That "faaamily " reminds me of Peggy Mitchell

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Sounds like Harry and Meghan...

Hardly
but you can believe what you want.

And the tabloids are once again pitting Meghan & Kate against eachother , I'd never waste a penny on those toilet paper newspapers.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Hardly
but you can believe what you want.

And the tabloids are once again pitting Meghan & Kate against eachother , I'd never waste a penny on those toilet paper newspapers.

Nor me GoldHeart.
The lot of them pure trash from the gutter.

[LeatherTrumpet]

So hearing Meghan Markle frame the questions about her son’s skin
colour – however innocently intended – as racist ‘concern’ rather than
harmless imagination made my skin crawl.



CANDACE OWENS: Unlike so many of my fellow Americans, I don't
buy Meghan Markle's 'truths' about racist Britain

What colour do you think his skin will be – lighter or darker?’

I cannot tell you how many times I was asked that question while I was
pregnant with my son last year.

It came from not only my sisters, who are fully black and darker than I am,
but also from my husband and from me as we day-dreamed about what our
beautiful boy would look like. ‘What colour do think his eyes will be?’ we’d
enquire aloud. ‘Will his hair be darker or lighter?’

If it needs spelling out, no, I am not a racist black American, nor is the man
who happened to marry me a racist Englishman.

Instead, we are parents, as my sisters were future-aunts, beyond excited to
imagine who our bi-racial, multicultural child would look like.

Meghan’s race, which is not to my eyes even immediately discernible, was
never at the centre of any piece criticising her.

That race would become a tool to deflect criticism of Harry and Meghan was,
in my view, inevitable. In fact, I predicted just as much in these pages
BEFORE the interview.

I also predicted that Meghan would explicitly present herself as a black
woman just finding her voice.

It’s certainly worked, obscuring an attempt by Oprah – the only winner in
this train wreck – to help her friends be better received across the Atlantic
than they were in the UK. And, of course, in America, race sells.

It’s just that I’m not buying it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...t-Britain.html