[Tom4784]

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.

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.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

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

Here we go again

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 .

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

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

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?

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Here we go again

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 .

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

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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?

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'.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

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

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

If they named the culprit of the racist remark, then they'd STILL be accused of ruining the royal member's life. There isn't really a win win situation in this .

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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?

You mean, you need to be told the difference between a child selling their family out for exposure/money, painting them as villains....

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

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

.

eh...yes she is. You can twist it as much as you want. Meghan disowned her father for going to the press....now she is selling her husbands family out for exposure.
But we will leave it there...because you just refuse to see what is blindingly obvious.

[Kazanne]

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.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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.

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"

Youtube video

[joeysteele]

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.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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.

I dont read the tabloids either. The tabloids have deliberately done it...but its no surprise. There is no love lost between the Tabloids and Meghan...and since Meghan made a point of trashing Kates reputation they will play them off each other.
Sadly if you dont like a 'person of colour' for many...its only for one reason. We are starting to see the real Meghan...and its not pretty imo.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

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"

Youtube video

Absolutely right.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

Says a lot about the person when they dismiss Kate's obvious motives of sisterhood when she made her appearance.


To then use a rag they dont read to defend the honour of a two bit actress is beyond me.

Also, the **** who murdered the poor woman was an off duty police officer...the that would just make him a male at the time.

Its sick to bring the angle of him being a copper, and that was evident in last night's ending to the vigil when it all became political.

As ****ing usual.

[arista]

Nasty France

[arista]

Poxy French


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ter_mailonline

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

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"

Youtube video

I don't follow or buy tabloid fodder or take notice of much of the media, they are all in it to make money, I have never ever thought of one being a villain and one being an angel, we don't know them ,so those defending Megan to the hilt could be totally wrong WE DONT KNOW !! and vice versa, people are acting on here like she is their closest relative, she is nothing to us as the others aren't, To try and force feed people that Megan is a faultless soul is as daft as me telling you Andrew has an impeccable past, and people insulting others on here for having a different opinion is frankly pathetic.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I'm not angry, I'm amused.

Sure.

Originally Posted by rusticgal

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'.

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by jet

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

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

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.

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.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

harry and meghan complained about UK press media

in their "interview" (their truth) this was cited

the examples used were not UK press media but an amalgamation from around the world

----|Iin 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--


If they cant even give examples in a set up "interview" then it seems they are full of BS and lying to use UK press as cover for their running away to hollywood to chase fame and easy money from their royal heritage

[Marsh.]

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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.

It is Marsh.

Because that's exactly what she did, said Kate had apologised.
Other than that she rarely referred to Kate and not negatively either.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

IMO you are totally wrong on just about everything you say here.