Jump to content

Spare a Moment for H&M, Part 3


Tywin et al.
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

But is it safer than the parts of London where they lived? Other than noncing, there isn't a lot of crime at Buck Palace I would imagine. 

If you ignore the rampant buggery and child sacrifices, yeah it's practically crime free. After all, what happens in Buckingham Palace stays in Buckingham palace.  

But it's irrelevant. They're out. They left England. They had to go somewhere and it seems they didn't have many options. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

But is it safer than the parts of London where they lived? Other than noncing, there isn't a lot of crime at Buck Palace I would imagine. 

Plenty of backstabbing at Buck Palace, apparently. 

Montecito is probably safer from the paparazzi and the vultures of the British press, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Do I really need to bring up that average crime rates in the United States (a big ass country) are irrelevant because 99.9% of the United States is a place where these two don't live?** That crime rates in Santa Barbara county are significantly lower than London, England? Or that the concerns this family have for their physical safety and well being, while not being any more or less legitimate, are different from those of the general public? Really?

Indeed, it's a ludicrously irrelevant and idiotic ecological fallacy to raise the US v the UK's gun and crime rates when referring to the Sussexes safety concerns.  As if they were terrified of the aggregate crime rates when they bought their Montecito mansion - which they've since put on the market now priced at $33 million.  I mean, just look at it - it's clearly a jungle out there!  Their unobstructed views to the ocean and the mountains is totally the same as the endemic gun problem in the US!

Maybe, just maybe, the Sussexes safety concerns had more to do with the British paparazzi which is always going to hound them incessantly in London but is far easier to mitigate when you're neighbors with Oprah?  I mean, I dunno, crazy thought, but maybe that was Harry's predominate safety concern considering the role they played in his mother's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

Indeed, it's a ludicrously irrelevant and idiotic ecological fallacy to raise the US v the UK's gun and crime rates when referring to the Sussexes safety concerns.  As if they were terrified of the aggregate crime rates when they bought their Montecito mansion - which they've since put on the market now priced at $33 million.  I mean, just look at it - it's clearly a jungle out there!  Their unobstructed views to the ocean and the mountains is totally the same as the endemic gun problem in the US!

Maybe, just maybe, the Sussexes safety concerns had more to do with the British paparazzi which is always going to hound them incessantly in London but is far easier to mitigate when you're neighbors with Oprah?  I mean, I dunno, crazy thought, but maybe that was Harry's predominate safety concern considering the role they played in his mother's death.

That is nonsense too though because the paps can't get onto the grounds of Windsor Castle, or Kensington Palace, etc.  He also had access to royal protection officers which he no longer has since quitting.  They didn't have any actual examples of themselves being chased by paps except the one single guy on a scooter for their documentary, all the examples of banks of cameras they used were either official set ups or instances of someone else being 'hounded'.  

His safely concerns were a combination of his own paranoid delusions and an excuse.  But I get it, people want to believe the Sussex narrative about being hounded out of the UK, and the more that has come out showing them to be dishonest drama queen exaggerators, the more their fans double down.  It's the way humans always behave when 'their side' is in trouble.

Edited by Cas Stark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

His safely concerns were a combination of his own paranoid delusions and an excuse.  But I get it, people want to believe the Sussex narrative about being hounded out of the UK, and the more that has come out showing them to be dishonest drama queen exaggerators, the more their fans double down.  It's the way humans always behave when 'their side' is in trouble.

It's absolutely hilarious cognitive dissonance for you to think the Sussexes weren't entirely right that the paparazzi would be much less of a safety issue if they moved to an LA area where celebrities are a dime a dozen and essentially everyone living in their immediate area understands security concerns, as opposed to continuing as active royals in the London area and continuing to deal with the predatory British paparazzi therein.  But ignorance is bliss!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's absolutely hilarious cognitive dissonance for you to think the Sussexes weren't entirely right that the paparazzi would be much less of a safety issue if they moved to an LA area where celebrities are a dime a dozen and essentially everyone living in their immediate area understands security concerns, as opposed to continuing as active royals in the London area and continuing to deal with the predatory British paparazzi therein.  But ignorance is bliss!

You're mistaken, but we can agree to disagree.  Things have changed since the 90s in terms of how the royal family is treated by the paps as a direct result of Diana's death.  But, keep believing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cas Stark said:

You're mistaken, but we can agree to disagree.  Things have changed since the 90s in terms of how the royal family is treated by the paps as a direct result of Diana's death.  But, keep believing.

Meghan was just papped yesterday, in LA.  When was the last time Kate Middleton in London was papped outside of a media event?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's absolutely hilarious cognitive dissonance for you to think the Sussexes weren't entirely right that the paparazzi would be much less of a safety issue if they moved to an LA area where celebrities are a dime a dozen and essentially everyone living in their immediate area understands security concerns, as opposed to continuing as active royals in the London area and continuing to deal with the predatory British paparazzi therein.  But ignorance is bliss!

I think its fair to say they are an annoyance and harass them, and it must be truly horrendous to go through, I'm not sure safety issue is fair though, Diana's death notwithstanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think its fair to say they are an annoyance and harass them, and it must be truly horrendous to go through, I'm not sure safety issue is fair though, Diana's death notwithstanding.  

I thinks it's reasonable and entirely understandable for why Harry viewed it as a "safety" issue.  Whether you want to call it that exactly is just semantics or blatantly motivated whining.

I suppose I'd ask this question, regardless of the Sussexes actions:  If you were a British Royal raising a young family - would you rather do so as an active royal in which you'd be required or at least expected to extensive time in the London area, as well as other major cities wherein media access is unavoidable; or would you prefer raising them in an area in which you have far more control over media access and aren't subject to "the firm's" demands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

I thinks it's reasonable and entirely understandable for why Harry viewed it as a "safety" issue.  Whether you want to call it that exactly is just semantics or blatantly motivated whining.

I suppose I'd ask this question, regardless of the Sussexes actions:  If you were a British Royal raising a young family - would you rather do so as an active royal in which you'd be required or at least expected to extensive time in the London area, as well as other major cities wherein media access is unavoidable; or would you prefer raising them in an area in which you have far more control over media access and aren't subject to "the firm's" demands?

If it was my I'd be living in the Himalayas.  But I do think if they want to be left alone (and i do believe them on this) they have done a pretty poor job of achieving it.   

I think they've care too much about being right (fair enough, nobody likes to be slagged off repeatedly in public, and turning the other cheek is hard) and getting their version of events out, rather than following the line which would have achieved their stated goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think they've care too much about being right (fair enough, nobody likes to be slagged off repeatedly in public, and turning the other cheek is hard) and getting their version of events out, rather than following the line which would have achieved their stated goals. 

Well, sure, I think their motivation is $$$$$$.  Just saying attacking them for their "safety" concerns is idiotic.  That aspect made perfect sense -- not to mention made sense in terms of putting themselves in the position to make shittons of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, sure, I think their motivation is $$$$$$.  Just saying attacking them for their "safety" concerns is idiotic.  That aspect made perfect sense -- not to mention made sense in terms of putting themselves in the position to make shittons of money.

I don't think they are unsafe at all, regardless of London or California or wherever, but fear of crime/concerns about safety affects people far more than the reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the safety narrative completely falls apart when you realise that they are being constantly papped in California, and that Meghan has sued numerous media agencies for using drones to invade their privacy, both in Canada and the US.

https://www.insider.com/paparazzi-agency-x17-apologize-prince-harry-meghan-markle-archie-photos-2020-10

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/18/meghan-archie-settle-claim-against-photo-agency-canada-park/

And just look at this list of times they are being photographed in California. The idea that they are just being left alone is pure fiction. 
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-paparazzi-california-1567634


The irony is that the press in the UK is under far stricter controls due to its relationship with the royals, the Queen years ago set a very hard line on royals being photographed in public settings, saying she would sue if it happened. That combined with the Royal Rota system meant that access to the royals was controlled. Basically H&M wanted to leave that system so that they could more tightly control their press, but they were protected from it before. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigFatCoward said:

but fear of crime/concerns about safety affects people far more than the reality. 

Indeed. 

You're talking to an American - the country where for 25 years violent crime perpetually decreased but that didn't prevent the media from amplifying such threats at every opportunity.  And now that crime has marginally increased after covid, the nominally "liberal" party is so afraid of not being tough on crime they're willing to vote against DC's right to govern themselves.

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The irony is that the press in the UK is under far stricter controls due to its relationship with the royals, the Queen years ago set a very hard line on royals being photographed in public settings, saying she would sue if it happened. That combined with the Royal Rota system meant that access to the royals was controlled. Basically H&M wanted to leave that system so that they could more tightly control their press, but they were protected from it before. 

:lmao:Right, they just should have relied on the firm's protection!  That clearly was working out great for them!  What a load of fucking horseshit such cognitive dissonance engenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Of course the safety narrative completely falls apart when you realise that they are being constantly papped in California, and that Meghan has sued numerous media agencies for using drones to invade their privacy, both in Canada and the US.

https://www.insider.com/paparazzi-agency-x17-apologize-prince-harry-meghan-markle-archie-photos-2020-10

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/18/meghan-archie-settle-claim-against-photo-agency-canada-park/

And just look at this list of times they are being photographed in California. The idea that they are just being left alone is pure fiction. 
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-paparazzi-california-1567634


The irony is that the press in the UK is under far stricter controls due to its relationship with the royals, the Queen years ago set a very hard line on royals being photographed in public settings, saying she would sue if it happened. That combined with the Royal Rota system meant that access to the royals was controlled. Basically H&M wanted to leave that system so that they could more tightly control their press, but they were protected from it before. 

 

It's impossible to convince the H&M fans of anything, they are seemingly impervious to facts.  All quoting facts and details that refute Harry's narrative does is get you slammed for knowing too much about the royals, being obsesed and/or being  a 'hater' of some kind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It's impossible to convince the H&M fans of anything, they are seemingly impervious to facts.  All quoting facts and details that refute Harry's narrative does is get you slammed for knowing too much about the royals, being obsesed and/or being  a 'hater' of some kind. 

LOL at providing links to the Sussexes encountering difficulties in LA as determinative "facts."  It's both selection bias and a counterfactual that assumes they wouldn't be receiving even more media harassment if they had stayed as working royals.  The empirical argument is manifestly clear in terms of which venue they would have to deal with more paparazzi harassment comparatively.  Alternatively, this argumentation is simply petulant and childish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL at providing links to the Sussexes encountering difficulties in LA as determinative "facts."  It's both selection bias and a counterfactual that assumes they wouldn't be receiving even more media harassment if they had stayed as working royals.  The empirical argument is manifestly clear in terms of which venue they would have to deal with more paparazzi harassment comparatively.  Alternatively, this argumentation is simply petulant and childish.

Again, no.  They were not physically hounded by the paparazzi in the UK.  It didn't happen and it does not happen and has not happened since Diana died.   Of course Harry lived through his mother's significant harassment as a child, but that doesn't happen now.  If you want to argue that the royal rota deal(s) are intrusive and that Harry was right to resent it and take himself out of it, that is a different thing, but the idea that they were unsafe due to the paps harassing them in London is just not true.

You know who was harassed by the paps?  Kate Middleton.  [Before her marriage though, doesn't happen anymore]

https://news.yahoo.com/kate-middleton-suffered-paparazzi-harassment-141655274.html

Edited by Cas Stark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...