Harry and Megan: How long will it last?

How long


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .
So, ME!again is walking through a public park smiling at the photographers, and then claims she is being stalked?
 

Slime

LE
He thought he was untouchable, or that it was "harmless banter", whatever. He got sacked because ridiculing someone's skin colour is (guess what) the sign of a racist. Personally, I thought he should have been sacked long before for being an unfunny and generally irritating pr!ck, but hey ho... (enough people have said that about me, but then I don't have a radio audience)

After making a big deal about how much of a football supporter he is, and how much time he's spent at matches, it's really rather difficult for him to claim that he had absolutely no idea that posting a picture of a chimpanzee instead of a baby, might just possibly be taken as a comment over a child being mixed-race.

What next, claiming that the throwing of bananas onto the pitch is merely an expression of support for darker-skinned players?
My point was that if the baby had been black his chimp photo would have indeed been seen as ridiculing the babies skin colour, but the baby is very much white, has a white father and mixed race mother.

I think you might find throwing bananas at a football match is to do with black players, not the white ones. ;)

I found it ridiculous that people saw this pic of a smiley baby, saw a BLACK baby and then cried racist.

5BC0C996-C2B0-422E-BF1D-0D3E2209899D.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Slime

LE
Last edited:
So, ME!again is walking through a public park smiling at the photographers, and then claims she is being stalked?
Sounds about right.
 
I find the ethnicity/racism stuff puzzling.......as Archie has a white father and a mixed-race mother (MM states she is 50% caucasian and 50% African American).

In which case, Archie is 75% white, and 25% black..........if that's how the simple maths works with such things.
 
Just out of interest, if, as reported above, the Canadians aren't providing protection, what jurisdiction do UK protection officers have in Vancouver?
I don't know what regulation Harry and Meghan's UK security comes under, but in other cases apparently it involves their security asking for a note from the Mounties, including about bringing firearms in.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is mandated to provide security for visitors who are Internationally Protected Persons (IPP) as defined in S.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada. When the visitor is not an IPP, issues of protection and security may be discussed directly with the police of local jurisdiction.

IMPORTANT: Foreign Security Officers accompanying an IPP may not bring or carry their firearms in Canada without the express written authorization of the RCMP. Any firearms brought to Canada without the express written authorization of the RCMP must be declared and surrendered to the CBSA immediately on arrival and claimed prior to departure from the same airport of arrival.
 
F***ing hell, I rather hope that some of them die of exposure. Or get run over by a truck.

The next time that the British press get all sanctimonious and complain that Leveson proposed utterly unjustified restrictions on their ability to harrass people in order to flog newspapers, using a feeble "it's in the public interest to have long-lens pictures of someone who (unlike most B- and C-list celebs) isn't actually arranging with the paparazzi to take their snaps", I hope they realise that they are their own worst enemy.
Here's a more detailed answer.
As paparazzi descend on Harry and Meghan, B.C. privacy laws could face first celebrity test

Long story short, under British Columbia's implementation of the Privacy Act people can sue others for invasions of privacy where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Privacy can be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, and that does not have to be accompanied by trespass to property. According to a lawyer who specialises in privacy law, that would include paparazzi who follow someone around.
"So, the act of the paparazzi of continually following around a person — in this case the duchess — probably could be surveillance for the purposes of this act, which could lead to a lawsuit," Fraser explained.
A lawsuit wouldn't result in large monetary damages, but it could result in an injunction against the paparazzi and of course violating a court injunction would be an offence.

It's not entirely sure how this would work out however, as there just isn't the same paparazzi culture in Canada so there aren't any clear test cases to go on. However, we might take note that the couple have issued a "warning" to the press to leave them alone. This could be setting the scene for use of the BC Privacy Act now that warning has been given.

However, the lawyer goes on to say that economics may be a bigger factor in getting the international paparazzi to leave them alone. For paparazzi in London, there's lots of celebrities to follow around. On Vancouver Island though, a paparazzi is going to be hard pressed to make a living off two celebrities and one baby.
As Vancouver Island continues to bear the gaze of the international tabloid press, Fraser says pure economics rather than the law might be the blunt instrument of choice that eventually wins the young family their peace.

"If you're a freelance paparazzi photographer in Los Angeles or Monaco or London, that's a pretty target rich environment," Fraser said.

"On Vancouver Island, there will be one or two celebrities and one baby that you'll be looking to try to earn your living from."
According to this news story, the locals in North Saanich (north of Victoria) have been "supportive of the couple’s desire for privacy", and many have been refusing to talk to the paparazzi or even turning down attempts by them to charter boats.
The mansion is housed in North Saanich, a municipality with a population of 11,000. Locals have been supportive of the couple’s desire for privacy, with some business owners repeatedly turning down media requests for interviews. A water taxi captain told the National Post he refused to charter three potential customers, after learning that they were media looking to stake out Meghan’s address.
 
As police officers they are simply just visitors to the country like any other visitor. There are diplomatic arrangements in place between some countries to allow for the carrying of firearms, etc. So the lads from the Met may have diplomatic passports and be on the books of the embassy as "diplomats".
Does that mean they can run over Canadian motor cyclists with impunity?
 
Does that mean they can run over Canadian motor cyclists with impunity?
There is probably a clause in there about it only being allowed in the first couple of weeks and whilst driving on the wrong side of the road.
 
It is basically the same in the USA: If you are stood in a public place; if you can see it then you can photograph it, or film it.
In the US I believe newspapers/the media are classed as commercial entities and while it's legal to film or take photos of people in a public place, where all of this changes a little is when it comes to commercial use.

One generally has to have consent to use a photo of a person for commercial use, but those penalties are civil not criminal. For instance if someone takes your picture and puts it in a magazine, you can sue them for financial damages if consent wasn't given to do so.

You will quite often see on websites like twitter where newspapers will ask people for permission to use a photo someone has taken.
 
Last edited:
I think the best thing you've ever posted is that Buzzfeed link quoting tabloids as gospel, as evidence that the tabloids always lie.
Do I have to keep explaining to you that the buzzfeed articles provide links to the actual article so you could see it for yourself?
If the Daily Mail quote Harry saying something and provided a link to his website where people could see his quote, then they would be telling the truth. (Unlike their usual trick of a made up "Source").
Buzzfeed provided the proof.
 
She does seem to be playing up to the camera. A lot of eye contact...

View attachment 445091
Fuck knows what the context of this photo is, but the press will take literally hundreds of photos and then filter out the ones they dont want.
That's why sometimes they will say X celebrity is looking miserable, because they have take a snap just as that persons facial expression isnt smiling.
She might have been smiling at a streaker, she is claiming that the photographers where hiding in bushes.
 
I find the ethnicity/racism stuff puzzling.......as Archie has a white father and a mixed-race mother (MM states she is 50% caucasian and 50% African American).

In which case, Archie is 75% white, and 25% black..........if that's how the simple maths works with such things.
And the poor kid will probably be ginger.
 
**** knows what the context of this photo is, but the press will take literally hundreds of photos and then filter out the ones they dont want.
That's why sometimes they will say X celebrity is looking miserable, because they have take a snap just as that persons facial expression isnt smiling.
She might have been smiling at a streaker, she is claiming that the photographers where hiding in bushes.
If you watch the video in this Daily Mail link (sorry, I'm not techy enough to figure out how to embed the video into this post) it does appear a bit more stalkerish/sinister. It's obvious the stills are taken from quite a distance.
Meghan beams while carrying Archie and walking dogs in Vancouver
 
Cattle roundup time in the Sudan coincides with the kids' initiation, part of which for the new herders is getting wazzed on by the mombies.

The ammonia turns them ginger and gives the impression the Black Watch have been in town a few years previously.
 
I think that you misunderstand what the press is all about. The prime driver of the press is to sell copy, not to ignore stories that will bring sales/internet clicks. Accordingly the press will certainly not ignore a story like this, it will instead flog it to death, until a more sellable story comes along.
And I think you may have missed the bit where I said “It would be good IF”. I know it ain’t gonna happen. Doesn’t stop me thinking it would be good.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top