Harry and Meghan

[Halb]

dandarez said:

How far do you want to go back? Beyond rag and bone man and Victorian?

Victorians had a slop bucket for the kitchen, where all food waste would be worked into the soil for the garden. No waste.

[TTwiggy]

Sway said:

That's not a zoom lens (zoom would compress the perspective massively). She's posing for the camera. Etc.

So that part of your argument is clearly false.

Secondly, why no similar photos whilst undergoing press harassment whilst in the UK?

It may or may not be a zoom lens (there would be no way of telling without seeing it), but it is a telephoto.

[Sway]

TTwiggy said:

Sway said:

That's not a zoom lens (zoom would compress the perspective massively). She's posing for the camera. Etc.

So that part of your argument is clearly false.

Secondly, why no similar photos whilst undergoing press harassment whilst in the UK?

It may or may not be a zoom lens (there would be no way of telling without seeing it), but it is a telephoto.

Zoom was shorthand in response - I'd expect it wasn't, and instead a prime for quality.

No way that lens is much longer than 200mm, considering the classic "portrait lens" is 105mm it's far from the long range papped shot implied. The foreshortening would be much greater.

[TTwiggy]

I’d agree that it looks around 200mm. So the photographer would be a polite distance away but still noticeable.

All that aside, this outpouring of bile for one woman massively confuses me.

[Dont like rolls]

TTwiggy said:

I’d agree that it looks around 200mm. So the photographer would be a polite distance away but still noticeable.

All that aside, this outpouring of bile for one woman massively confuses me.

Why identity her sex ? Micro aggressive misogyny, shame on you.

[TTwiggy]

Dont like rolls said:

Why identity her sex ? Micro aggressive misogyny, shame on you.

Do feel free to go and play with yourself.

[vonuber]

Ok this thread has gone completely mental now.

Forensically analysing a photo of how she's holding a baby. Have a word with yourselves, honestly.

[Sway]

TTwiggy said:

I’d agree that it looks around 200mm. So the photographer would be a polite distance away but still noticeable.

All that aside, this outpouring of bile for one woman massively confuses me.

No bile from me - more amusement.

A picture paints a thousand words. In this case, about 900 relate to the hypocrisy and bullst in their own stated reasons for doing what they're doing.

The other 100 for me relate to the environment and doggos...

[techguyone]

DS240 said:

bhstewie said:

DS240 said:

Just out for casual walk.. hope there’s no press around.

Is this a demonstration she doesn’t know how to use a baby carrier or does it really reflect her mindset of deliberately adjusting it to put the baby off to one side (regardless of the babies discomfort), so her face won’t be obscured for the press shots. I say the latter, pathetic.

I think you may be slightly overthinking this.

I mean seriously?

Okay...

A. Total incompetence
B. Totally self-absorbed

C. Accidental.... but if you’ve ever used a baby sling you should hopefully see how this is virtually impossible. Slipping off the shoulder, nope. Baby falling out the side of it, nope. Not that I would, but I think I could run, sprint, clamber over rocks and none of the above would happen. It certainly wouldn’t happen walking along casually with the dog.

I think I've got it. The shoulder strap slipped because with the chip there and all, there just wasn't enough room for both strap and chip so something had to go

Bonus point: Even the dogs look uncomfortable.

[hyphen]

If she had stayed in UK, she would have had grounds big enough to let the dogs be off leash and not need to walk them.

No she has to walk the poor things like a commoner

[ATG]

techiedave said:

ATG's post is surprisingly accurate.

Please accept my sincere apologies

[Dont like rolls]

TTwiggy said:

Dont like rolls said:

Why identity her sex ? Micro aggressive misogyny, shame on you.

Do feel free to go and play with yourself.

Is it cus Imm black ?

You don't work at the BBC do you

[anonymous-user]

ATG said:

techiedave said:

ATG's post is surprisingly accurate.

Please accept my sincere apologies

No its me who should be apologising to you. Quoting you in the same post as quoting Rolls is something no poster should have to experience.

[Halb]

vonuber said:

Ok this thread has gone completely mental now.

Forensically analysing a photo of how she's holding a baby. Have a word with yourselves, honestly.

the daily mail posts here now?

[Murph7355]

TTwiggy said:

... .
All that aside, this outpouring of bile for one woman massively confuses me.

Not sure bile is quite right...

But Sway covers it IMO - hypocrisy. It's not something that goes unnoticed in the UK IMO and if we dug deep enough I think it'd be found to be at the heart of most "bile" generating topics.

[Dont like rolls]

techiedave said:

No its me who should be apologising to you. Quoting you in the same post as quoting Rolls is something no poster should have to experience.

Now I am certain you always post ironically you little tinker

[jcremonini]

vonuber said:

Ok this thread has gone completely mental now.

Forensically analysing a photo of how she's holding a baby. Have a word with yourselves, honestly.

It’s embarrassing isn’t it ?

Taking huge delight in finding the slightest imperfection in a strangers life. And grown men too. PH trawls new depths.

[TwistingMyMelon]

Haha If I had a photographer follow me round for the day , I would probably have social services round by teatime, let alone a load of tutting daily mail commentators. The other day I let my 2 year old steer the car off the drive and let my 5 year old drive down the street with me doing the pedals!! A misaligned sling isnt even on the scale

I dont understand how one women can generate so much hate in one paper, reminds me of the hatred towards Dianne Abbott and Gina Miller.....bit of a trend

Yet Katie Price and Lauren Goodger get glowing photo shoots in the same paper....when they have very dubious life choices and are stty examples

[Dont like rolls]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Haha If I had a photographer follow me round for the day , I would probably have social services round by teatime, let alone a load of tutting daily mail commentators. The other day I let my 2 year old steer the car off the drive and let my 5 year old drive down the street with me doing the pedals!! A misaligned sling isnt even on the scale

I dont understand how one women can generate so much hate in one paper, reminds me of the hatred towards Dianne Abbott and Gina Miller.....bit of a trend

Yet Katie Price and Lauren Goodger get glowing photo shoots in the same paper....when they have very dubious life choices and are stty examples

Not a great fan of it either, there are much deeper aspects to this than Her/His relationship, how she carries a baby, and photo-shoots (that is what this was) like this.

People react to hypocrites in various ways and express their dislike within scale to the problem or at the extremes. Sadly hypocrites open the door to comment and then the divides starts to happen and many move (comment) to the extreme in a strange defensive one-upmanship.

Edited by Dont like rolls on Tuesday 21st January 10:50

[anonymous-user]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Haha If I had a photographer follow me round for the day , I would probably have social services round by teatime, let alone a load of tutting daily mail commentators. The other day I let my 2 year old steer the car off the drive and let my 5 year old drive down the street with me doing the pedals!! A misaligned sling isnt even on the scale

I dont understand how one women can generate so much hate in one paper, reminds me of the hatred towards Dianne Abbott and Gina Miller.....bit of a trend

Yet Katie Price and Lauren Goodger get glowing photo shoots in the same paper....when they have very dubious life choices and are stty examples

So it’s OK for you to have a view on a couple of brain dead tarts but not for others to have a view on a group of hypocrites who contribute very little to anything but their own welfare and insist on telling us how to lead our lives, even though they don’t follow their own advice?

We reap what we sow.