Harry and Meghan

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Sway said:

bhstewie 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?

There is no argument.

Why do people give a st about it?

Grown men dissecting the angle of a baby harness for a fleeting second.

Some really can't stand hypocrisy.

Others seem to want to come up with spurious and obviously false reasons why those people who can't must be wrong and odd...

When you're discussing whether it was a "zoom" lens or a "prime" lens and what the focal length was to capture the exact moment a baby sling might have been at a non-NP&E approved angle then yes I do think that's a bit odd.

I'm not a parent but if I was I'm pretty sure that if someone followed me with a camera I'd have Social Services around by midday.

To each their own though maybe it's perfectly normal.

When you imply (and continue to do so) that this photo was taken by an unauthorised paparazzi, then it's entirely logical to point out that the photographer is within a few metres, and easily dealt with by the security (and she wouldn't be smiling away and posing...).

You infer oddity, when it is you that is incapable of seeing what is there.

Great strawman too - I never said anything about the length of lens in relation to the baby carrier. Check out the baby carrier manufacturer's instructions - another strawman suggesting it is "non-NP&E approved".

Please, you're making yourself look naive, gullible and a tad white Knight (no racist).

For a celeb, trying to maximise personal image and media saturation, this sort of staged shoot is nothing abnormal. You just don't want to see how Meghan is acting in exactly the same way as the no-marks plastered all over the sidebar of shame on the Mail website. Except she's also complaining about "press intrusion" whilst doing so...

[smn159]

Sway said:

When you imply (and continue to do so) that this photo was taken by an unauthorised paparazzi, then it's entirely logical to point out that the photographer is within a few metres, and easily dealt with by the security (and she wouldn't be smiling away and posing...).

[snip]

For a celeb, trying to maximise personal image and media saturation, this sort of staged shoot is nothing abnormal. You just don't want to see how Meghan is acting in exactly the same way as the no-marks plastered all over the sidebar of shame on the Mail website. Except she's also complaining about "press intrusion" whilst doing so...

Have I missed something or is there any actual evidence that this is a staged photo? If not then you seem to basing a lot of assertions and projecting motives based on something which you don't know to be true.

[anonymous-user]

smn159 said:

Have I missed something or is there any actual evidence that this is a staged photo? If not then you seem to basing a lot of assertions and projecting motives based on something which you don't know to be true.

I think Sway may be more thinking its a photo opportunity than a staged photo.

[Sway]

smn159 said:

Sway said:

When you imply (and continue to do so) that this photo was taken by an unauthorised paparazzi, then it's entirely logical to point out that the photographer is within a few metres, and easily dealt with by the security (and she wouldn't be smiling away and posing...).

[snip]

For a celeb, trying to maximise personal image and media saturation, this sort of staged shoot is nothing abnormal. You just don't want to see how Meghan is acting in exactly the same way as the no-marks plastered all over the sidebar of shame on the Mail website. Except she's also complaining about "press intrusion" whilst doing so...

Have I missed something or is there any actual evidence that this is a staged photo? If not then you seem to basing a lot of assertions and projecting motives based on something which you don't know to be true.

Occam's Razor, backed up with a degree in photography that let's me tell very easily at a glance how the scenario looked from the 'outside'...

Very, very different for example from the unstaged 'pool paps' based at the major airports who took photos of Harry leaving yesterday.

[Sway]

techiedave said:

I think Sway may be more thinking its a photo opportunity than a staged photo.

They're essentially the same thing.

[bitchstewie]

Sway said:

When you imply (and continue to do so) that this photo was taken by an unauthorised paparazzi, then it's entirely logical to point out that the photographer is within a few metres, and easily dealt with by the security (and she wouldn't be smiling away and posing...).

You infer oddity, when it is you that is incapable of seeing what is there.

Great strawman too - I never said anything about the length of lens in relation to the baby carrier. Check out the baby carrier manufacturer's instructions - another strawman suggesting it is "non-NP&E approved".

Please, you're making yourself look naive, gullible and a tad white Knight (no racist).

For a celeb, trying to maximise personal image and media saturation, this sort of staged shoot is nothing abnormal. You just don't want to see how Meghan is acting in exactly the same way as the no-marks plastered all over the sidebar of shame on the Mail website. Except she's also complaining about "press intrusion" whilst doing so...

People can form their own view on that one.

"White knight" is pretty funny simply because I recognise when there's some weird witch hunt underway by the media and peoples opinions of someone who they know literally next to nothing about.

I'm actually quite happy to be naive and gullible than scrutinising photos and reading baby carrier instructions for the slightest detail to try and use against someone.

[tribalsurfer]

I did see in one of the papers they were described as being on Exclusive Vancouver Island. For the record I was there in August and it's not exclusive at all !!!!!!

[poo at Paul's]

techiedave said:

smn159 said:

Have I missed something or is there any actual evidence that this is a staged photo? If not then you seem to basing a lot of assertions and projecting motives based on something which you don't know to be true.

I think Sway may be more thinking its a photo opportunity than a staged photo.

Apparently hiding in bushes and being spied on, and they may sue...…>!!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/harry-...

you could not make it up!

[anonymous-user]

poo at Paul's said:

Apparently hiding in bushes and being spied on, and they may sue...…>!!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/harry-...

you could not make it up!

So she's just not very good at getting baby into the strappy thingey
This wouldn't have happened if she had bought one of those maxi cosi things

[smn159]

Sway said:

smn159 said:

Sway said:

When you imply (and continue to do so) that this photo was taken by an unauthorised paparazzi, then it's entirely logical to point out that the photographer is within a few metres, and easily dealt with by the security (and she wouldn't be smiling away and posing...).

[snip]

For a celeb, trying to maximise personal image and media saturation, this sort of staged shoot is nothing abnormal. You just don't want to see how Meghan is acting in exactly the same way as the no-marks plastered all over the sidebar of shame on the Mail website. Except she's also complaining about "press intrusion" whilst doing so...

Have I missed something or is there any actual evidence that this is a staged photo? If not then you seem to basing a lot of assertions and projecting motives based on something which you don't know to be true.

Occam's Razor, backed up with a degree in photography that let's me tell very easily at a glance how the scenario looked from the 'outside'...

Very, very different for example from the unstaged 'pool paps' based at the major airports who took photos of Harry leaving yesterday.

Well this doesn't suggest a staged photograph

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/harry-...

[Sway]

smn159 said:

Sway said:

smn159 said:

Sway said:

When you imply (and continue to do so) that this photo was taken by an unauthorised paparazzi, then it's entirely logical to point out that the photographer is within a few metres, and easily dealt with by the security (and she wouldn't be smiling away and posing...).

[snip]

For a celeb, trying to maximise personal image and media saturation, this sort of staged shoot is nothing abnormal. You just don't want to see how Meghan is acting in exactly the same way as the no-marks plastered all over the sidebar of shame on the Mail website. Except she's also complaining about "press intrusion" whilst doing so...

Have I missed something or is there any actual evidence that this is a staged photo? If not then you seem to basing a lot of assertions and projecting motives based on something which you don't know to be true.

Occam's Razor, backed up with a degree in photography that let's me tell very easily at a glance how the scenario looked from the 'outside'...

Very, very different for example from the unstaged 'pool paps' based at the major airports who took photos of Harry leaving yesterday.

Well this doesn't suggest a staged photograph

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/harry-...

We'll see...

Of course, 'threats' of legal action are far from proof and conviction under privacy laws.

[Dont like rolls]

poo at Paul's said:

techiedave said:

smn159 said:

Have I missed something or is there any actual evidence that this is a staged photo? If not then you seem to basing a lot of assertions and projecting motives based on something which you don't know to be true.

I think Sway may be more thinking its a photo opportunity than a staged photo.

Apparently hiding in bushes and being spied on, and they may sue...…>!!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/harry-...

you could not make it up!

Yeh right

"Meghan was wrangling her black Labrador Oz and beagle Guy"...is that "going for a planned and announced walk" near where a press photographer had been told to wait...opps, hiding in the bushes

I don't believe the press OR them.

[Mothersruin]

smn159 said:

Sway said:

smn159 said:

Sway said:

When you imply (and continue to do so) that this photo was taken by an unauthorised paparazzi, then it's entirely logical to point out that the photographer is within a few metres, and easily dealt with by the security (and she wouldn't be smiling away and posing...).

[snip]

For a celeb, trying to maximise personal image and media saturation, this sort of staged shoot is nothing abnormal. You just don't want to see how Meghan is acting in exactly the same way as the no-marks plastered all over the sidebar of shame on the Mail website. Except she's also complaining about "press intrusion" whilst doing so...

Have I missed something or is there any actual evidence that this is a staged photo? If not then you seem to basing a lot of assertions and projecting motives based on something which you don't know to be true.

Occam's Razor, backed up with a degree in photography that let's me tell very easily at a glance how the scenario looked from the 'outside'...

Very, very different for example from the unstaged 'pool paps' based at the major airports who took photos of Harry leaving yesterday.

Well this doesn't suggest a staged photograph

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/harry-...

"Sue with a smile" - is that new Merkle strapline?

[anonymous-user]

Photographers arrested

[smn159]

Sway said:

smn159 said:

Sway said:

smn159 said:

Sway said:

When you imply (and continue to do so) that this photo was taken by an unauthorised paparazzi, then it's entirely logical to point out that the photographer is within a few metres, and easily dealt with by the security (and she wouldn't be smiling away and posing...).

[snip]

For a celeb, trying to maximise personal image and media saturation, this sort of staged shoot is nothing abnormal. You just don't want to see how Meghan is acting in exactly the same way as the no-marks plastered all over the sidebar of shame on the Mail website. Except she's also complaining about "press intrusion" whilst doing so...

Have I missed something or is there any actual evidence that this is a staged photo? If not then you seem to basing a lot of assertions and projecting motives based on something which you don't know to be true.

Occam's Razor, backed up with a degree in photography that let's me tell very easily at a glance how the scenario looked from the 'outside'...

Very, very different for example from the unstaged 'pool paps' based at the major airports who took photos of Harry leaving yesterday.

Well this doesn't suggest a staged photograph

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/harry-...

We'll see...

Of course, 'threats' of legal action are far from proof and conviction under privacy laws.

So they're threatening legal action against photographers which they asked to take their pictures?

Is that really what Occam's Razor is telling you is the most plausible explanation?

[Sway]

smn159 said:

So they're threatening legal action against photographers which they asked to take their pictures?

Is that really what Occam's Razor is telling you is the most plausible explanation?

No, I'm saying it's very easy to release to the media a 'threat' - which an arranged tame photographer who's just earnt several thousands will give zero fks about.

Let's see if they actually sue - and if so, whether they can provide sufficient evidence.

Oh, and that photo was taken from less than 20m. If he was hiding in a bush with an air rifle, he'd have been able to hit her in the face....

Think those two security are that incompetent?

Edited by Sway on Tuesday 21st January 14:32

[smn159]

Sway said:

smn159 said:

So they're threatening legal action against photographers which they asked to take their pictures?

Is that really what Occam's Razor is telling you is the most plausible explanation?

No, I'm saying it's very easy to release to the media a 'threat' - which an arranged tame photographer who's just earnt several thousands will give zero fks about.

Let's see if they actually sue - and if so, whether they can provide sufficient evidence.

So you have a preconceived idea of what happened and what their motivations are which you're sticking to in the light of available evidence, while putting the onus on them to demonstrate that your prejudices are wrong

Righto

[Flumpo]

Sway said:

smn159 said:

So they're threatening legal action against photographers which they asked to take their pictures?

Is that really what Occam's Razor is telling you is the most plausible explanation?

No, I'm saying it's very easy to release to the media a 'threat' - which an arranged tame photographer who's just earnt several thousands will give zero fks about.

Let's see if they actually sue - and if so, whether they can provide sufficient evidence.

Wasn’t that one of max cliffards favourite stunts?

although I’m not saying that’s the situation here.

[Sway]

smn159 said:

Sway said:

smn159 said:

So they're threatening legal action against photographers which they asked to take their pictures?

Is that really what Occam's Razor is telling you is the most plausible explanation?

No, I'm saying it's very easy to release to the media a 'threat' - which an arranged tame photographer who's just earnt several thousands will give zero fks about.

Let's see if they actually sue - and if so, whether they can provide sufficient evidence.

So you have a preconceived idea of what happened and what their motivations are which you're sticking to in the light of available evidence, while putting the onus on them to demonstrate that your prejudices are wrong

Righto

Read my edited post.

There is no 'evidence' apart from a claim - a very useful one to support their narrative.

I do have a preconceived idea - based on their own statements and recorded actions. Nothing in that photo challenges it, at all. Nor does the 'threat'.

Happy to change my mind if the threat becomes action - and conviction.

These things are hardly novel - they've been the bread and butter of 'professional celeb' life for years.

[smn159]

Sway said:

Oh, and that photo was taken from less than 20m. If he was hiding in a bush with an air rifle, he'd have been able to hit her in the face....

Think those two security are that incompetent?

Edited by Sway on Tuesday 21st January 14:32

You could apply that to any pap photo of anyone with security.

How many paparazzi have ever been shot by security details?

Are they all that incompetent?