Harry and Meghan

[DS240]

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!

Walking in a public park. Can you sue against someone else taking your photo in a public place?

Also, why the need to hide in a bush? It’s a public place, stand wherever and take a photo.

I understand the long range stuff into private locations being wrong. What about a member of public just taking a picture and posting on their Facebook?

Edited by DS240 on Tuesday 21st January 14:46

[cb31]

smn159 said:

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

The available evidence points toward it being a planned photo. If she hates press intrusion would she be happily smiling for a pap poking out of a bush in front of her? Would she then move the baby to the side so the photograper gets a full view of her face?

Smacks of hypocrisy yet again, complains of press intrusion while setting up friendly press photos.

[Sway]

smn159 said:

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?

Most pap photos are taken in plain sight. There are no laws blocking anyone taking a photo in a public place...

Someone hiding in bushes, but able to get a clear view with a lens who's end will be some 80mm in diameter? Competely different.

Long rifle? Nothing you can do. Hiding within 20m with a wide clear sight? Completely different.

If he'd have had a knife, he'd have been able to cause harm before those security could have responded.

[poo at Paul's]

DS240 said:

What about a member of public just taking a picture and posting on their Facebook?

Edited by DS240 on Tuesday 21st January 14:46

Well she tried that with her publicly paid for heavies at Wimbledon if you remember....!!

[WestyCarl]

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....

Edited by Sway on Tuesday 21st January 14:32

Based on what? Could easily taken 100m away with a 300mm lens and cropped. (I regularly do this every weekend for my lads rubgy team)

Arghh, I've been draw into this

[techguyone]

Sway said:

smn159 said:

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?

Most pap photos are taken in plain sight. There are no laws blocking anyone taking a photo in a public place...

Someone hiding in bushes, but able to get a clear view with a lens who's end will be some 80mm in diameter? Competely different.

Long rifle? Nothing you can do. Hiding within 20m with a wide clear sight? Completely different.

If he'd have had a knife, he'd have been able to cause harm before those security could have responded.

The guy with his hand in his pocket should be sacked, some security...

Especially as on the video you can see his other hand holding a phone to his ear.

If that's the standard of security they can expect now, they're probably fked.

[Sway]

WestyCarl said:

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....

Edited by Sway on Tuesday 21st January 14:32

Based on what? Could easily taken 100m away with a 300mm lens and cropped. (I regularly do this every weekend for my lads rubgy team)

Arghh, I've been draw into this

Perspective stacking.

Those cropped photos taken with a 300mm lens would show far greater compression of perspective than these.

It doesn't take much experience, with "known size" reference points, to be able to judge pretty closely what sort of lens was used.

[Ridgemont]

Well that went well.

Welcome to H&M’s new press free existence

https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-threat...

[anonymous-user]

What do they expect?

I’m sure this means more potential coverage for Hugh Grant and his tedious whinging.

[hyphen]

Ridgemont said:

Well that went well.

Welcome to H&M’s new press free existence

https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-threat...

Good move by them, if true.

The paparazzi will become experts in Canadian libel and privacy laws, and make sure they don't overstep it.

[ATG]

Who expected them to have dropped off the gutter press and its infantile readership's radar immediately? Their withdrawal from public life is still a story. Give it a couple of weeks and things will have calmed down. Soap opera news has a shelf life of a few days. Once they're no longer "royal", Britons' interest in them will quickly wane. And the claim that foreign media is more interested in them and less respectful than the British media is complete tosh, so staying away from the UK for a while is likely a sensible move.

This whole episode has been a non-story from the outset. The speed at which it will off the news agenda will confirm that.

[DeepEnd]

New levels of wow.

Bloke found guilty of unprovoked attack with combat 18 gear and a flag with SS motifs

PH “he is probably a noble sort”

Paps take photos of Markle

PH “ramp up bile towards her 400% and suggest it is all a set up”

In some ways this crap is even worse than racism - it’s just blind wilful hatred, bullying and anger serving no purpose whatsoever. What a complete disgrace.

[Dont like rolls]

DeepEnd said:

New levels of wow.

Bloke found guilty of unprovoked attack with combat 18 gear and a flag with SS motifs

PH “he is probably a noble sort”

Paps take photos of Markle

PH “ramp up bile towards her 400% and suggest it is all a set up”

In some ways this crap is even worse than racism - it’s just blind wilful hatred, bullying and anger serving no purpose whatsoever. What a complete disgrace.

With that logic everybody who dislikes the way this is going and attributes [some} blame for it towards Markle is an SS worshipping Nazi/Combat 18 supporter who is racccissst !.

You are daft and part of the present problem.

[hyphen]

DeepEnd said:

New levels of wow.

Bloke found guilty of unprovoked attack with combat 18 gear and a flag with SS motifs

PH “he is probably a noble sort”

Paps take photos of Markle

PH “ramp up bile towards her 400% and suggest it is all a set up”

In some ways this crap is even worse than racism - it’s just blind wilful hatred, bullying and anger serving no purpose whatsoever. What a complete disgrace.

Is it the same people on this Nazi thread? As if so, surely it's an issue with a limited number of people.

Doesn't discount the general views on the Megsit which is shared across majority of population.

[Ridgemont]

DeepEnd said:

New levels of wow.

Bloke found guilty of unprovoked attack with combat 18 gear and a flag with SS motifs

PH “he is probably a noble sort”

Paps take photos of Markle

PH “ramp up bile towards her 400% and suggest it is all a set up”

In some ways this crap is even worse than racism - it’s just blind wilful hatred, bullying and anger serving no purpose whatsoever. What a complete disgrace.

I do wish you would get your hyperbole under control. As far as I can see ‘PH’ has no such thing.

Sway on this thread and psi310398 on the Owen Jones thread appear to be trying to drive you mad with it appears some success.

[poo at Paul's]

DeepEnd said:

What a complete disgrace.

Diddums!

[anonymous-user]

I wonder if the suicide rate for paparazzi is higher than the base rate.

Surely before they go to sleep they must reflect on what a parasitic existence they lead.

[Sway]

La Liga said:

I wonder if the suicide rate for paparazzi is higher than the base rate.

Surely before they go to sleep they must reflect on what a parasitic existence they lead.

I've known a few. Even did a work placement with one at Heathrow.

90% of the time is spent sat around, bored - and likely drinking. 100% of the ones I've met were lonely alcoholics old before their time.

[SpeckledJim]

La Liga said:

I wonder if the suicide rate for paparazzi is higher than the base rate.

Surely before they go to sleep they must reflect on what a parasitic existence they lead.

Not entirely parasitic. A lot (a majority?) of celebrities owe a lot of their fame and living to the paparazzi.

And a lot of people enjoy consuming the photos they take, so must take partial responsibility.

[Red 4]

Well, I'm going to go out on a PH limb here and say good luck to Harry.

He's got the balls to do what he wants to do and has (apparently) said he'll accept the consequences, even if he would have liked things to have been done differently.

As for the PH misogynists ( of which there are many) saying Harry is some brainwashed, pussywhipped, massively under the thumb, feeble, weak, pathetic little man - that probably says more about some of the posters on here than it says about him.

I like Harry. Good on him.