Harry and Meghan
Discussion
Red 4 said:
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.
~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.
Agree 1st, 2nd and last.
The 3rd however, can I ask, have you EVER seen a Man in that position or moving into it after meeting "the woman he wants to be with" ?
Do you believe it is possible that/seen a Woman being in Over-Control in a relationship ?
NOTE: I am not saying this is or is not the case with MrsHarry/Harry
Edited by Dont like rolls on Tuesday 21st January 17:14
Dont like rolls said:
Red 4 said:
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.
~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.
Agree 1st, 2nd and last.
The 3rd however, can I ask, have you EVER seen a Man in that position or moving into it after meeting "the woman he wants to be with" ?
I've also seen others who have been well and truly " pussywhipped" when it all goes wrong.
I'm just not sure that Harry fits the stereotype. Many on here are convinced he does though.
He comes across as surprisingly "normal" to me - especially for a Royal.
SpeckledJim said:
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. Surely before they go to sleep they must reflect on what a parasitic existence they lead.
And a lot of people enjoy consuming the photos they take, so must take partial responsibility.
I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
La Liga said:
f course you're right.
I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
FWIW they were standing on the side of a road, not in a bush.I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
768 said:
La Liga said:
f course you're right.
I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
FWIW they were standing on the side of a road, not in a bush.I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
768 said:
La Liga said:
f course you're right.
I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
FWIW they were standing on the side of a road, not in a bush.I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
If you or I were doing it outside of the media umbrella, it could amount to criminal harassment.
La Liga said:
768 said:
La Liga said:
f course you're right.
I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
FWIW they were standing on the side of a road, not in a bush.I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
If you or I were doing it outside of the media umbrella, it could amount to criminal harassment.
There is nothing stopping an anti-harrassment order.
A member of the public is perfectly entitled to take photos of pretty much anyone and anything whilst they're in a public space - and sell those images commercially.
It's only when in the private sphere, where model releases, etc. are required.
Sway said:
La Liga said:
768 said:
La Liga said:
f course you're right.
I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
FWIW they were standing on the side of a road, not in a bush.I was thinking these long-lens, hide in a bush types unwelcome types who Harry and Megan are complaining about.
I guess it doesn't sit well with me to know I'd be contributing to making a family unhappy.
If you or I were doing it outside of the media umbrella, it could amount to criminal harassment.
There is nothing stopping an anti-harrassment order.
It's only when in the private sphere, where model releases, etc. are required.
Sway said:
A member of the public is perfectly entitled to take photos of pretty much anyone and anything whilst they're in a public space - and sell those images commercially.
Yes, but there's ample scope for what are usually lawful conduct to amount to a criminal course of conduct in the context of harassment. Obviously talking about the law in the UK, not Canada.
It's a bit interesting that they have left the UK whose media had stopped the hiding in a bush stuff only to go to Canada to walk straight back into it and start threatening to sue it's hardly a great start, they had more privacy at the "cottage" on the Windsor estate I'd wager than they'll get over there.
Wills2 said:
It's a bit interesting that they have left the UK whose media had stopped the hiding in a bush stuff only to go to Canada to walk straight back into it and start threatening to sue it's hardly a great start, they had more privacy at the "cottage" on the Windsor estate I'd wager than they'll get over there.
It’s also a bit interesting that you’ve read ‘taking legal action’ as the same thing as suing someone. It isn’t . They will simply request that a judge orders the media to cease and desist.jcremonini said:
Wills2 said:
It's a bit interesting that they have left the UK whose media had stopped the hiding in a bush stuff only to go to Canada to walk straight back into it and start threatening to sue it's hardly a great start, they had more privacy at the "cottage" on the Windsor estate I'd wager than they'll get over there.
It’s also a bit interesting that you’ve read ‘taking legal action’ as the same thing as suing someone. It isn’t . They will simply request that a judge orders the media to cease and desist.Dont like rolls said:
jcremonini said:
Wills2 said:
It's a bit interesting that they have left the UK whose media had stopped the hiding in a bush stuff only to go to Canada to walk straight back into it and start threatening to sue it's hardly a great start, they had more privacy at the "cottage" on the Windsor estate I'd wager than they'll get over there.
It’s also a bit interesting that you’ve read ‘taking legal action’ as the same thing as suing someone. It isn’t . They will simply request that a judge orders the media to cease and desist.The nearly all legal decisions aren't setting new precedents or 'opening doors'.
jcremonini said:
Wills2 said:
It's a bit interesting that they have left the UK whose media had stopped the hiding in a bush stuff only to go to Canada to walk straight back into it and start threatening to sue it's hardly a great start, they had more privacy at the "cottage" on the Windsor estate I'd wager than they'll get over there.
It’s also a bit interesting that you’ve read ‘taking legal action’ as the same thing as suing someone. It isn’t . They will simply request that a judge orders the media to cease and desist.For record before you start they can do what they like as far as I'm concerned good luck to them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff