The absolute state of the Daily Mail (re Meghan Markle)

[Hithere12]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7298013/Meghan-Markles-organic-baby-shawl-used-swaddle-Archie-workers-earning-37-PENCE-hour.html

This is there top story. Meghan is using a cheap shawl & DM have found the factory it was made in.

She’s been criticised non stop for her spending, uses something cheap and the DM visit the sweatshop it was made in! I’m sorry but we are all guilty of this, very few people I’m sure track down where everything they buy is made and how much the staff are paid.

It’s just getting ridiculous how they’ll find literally anything to criticise.

If the DM want to expose sweat shops (something they care little about usually) they have the resources and man power to do so but they don’t give a shit they just want to go after Meghan.

you point to the part that says Harry took his horse to Italy. I just see that he played polo. Also that he was cleared of spurring the pony
I never mentioned Italy, but because he was cleared means nothing. You wouldn't really expect anything else would you? The man shouldn't be made excuses for, for what amounts to appalling cruelty. It is a fact he wears spurs, that alone is bad. Can you link to the bit where he was cleared of spurring his pony? Because I don't think he wears them for nothing

@Sittingonthedock8 - can you say specifically what’s disappointed you?

You can see the spur injury in these pics.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308528/Prince-Harry-faces-animal-cruelty-claim-polo-ponys-stab-wound-spur.html

Polo is, practically by definition, a cruel game. And spurs should never draw blood. (Lots is different types of spurs, by the way, they aren’t all bad) But ones that can draw blood are.

I read the Daily Mail newspaper every day and never understand the vitriol for them on here. What I read bears no resemblance to all your complaints. I can only assume the on-line version is to blame as I guess it has a different editor and I never read that version. I do agree though that they seem to be gunning for Meghan for some reason. The spelling has become Grauniad standard lately as well !

Thanks glitch. That does look shocking. He was cleared by a vet in the article in H&H. So, who knows what’s actually true.

The level of cruelty acceptable in many horse sports would shock most non horsy people. I’m not surprised Harry was cleared- if he hadn’t been it would have opened the floodgates.

Yes; it's interesting that those who purport to loathe the Mail the most are the ones that keep posting their links here.

However, mystically they manage to have their finger on the Mail pulse nonetheless.

As they allegedly cannot bear to read the filthy fascist rag it will remain one of the world's great mysteries, along with whatever happened to Amelia Earhart and the Bermuda Triangle, how they are so au fair with all their articles 😁

Personally, I’d like the Royal Family to be, y’know, the Royal Family. Not a bunch of patronizing, hypocritical, superwoke lefty “influencers”.

Mail Online is a completely separate entity from the Daily Mail newspaper. Well, owned by the same people but run by different staff. There will be some crossover, major news stories will be published online by the same print journalists but largely the online articles are written a separate “team”. They are generally young, less skillful, rubbish at fact-checking and grammar, badly paid, not highly educated, celebrity-obsessed and prepared to work through the night copying “stories” from the Twitter and Instagram pages of celebrities.

The print newspaper is quite different, although still pretty right-wing in tone.

I too am always staggered at how au-fait people are with its content despite apparently never buying it or browsing the website.

the awful people chosen for the Vogue cover
They're just people with feet of clay like all of us. I hate that people are held up as 'role models' nowadays. No one can live up to the hype.

“Personally, I’d like the Royal Family to be, y’know, the Royal Family. Not a bunch of patronizing, hypocritical, superwoke lefty “influencers”.”

So you don’t want them supporting good causes?

“I hate that people are held up as 'role models' nowadays.”

People have always had role models. I would be happy for my dd to take most of those women as a role model, frankly.

So you don’t want them supporting good causes?

Only from The List of Causes, page 2 List of Approved Scientists to talk about the Environment (NB not the niche woman that can only talk about chimpanzees)

I would be happy for my dd to take most of those women as a role model, frankly. Why? I don't get it. Surely you are her role model.

If you slavishly follow the beliefs of another person then surely that is a cult. Or religion. And I know how much you hate religion, Bertrand

I fully expected there to be a transwoman on there. My issue with Laverne Cox isn't that she is trans.

“ My issue with Laverne Cox isn't that she is trans.”

No- mine neither.

“If you slavishly follow the beliefs of another person then surely that is a cult”
You have a different definition of role model than I do.

Why? I don't get it. Surely you are her role model.

People are allowed more than one role model you know.

Not a bunch of patronizing, hypocritical, superwoke lefty “influencers”.

Where do you stand on Charles?

He’s definitely the first two and (like it or not) the last.

I really cannot bear Meghan now

What has she done wrong in your eyes?

People are allowed more than one role model you know. Well that's true. My greatest influence in life was my unmarried aunt who was a truly wonderful human being. And other good people I met throughout my life. Famous people not so much. It's a bit dangerous to follow the diktats of celebrities.

It’s dangerous to follow the diktats of anybody. But that’s not what a role model is.