Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask where the hashtag prince of pegging came from?

334 replies

Apileofballyhoo · 28/07/2022 18:49

DH is looking at Twitter and it's obviously about Prince William's alleged affair but can't figure out where it's coming from now all of a sudden. Anyone in the know?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
whumpthereitis · 30/07/2022 15:35

justasking111 · 30/07/2022 10:56

If we wish to have a president instead. Looking around over the decades there's been some pretty rum ones sexually and corruption wise

You can say exactly the same about the monarchy.

’People may make a bad choice, therefore they shouldn’t have a choice’ is an argument you can use to do away with democracy altogether.

vera99 · 30/07/2022 17:56

The Queen has paid £12 million quid to a victim of sexual abuse as a result of her son's actions. Let that settle in for a moment and he is still to be interviewed by the FBI. I want my President freely elected, not above the law and can be removed. Enough is enough.

Capri3 · 30/07/2022 19:12

antelopevalley · 30/07/2022 14:53

Everything I read criticised her because she took along a photographer and stole the front pages of all the media as a result. It did take attention away from the vigil and Sarah Everard.

Show quote history

IIRC it was a passerby who used their phone to take a photo of Kate heading to the Sarah Everard vigil.

MM was criticised for taking a Netflix camera crew and a photographer along to the Ulvade vigil in Texas, and for travelling by private jet to get there.

MrsRobinsonsHandprints · 30/07/2022 20:10

User34352515 · 30/07/2022 13:51

Clearly the BRF have a lot of control over the British media but the idea that there's some shadowy secret control thingis up there with lizard people.

It's not about conspiracy theories but lawyers and PR behind the scenes. It's been heavily speculated that lawyers have been in touch with MN during the early H&M turmoil days and back then every posting that was vaguely negative was deleted. This was what actually enraged quite a number of users because it made certain topics entirely above discourse and above free speech. It was basically censorship like communist China. Any vaguely critical posting from hair, clothing or even references to gossip blogs, under which DeuxMoi definitely falls, were deleted for potentially spreading false rumours.

The earlier (unproven) opinions on this thread about whether M&H could have been behind the hashtag would absolutely 100% have been deleted within minutes during 2019. However MN's moderation of M&H have cooled down dramatically over the years, coincidentally soon after they moved to the US. So it leads to the theory that there is no longer any legal pressure behind MN to closely moderate certain topics.

Law firms sending cease and desist message to social platforms platforms or users are extremely common. Plenty of Instagrammers or Tiktokers have received similar documents when they post controversial opinions about a person or company. There has actually been a case of a company trying to sue a MN user last year for posting a review of a product she didn't think was that good (it was a kit for entertaining kids on flights or something).

So this whole business is bizarre in the sense it means MN have either not received any official documentation and are therefore not obliged to remove it. Or they began deleting the threads but were told to leave them up (as someone above mentioned). The double bluff theory might be plausible in the sense it's "too ridiculous" so they are letting people go crazy with it to prove it's fake. This is a very bad choice tbh as the case of Prince Andrew proves that people are fully willing to believe that anything is possible within the RF. If this was the idea of their new PR guy, he'll probably find himself on the chopping block soon.

I agree with this.

And to the pp I'm not into Lizards, nor spend too long on the Internet but my job isn't too far away from PR and I've seen what has and hasn't been allowed to be shared. (And truth had no bearing on the decisions)

vera99 · 30/07/2022 22:32

WTAF - they have highly qualified advisors and he does this. they will lucky if "The Firm" survives HM.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11065077/Prince-Charles-agreed-1million-family-Osama-Bin-Laden-charity.html

antelopevalley · 30/07/2022 22:34

Capri3 · 30/07/2022 19:12

IIRC it was a passerby who used their phone to take a photo of Kate heading to the Sarah Everard vigil.

MM was criticised for taking a Netflix camera crew and a photographer along to the Ulvade vigil in Texas, and for travelling by private jet to get there.

Show quote history

I thought it was a professional photographer who just happened to film Kate?
And Cressida Dick said Kate was working visiting the vigil and the police had been aware of the planned visit.

TheKeatingFive · 30/07/2022 22:37

Where is the evidence that Meghan 'took a Netflix camera crew'? That accusation seems to be just lobbed at her at every given opportunity these days.

CharlotteOH · 30/07/2022 22:47

Yawn. If it was true, it wouldn’t be on Twitter.

90% chance it was started by a journalist, 10% by some bitter weirdo.

MunchMunch · 30/07/2022 22:53

Commenting to see the deletion message which is now doubt coming...

vera99 · 30/07/2022 23:00

Time for a nice pic to lighten the mood.

To ask where the hashtag prince of pegging came from?
justasking111 · 30/07/2022 23:00

Re Epstein, we were shown the flight logs who boarded the jet to the island for whatever reason. Ex presidents, titans of industry. So why is Andrew the only one to be in the spotlight??

Can anyone explain this to me?

StolenWillowTree · 30/07/2022 23:09

User34352515 · 30/07/2022 13:51

Clearly the BRF have a lot of control over the British media but the idea that there's some shadowy secret control thingis up there with lizard people.

It's not about conspiracy theories but lawyers and PR behind the scenes. It's been heavily speculated that lawyers have been in touch with MN during the early H&M turmoil days and back then every posting that was vaguely negative was deleted. This was what actually enraged quite a number of users because it made certain topics entirely above discourse and above free speech. It was basically censorship like communist China. Any vaguely critical posting from hair, clothing or even references to gossip blogs, under which DeuxMoi definitely falls, were deleted for potentially spreading false rumours.

The earlier (unproven) opinions on this thread about whether M&H could have been behind the hashtag would absolutely 100% have been deleted within minutes during 2019. However MN's moderation of M&H have cooled down dramatically over the years, coincidentally soon after they moved to the US. So it leads to the theory that there is no longer any legal pressure behind MN to closely moderate certain topics.

Law firms sending cease and desist message to social platforms platforms or users are extremely common. Plenty of Instagrammers or Tiktokers have received similar documents when they post controversial opinions about a person or company. There has actually been a case of a company trying to sue a MN user last year for posting a review of a product she didn't think was that good (it was a kit for entertaining kids on flights or something).

So this whole business is bizarre in the sense it means MN have either not received any official documentation and are therefore not obliged to remove it. Or they began deleting the threads but were told to leave them up (as someone above mentioned). The double bluff theory might be plausible in the sense it's "too ridiculous" so they are letting people go crazy with it to prove it's fake. This is a very bad choice tbh as the case of Prince Andrew proves that people are fully willing to believe that anything is possible within the RF. If this was the idea of their new PR guy, he'll probably find himself on the chopping block soon.

That is completely, completed untrue. I really don't know what you expect to gain from such massive gaslighting when there are plenty of people who were online then and remember what happened, and that it was the exact opposite to what you're claiming.

MN was basically ground zero for Meghan Hate from the moment they got engaged. In the run up to the wedding and right after the wedding, and also during her first pregnancy, there were a dozen new threads being started every single week just dedicated to trashing and scrutinising every single thing about her. Entire threads about her having scented candles at the wedding, or the lie about her not having any friend at her wedding. Constant racist dog whistles and barely disguised racist comments. Anyone defending her being bullied and stalked around the site, even doxxed. Constant referenced to really horrific Tumblr conspiracy theories about Meghan being a former prostitute (which someone claimed on this thread!), porn tapes, secret third marriages, Doria being in prison. Brand new usernames popping up regularly claiming to have a friend working in Buckingham Palace or Hollywood who had first hand info that Meghan was an abusive bitch everyone hated.

It was just full on hate for years, and posts were only deleted if they contained really overt racial slurs like the N word. Even the post from someone claiming their friend worked in BP and watched Meghan punch Charlotte wasn't deleted. It's true that a lot of threads got deleted but only because they descended into bunfights. For a long time they refused to delete even really obviously libellous or abusive posts about Meghan.

They only started to crack down on Meghan hate threads because of the scandal with the rival forum and the subsequent trolling of PBPs.

Yet at the same time any thread not positive about Kate, even threads criticising her clothes, would be deleted instantly. I remember a thread saying something like AIBU to think Kate made an unwise choice to wear so much expensive jewellery to meet NHS nurses and it was deleted almost immediately.

vera99 · 30/07/2022 23:19

The People's Republic of Liverpool FC pays homage to the Crown again today !

StolenWillowTree · 30/07/2022 23:35

Capri3 · 30/07/2022 19:12

IIRC it was a passerby who used their phone to take a photo of Kate heading to the Sarah Everard vigil.

MM was criticised for taking a Netflix camera crew and a photographer along to the Ulvade vigil in Texas, and for travelling by private jet to get there.

Show quote history

That was proven to be a hoax started by Meghan haters on Twitter.

Uvalde survivors and others who were actually present all confirmed that Meghan slipped in a back door with just a bodyguard. No one even knew she was there until she agreed to take a phone selfie with a local girl who was volunteering at the event, and the girl posted it to social media. Then Meghan came outside for the photographers who were already there. You can check the photo credits yourself, all the photos released were taken by journalists who were in Ulvade already covering the shooting and subsequent memorial activities.

Posters on this forum even accused Uvalde survivors of being liars, because they are so determined to exploit every possible opportunity to paint Meghan as evil. How low do you have to be to attack school shooting survivors?

As for Kate and the vigil, Cressida Dick confirmed it was a "work event" when the press queried Kate breaking the law by attending an illegal vigil that other women were arrested and assaulted by police for attending.

antelopevalley · 31/07/2022 00:34

justasking111 · 30/07/2022 23:00

Re Epstein, we were shown the flight logs who boarded the jet to the island for whatever reason. Ex presidents, titans of industry. So why is Andrew the only one to be in the spotlight??

Can anyone explain this to me?

Others have been questioned by the FBI, which is more than ever happened to Andrew.

TheKeatingFive · 31/07/2022 00:39

Yawn. If it was true, it wouldn’t be on Twitter.

Because not a single thing on Twitter is true? 🙄

antelopevalley · 31/07/2022 00:46

TheKeatingFive · 31/07/2022 00:39

Yawn. If it was true, it wouldn’t be on Twitter.

Because not a single thing on Twitter is true? 🙄

Ph good, lots of famous people that I though had died, are after all alive.

Samcro · 31/07/2022 10:17

StolenWillowTree · 30/07/2022 23:09

That is completely, completed untrue. I really don't know what you expect to gain from such massive gaslighting when there are plenty of people who were online then and remember what happened, and that it was the exact opposite to what you're claiming.

MN was basically ground zero for Meghan Hate from the moment they got engaged. In the run up to the wedding and right after the wedding, and also during her first pregnancy, there were a dozen new threads being started every single week just dedicated to trashing and scrutinising every single thing about her. Entire threads about her having scented candles at the wedding, or the lie about her not having any friend at her wedding. Constant racist dog whistles and barely disguised racist comments. Anyone defending her being bullied and stalked around the site, even doxxed. Constant referenced to really horrific Tumblr conspiracy theories about Meghan being a former prostitute (which someone claimed on this thread!), porn tapes, secret third marriages, Doria being in prison. Brand new usernames popping up regularly claiming to have a friend working in Buckingham Palace or Hollywood who had first hand info that Meghan was an abusive bitch everyone hated.

It was just full on hate for years, and posts were only deleted if they contained really overt racial slurs like the N word. Even the post from someone claiming their friend worked in BP and watched Meghan punch Charlotte wasn't deleted. It's true that a lot of threads got deleted but only because they descended into bunfights. For a long time they refused to delete even really obviously libellous or abusive posts about Meghan.

They only started to crack down on Meghan hate threads because of the scandal with the rival forum and the subsequent trolling of PBPs.

Yet at the same time any thread not positive about Kate, even threads criticising her clothes, would be deleted instantly. I remember a thread saying something like AIBU to think Kate made an unwise choice to wear so much expensive jewellery to meet NHS nurses and it was deleted almost immediately.

Show quote history

so agree

MVVP · 31/07/2022 15:54

WRT Uvalde, when Meghan visited a community centre, she was described as having “walked in with her crew”. The term “crew” made me assume TV crew. Perhaps it means general entourage but what does anyone need an entourage for at an unannounced visit at a community centre? I didn’t even need an “entourage” for my own wedding. But we’ll find out when their Netflix thing airs.

whumpthereitis · 31/07/2022 16:02

MVVP · 31/07/2022 15:54

WRT Uvalde, when Meghan visited a community centre, she was described as having “walked in with her crew”. The term “crew” made me assume TV crew. Perhaps it means general entourage but what does anyone need an entourage for at an unannounced visit at a community centre? I didn’t even need an “entourage” for my own wedding. But we’ll find out when their Netflix thing airs.

It could mean a bodyguard and a friend. Or even just a friend.

she was ‘described as’ by a press that’s committed to painting her in the worst light possible.

whumpthereitis · 31/07/2022 16:03

Oh, she was with a bodyguard. There you go. I’m going to guess you didn’t require a bodyguard at your wedding because you’re not a high profile public figure.

MVVP · 31/07/2022 16:25

It was actually a quote from a woman at the community centre called Georjean Burnell
who was nice about her. She used the word “crew”. It wasn’t the evil media - and it wasn’t a dig at her. The use of the word crew made me think tv crew. But as I say, if they don’t have any footage of her in Uvalde we’ll know that she didn’t choose to capitalise on some shot kids. And that would be good.

TheKeatingFive · 31/07/2022 16:37

So we've taken one word with an ambiguous meaning used by one bystander and interpreted it in the worst possible light.

Sounds ... like a familiar strategy

StolenWillowTree · 31/07/2022 17:49

And of course the Kensington Palace response to the pegging scandal is to immediately drag one of the kids out, yet again.

Their playbook really needs more than one play in it. What on earth will they do when the kids are too old to be trotted out and used as a distraction every single time the Cambridges have bad press?