Does anyone want a thread for people who are happy for Harry and Meghan?

[DaveCoaches]

Just seeing if there’s any interest. I think they have their faults but I think this may turn out to be a good thing long term. Anyone want to join in?

is this how it is now? every word they use will be twisted.
anyways I am still pleased for them

I believe posters have the right to clarify - incidentally. I don’t require any other poster to patiently explain - for my benefit - what basic English words mean. I am aware of all the connotations, thank you.

DDandy I have no idea what you're on about and I'm not going to try because I can't be arsed, life is too short for endless posts about the meaning of two words. Can I suggest if you don't like the way this thread meanders you go to one about H&M that suits you better?

Say what you like now, I won't be answering!

Dandy if you have concerns about posters deliberately flouting MNrules I think the best way of dealing is to report the posts .

Not much point endlessly going on about it here ,unless you have another agenda .

As this thread doesn’t meander, I think I’ll stick around Roussette, thank you.

Right now however I’m about to wander over to peredito’s coronavirus thread to post, so I’ll see her there.

I think the amount of time spent tearing apart the word 'collaborate' is a good example of what H&M have had to put up with. They haven't really done anything wrong, so people who have decided to hate them have to amplify the smallest possible 'mistake' (as they see it) to justify their hate.

Similarly, pictures of H&M sell papers, so the press will drag up any non story as an excuse to write about them. They really can't win.

With all the shit going down about PA's birthday and the Queen's public support of her sleazy son, I am happy for them that they are well away from it all, it seems like a really toxic family.

I agree Navigator. I think the press pressure is off them somewhat but not enough, they will forever be pictured and talked about but hopefully the gaps between the nonsense media stories will be bigger than before. And hopefully Piers Morgan will drop his ridiculous campaign of hate towards MM, it's actually been about 48 hours since he tweeted or mentioned them, and that's a record!

I think Morgan is having to watch himself in the light of CF'd suicide. He'll be back though.

I think the amount of time spent tearing apart the word 'collaborate' is a good example of what H&M have had to put up with. They haven't really done anything wrong, so people who have decided to hate them have to amplify the smallest possible 'mistake' (as they see it) to justify their hate.

Exactly this. God forbid MM flicks her coat in March! The sky will fall in.

No hate here.
People asked for clarification.
I and one or two others gave it.
Criticising one word dies not equal hate.
I thought you wanted to move on? Or is it only me you want to move off this thread on?

Did anyone see this? It's great, Stephen Fry throwing shade at Eamonn Holmes after his rant about MM. Good ole Stephen... Ruth gently nodded, Eamonn froze.

twitter.com/Cromwell606/status/1230463921259237379

Thanks for sharing Roussette, had Eamonn ranted earlier in the programme?

They haven't really done anything wrong, so people who have decided to hate them have to amplify the smallest possible 'mistake' (as they see it) to justify their hate.

Yes. And there was quite a bit of hate toward Meghan on social media and in the comments to online news outlets and on MN before they announced their intention to step back. Their choice to take a more self-directed path has now unleashed a torrent of hate-filled media, social and otherwise. And many of the themes are still animated by hate of Meghan and are quite misogynistic in my view; it's as though some people think that Harry has no agency at all.

This thread is a modest antidote to all that and a haven for people who have a more charitable view.

Well put Seneca ,I love the way you use language .

DaveCoaches No, he'd done so on his radio programme a month or so ago. It was horrible actually - he called her a string of nasty names. Needless to say he'd never met her.

Seneca I really like being part of a modest antidote.

Thanks, peridito and Roussette

On the TAAT issue, first of all, it's not actually written in Talk Guidelines. It has sort of developed as a common law rule of MN. I suppose the reason is to keep discussions about a topic to the thread itself rather than shifting off to another thread. But the situation with the Meghan and Harry threads is a bit different. The negative threads that have been started are very inhospitable places for people who want to state another view. I hope that MNHQ takes a more liberal approach to their anti-TAAT stance for this thread, especially in view of their refusal to delete some of the more vitriolic posts about Meghan on those threads. In fairness, they need to allow us some leeway here, which I think so far they have.

I really like being part of a modest antidote.

Same. There's plenty of places to go online
If you want to rip MM apart, not so many places like this.

Yes ,threads about deleted threads I understand as a no no .

References in one thread about another are different I think . Sometimes acceptable ,sometimes not - dependent on context and content ?

Seneca you and I by your own say-so had a friendly chat on the ‘negative’ thread. IMO they are not as inhospitable as you’re implying, although no doubt the amount of hospitality varies from time to time.

I agree with several points made on this thread, like yours about misogynistic views where people seem to think Harry as no agency at all. I’ve said this several times on the non-haven (anti-antidote? Antichrist?) threads. And others have agreed or made the same point. It’s a discussion. Open to anyone. Fair enough if you don’t feel comfortable posting there. Doesn’t mean though that’s it ok to criticise those posts on this thread at the same time they’re going on, and that has happened (I’m not saying by you). Which I imagine explains the deletions.

Slightly OT but interesting that TAAT isn’t in the talk guidelines. It is a rule MNHQ definitely enforce so it might be worth pointing out that it should be in the Guidelines? I think they probably need updating anyway but haven’t looked at them for a while. MNHQ has said before that they delete TAATs or posts that are going that way if they’re reported to them. The moderation mainly relies on people reporting.

i so agree about M getting the blame. I was surprised to see it so much on mn(talking about the countless threads when news broke) I always thought this place was quite feminist.
i think the sexist picture of H being hen pecked is awful and most likely untrue. I think who ever he had married he would have left.

Well, it's just been on the news that the "Royal Sussex" brand definitely won't be called that any more, so for once the media got it right when they trailed the info from "sources"

Other reports say Harry's previous military roles will remain unfilled for now, so all in all I'm not sure how much more obvious it could be that the RF expect him to return ... alone

It certainly seems that the Queen wasn't terribly keen on "collaborating" with MM and PH after all...

I think the Queen wanted a clean break.

No more dodgy Sheikhs, sex trade procurers etc. Or if there are - and it's a big if, for there is no hard info yet on who M&H's future associates might be - then it needed to be abundantly clear what arose through the RF, and what was new initiative.

It will be interesting to see if MM comes to Princess Beatrice's wedding.

Yes, I said that above. She'll be damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

Gosh can you imagine it, the haters would have a field day if she does
.

Oh hang on they will have a field day if she doesn't.