More News on Harry and Meghan

[Viviennemary]

Two little bits of news I read today. First the bells won't ring out at Westminster Abbey for Meghans birthday next month and she'll be devastated. No I don't think she'll even expect them to ring. And I had to smile at Bogart the dog was left behind in Canada because it didn't take to Harry. What else could she do. Hardly leave Harry behind. And it would have been a worry with a baby in the house too. She did the right thing here.

@Roussette

How can you compare when UK is same size as just one US state, we're a bit cramped here! Also Spain... vast compared to us. More than twice as big area wise, and 16million less people. Only 60 less deaths per 1M pop there, hardly surprising given our size and population within it. (Disclaimer, our figures in UK are shocking but we have to put it into perspective)

If you are masked (and masks works), social distancing, and practicing proper hygiene (like wiping surfaces), then why would population density matter? But let's play your game regardless:

UK vs other countries:

Netherlands: 421/km^2, 358 deaths/1M pop
Israel: 418/km^2, 48 deaths/1M pop
Belgium: 376/km^2, 846 deaths/1M
UK: 280/km^2, 671 deaths/1M pop
Germany: 233/km^2, 110 deaths/1M pop
Switzerland: 208/km^2, 228 deaths/1M pop

Compared to the Netherlands, UK has 0.66x of the population density, but has nearly 2X times the number of Covid deaths. I've been told by some Dutch friends that masks are not prevalent there and are only required on public transportation. (I don't know how true his claim is.)
Compared to Belgium - Belgium has 1.34x the population density as the UK, but only 1.26x the death rate. No reason to compare Israel against anyone, they've done better by leaps and bounds.

Now let's circle back to Los Angeles county, the population density is:
800/km^2. Covid deaths: 4262 deaths as of today (source corona-virus.la/ ) 10M people living in the county.

That results in: 426 deaths/1M people

So Los Angeles County is almost 3 times as dense as the UK, but has only 0.63x the covid deaths.

Hmmmm ...

@SunbathingDragon you're absolutely right. Cases came down because people did the right thing over a long period of time. We need to keep that up.

London has a population of over 9m and a population density of 5700 per sq km ......

Apologies for being off topic there.

There’s an article on BBC website
Harry and Meghan are sueing re drone pictures of Archie being taken

scottsdc15
We can talk figures all day and pick certain US states to compare to.

I know UKs figures are bad compared to some other Europe countries, (but not Spain v UK with its density). I haven't disagreed with you on our appalling figures.

No game playing here, I just made a point. Enjoy your liberty if that's what your post is about. Everyone takes personal responsibility AFAIC. I'm a mask wearer and have been since March, but circumstances at home dictates that.

Sorry for thread hijack everyone.

I wonder if Frogmore Cottage is starting to look more appealing now? No drones there.

I wonder how PA slept last night?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53522181

This is the article mentioned by PP.

I do understand why they wouldn’t want their baby papped but ,my goodness , H and M are very quick to sue !
Once more I think how much better would it have been for them to have stayed within the RF and protect Archie , after all the Cambridge children are left in peace in return for regular updates.
Maybe LA wasn’t such a good idea ....

The thing about California (also Florida) isn't the absolute cases/deaths per 100,000 - it's that it's rising (and quite sharply).

I think there have been numerous comments over the course of the threads about the paparazzi being considerably worse in US. That was pooh-poohed by some (only the British are nasty/intrusive) but this sorry state was predicted.

"According to the lawsuit, the duke and duchess are constantly followed by paparazzi, who have tracked them down to their home in Los Angeles, flying helicopters overhead and cutting holes in their security fences"

If they really want privacy, then UK was always their best option. They were rarerly papped (and neither are the Cambridges) here. But they didn't want to be Royal, or live with the constraints/benefits of the Royal lifestyle, so I suppose they must have decided to take the rough with the smooth because the overall prospect is worth it

(I'm crediting them, of course, with not being either dim or deluded about the strength of the paparazzi globally)

Using a drone to take a photo of a child in their home is still a horrible thing to do, it’s not like Archie was in a public area.

i think everyone agrees it's a horrible thing.

So of course it avoiding it, and other forms of press intrusion is a key thing, you'd move to any one of the many places where it is not rife

On the assumption they are not dim/deluded, they knew what they were getting in to when choosing to live (for now) in such a paparazzi hotspot, and decided that in the overall scale, the benefits of the new life there outweigh the downsides for them.

(Of course they are planning another move, to somewhere genuinely quieter but are waiting for pandemic to pass. But that's rather more speculative than the idea that they have chosen the life they want, knowing that it's table de hôte, not á la carte)

I think 'they know what they were getting into' is a terrible way to try to rationalise a drone shot of a child in their home. It is not acceptable and H&M are right to take action. Or is your view, they deserve it for being 'ungrateful' to the RF, or daring to live in the USA, or something?

For avoidance of doubt:

I am not attempting to justify the shot and think it is a scummy thing for the press to be doing. All paparazzi intrusion is shite.

I was just chuntering on abiut it being an inenvitable part of living when you choose to go and live on the doorstep of the most notorious press pack in the world.

And that they chose to do this - one of many factors in a multi-factored decision. Because the benefits of the decision still outweighed the downsides. This is an entirely predictable (because it was widely predicted) downside.

(Sorry if that I've written so badly that it's taken me three goes! And might still not have got it quite straight)

@ TheNavigator unless I have missed it I can’t see anyone saying it is ok for a baby to be papped . It’s not right, it’s 100% wrong . What I - and others - are saying is that within the RF they had protection ( when are the Cambridge children papped?) .
H and M says the British tabloids were intrusive but it seems to me that the American equivalent are worse . M is not stupid so surely she must have known the way the press in America works ? Moving to LA for privacy was a daft idea .
On this occasion I understand you they are so unhappy but they do seem to sue at the drop of a hat ( recent Charity Commission article)

Oh come on - 'they knew what they were getting into' - 'in the RF they had protection'. You are basically saying 'serves them right'.

They chose to distance them self from a family with at least one known sex pervert and more than one racist. In any other scenario Mumsnet would be encouraging low/no contact. But it is H&M, so they deserve what they get. Pathetic.

He's not suing the Charity Commission, but PH's response to being informed that a request for an investigation had been made was lengthy and way less concise than that from the other charity. And it certainly did hint at willingness to surprised. But he does not appear to be taking action on that one

(which I'm ready to bet is all going to be technical about nature of incorporation of Travelyst and whether all papers were submitted in full and on time)

Press shouldn't intrude and take photos of Archie. Absolutely not on. What it does show is that invading their privacy is not something specific to the British press, as it has been made out to be.

Oh come on - 'they knew what they were getting into' - 'in the RF they had protection'. You are basically saying 'serves them right'

I apologise again. That was really not my intention

(I'm not going to try a fourth attempt to separate out what I actually meant from erroneous assumptions about what I must have meant really)

They chose to distance them self from a family with at least one known sex pervert and more than one racist. In any other scenario Mumsnet would be encouraging low/no contact.

Pure speculation on your part that this is the reason they left. It's actually one of the least likely as they have never mentioned anything of the sort and have said a number of times themselves they are still members of the family, they still wanted to work for the Queen and have good relationships.

You've no better idea than anyone else yet you really like sitting on your high horse!

They chose to distance them self from a family with at least one known sex pervert and more than one racist. In any other scenario Mumsnet would be encouraging low/no contact

You may well be right. But I think posters would also be expressing surprise, to say the least, that in those circumstances the OP expected their living expenses still to be funded by said family.

Navigator. I don't see anyone saying that they deserve what is happening. I think you are just trying to provoke an argument.

What people are saying is that it was always predictable that they would have less control over the paps etc in LA than, say, in Frogmore.

Papping by drone is horribly intrusive. We had a neighbour with a drone and it was very unnerving and unpleasant. Thankfully he lost it in some trees!!

So, bears shit in the woods.
Who knew?

Well a quick google shows there were also drones trying to pap them at Frogmore, so the argument that is was somehow their fault for leaving the UK doesn't hold water.

And maybe they didn't leave because of pervy Andrew and racist Philip but it certainly seems understandable they would want to distance themselves from the mad dysfunction of the RF and servile atitude of those in the UK towards it, as evidenced on this thread.

Trying to pap them. What sopped them TheNavigator? Their conscience? Or a bit of royal protection?

Also, they seem quite happy to keep that 'associated with the royal family' title. And the income from the dysfunction is all good, too.

Who is paying their legal bills I wonder?