Harry & Meghan, all welcome (aka positive thread, now renamed!)

[Roussette]

Here we are, let's inform, discuss, share and respect.

Isn't it interesting to see news sources you don't like? To see what other press is saying?

Have you all read and fully understood in full the 20 pages? I've been told off for not doing so yesterday afternoon!

To read and fully understand every bit of it would be beyond me, not ashamed to say that. Feel free to call me stupid, not worried, you're all fully versed in legalese if you understand every word of it. doubt it

So I linked an article... shock horror, it was positive!

I really cannot believe what I am reading on here sometimes

Nor me.

How awful linking an article some posters don't like or agree with. I didn't say ... here is a link, it is the definitive take on the court case, did I?

I can link what I want. Others do.

@Roussette

Isn't it interesting to see news sources you don't like? To see what other press is saying? Have you all read and fully understood in full the 20 pages? I've been told off for not doing so yesterday afternoon!

To read and fully understand every bit of it would be beyond me, not ashamed to say that. Feel free to call me stupid, not worried, you're all fully versed in legalese if you understand every word of it. doubt it

So I linked an article... shock horror, it was positive!

No, it isn't Rousette. It's not a question of 'not liking' the source. The Cosmo article cut out many important points that it would have been possible to obtain from a careful reading of the legal documents that are in the public domain based on the hearings to date. They decided either not to do that or to do so but summarise in a way that suited them.

The Daily Telegraph article, in contrast, presented an account of where both sides had been criticised.

This is has been my point all along. The couple's supporters on here seem determined to believe that any poster criticising them is influenced by the tabloids - and then we have this exchange today. It's garbage and it's unfair.

And yes, Roussette I did read and I do understand the judgment. It's quite possible to, you know. Maybe try it, before you conclude it isn't? And that was a very shitty remark. Speak for yourself only on that particular point. Please.

The Cosmo article had huge omissons. Anyone following the recent judgement knows full well the judge said: "For the time being". That does not imply a total victory for the names being kept out the public domain in the next round. Anyone reading posts on here knows that. So whatever Cosmo says, and whatever spin they put on it, their reporting is incorrect by omission. It's as simple as that. No particlar need to read the full judgment but accurate reporting is everywhere in respected media outlets. So what is the point of quoting an ill-informed, inaccurate report? (That appears to have been written by a trainee at best).

Excuse me... it is up in my browser now. I am trying to read it. I am obviously not as well versed in all of this as you. What shitty remark? I said I find it difficult to understand. I didn't say that about you.

I don’t remember bad press before the wedding. I recall coverage being very positive .

I know about 'for the time being'. I have seen that. However, both the Guardian and Express and other news sources had headlines saying WIN for MM on friends identity being kept secret.

I know I know I have to go and read the Judgement. Again I will say, I know that the identity of friends being kept back is for now. Not necessarily for ever.

@Roussette

I really cannot believe what I am reading on here sometimes

Nor me.

How awful linking an article some posters don't like or agree with. I didn't say ... here is a link, it is the definitive take on the court case, did I?

I can link what I want. Others do.

I think we all try to use credible links, although lazy folk like me rely on the brains of others to find and interpret!

The Cosmo link was pretty light, and Interesting in that it didn't comment upon the letter being mentioned in the People article - a fairly important omission.

Should say, I am very grateful to those with legal knowledge who are able to put a factual evaluation to these documents as they are released.

@Roussette I do like reading articles from different povs. It's why I read the Times and the Daily Mail and the Guardian. II'm not a fan of opinions pretending to be news and I have lots of feminist objections to Cosmo and Glamour since they now seem to push a pornified agenda on young women.
But I do like to read what other people think. It's why I follow rampant Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Labour, SNP supporters and politicians on Twitter. It's one of the guilty pleasures about social media - that you can access people with views that you just wouldn't meet in RL. I used to follow a right-wing Mormon in Utah because their tradwife/tradlife lifestyle and values are just so alien to me.

Anne Yes, and I do exactly the same on Twitter. I also followed a similar account as your right-wing Mormon, she was a subservient evangelical wife who had a lot to say for herself about her life's mission to please her man until she blocked me

Ditto on the various political accounts, although I need a strong constitution for some of the views I read!

Isn't it interesting to see news sources you don't like? To see what other press is saying?

Well, I think so. In fact, as I said near the start of the thread, I think it's really important. But I think what has got such a bad reaction from some posters is that this is treated in a very uneven way. Every time someone posts a Daily Mail link it's met with 'Not the Mail, you can't believe a single word they print' which is frankly the laziest response imaginable. They have an agenda, of course they do - that is simply not the same as every single word they print lacking credibility. And of course other media organisations are the same. Cosmo is also publishing with a very clear agenda here. The difference is that one source gets slated and the other treated as if it's neutral, when in fact neither are, and both are presenting things in their own chosen way.

No different then! One on one side, one on the other. Agree.

I just take issue with anyone thinking I shouldn't be posting it. I would love to know how many DM links have been posted during the course of 100+ threads.

@AnneOfQueenSables

Yy and I do feel sorry for them that none of this is going the way they hoped ie the move away; the website; the instagram; the charity foundation; the court case; the book.

The only hope is that all of this may have gone so badly that they decide to come back, take a posting somewhere quiet and secure (I'm sure they could have one of granny's Scottish castles/stately homes) and just enjoy family life for a while. They don't need to continue the Diana/Wallis/Edward trajectory. And they can blame it on Covid making them reassess what is important.

"The only hope?" Why are you hoping they'll return to the UK?

One on one side, one on the other.

So let's have a moratorium on immediately dismissing links from a particular source, or because something comes from a particular source. It may as well be accepted, because it applies to every publication, that they all have limitations but they also have uses, and none are neutral. That way we can avoid double standards. (And hopefully the tedious chorus of 'ugh, what a rag, you can't trust it' when any mention of the Mail arises).

@Roussette

Isn't it interesting to see news sources you don't like? To see what other press is saying? Have you all read and fully understood in full the 20 pages? I've been told off for not doing so yesterday afternoon!

To read and fully understand every bit of it would be beyond me, not ashamed to say that. Feel free to call me stupid, not worried, you're all fully versed in legalese if you understand every word of it. doubt it

So I linked an article... shock horror, it was positive!

I'm another who consciously avoids an echo chamber and reads sources on all sides of the political spectrum (on all issues, not just this) And then come to my own opinions based on what I think the most likely facts are lying beneath them.

Of course you can post whatever you like, Rousette, but when you've been extremely rude to many posters on these threads who refer to sources you hold in contempt (myself included) I don't understand why you are so defensive when it is pointed out to you that you have done exactly the same thing here. You posted a juvenile, partial and glib account of a matter where there are plenty more careful and even-handed sources out there. It was a pretty spectacular own goal.

And, for your information, I did understand every word of the judge's written decision in this case, so your barbed swipe there is also off the mark.

I do follow a lot of varied news accounts on FB (I hate Twitter with a passion) and I haven't unfriended some of my parents' friends who post from sites they seem to know although they are now complaining that some of the links they want to post are being banned!

Pro-Trump, anti-vaxx, corona is a hoax, etc. I scroll on by to be fair.

I follow Trump on twitter. Can't say I don't put my money where my mouth is!

The Cosmo article had huge omissons

TBF many of them do the same, which is why I find reading widely pays - even the blasted Daily Mail and Guardian, which to many are just the same thing but in reverse

I'm also the first to say I find some of the legalese the judge referenced a bit impenetrable, but I found his writing clear enough; in fact I very much admired how clearly he writes and how well his own views come across
FWIW, with a mind like that, he's a guy I'd love to meet especially as he's cute as well

@Serenster

I follow Trump on twitter. Can't say I don't put my money where my mouth is!

Goodness Serenster. You must have some stamina for that!

When have I been extremely rude to posters, or to you?

If I have, I apologise, and I am very surprised by that because I know what the reaction will be from certain posters to more or less anything I say, so I try to stay courteous and polite, and apologise if I have misunderstood something or admit if I have anything wrong. Even apologising for misunderstanding is thrown back at me as me doing it on purpose. So I can't win.
I'm a bit taken aback by you saying I am extremely rude to many posters.. And annoyed by that accusation.

Especially bearing in mind what has been levelled at me continually. Personal attacks. Which I avoid doing.
Please find posts where I was rude to you.

I don't hold the DM in much regard, I will admit that. And I am only saying that if there are hundreds of links to that publication, I can link to a more positive article if I want.
I KNOW I should have read and inwardly digested the legal papers, they are just a bit beyond me.
Is the barbed swipe about everyone understanding legalese? Again I am baffled here. It was a swipe against me and not understanding legal jargon, that's all.

I'm not your personal search engine, Rousette. You were definitely rude to me and I remember it well - I had just started posting here and I was really taken aback by it. If you don't recognise yourself in my account, then maybe you should try reading over some of your own past posts.

If you don't see a crossed out "doubt it" as a swipe though, then maybe reading back over your history won't help that much.

Why are you hoping they'll return to the UK?
Because, ultimately, I think it's the easiest way for them to achieve the life that they want and for the constant publicity to die down. Historically, royals who have followed the path that H&M are currently on - Diana/Wallis/Edward - don't seem to have fared well. And despite the fact I'm not a monarchist, I hate seeing people who seem lost and unhappy and incapable of recognising how their own decisions feed into that destructive cycle.

It’s not a search engine that’s at fault. It’s an article with some of the most important points missing. This is the problem with spin. The bbc tends to be factual. The court judgment is factual. People on here have quoted the court judgement so there’s little to be gained from any article spinning what the judge said by omission. Except to those who want to believe it’s a total victory. It’s a victory - for now.

Good grief. If I was rude to you once, I am sorry. We all have bad days and maybe I was out of order.
You should've reported the post. Or link to it now and I will make amends.

I object to you saying I am 'extremely rude to many posters'.
It's completely impossible to defend myself here without spending the next week going over thread after thread trying to work out where I was 'extremely rude to many posters'. I consider that a totally unfair accusation that is impossible for me to defend.

Needless, to say I have had far worse in the way of personal insults levelled at me again and again and again.

But there you go... not anything more I can say. I feel my posts stand for themselves. I have never personally attacked anyone's character. Unlike many posts out there.

Let’s not degenerate into personal spats. We don’t want this thread getting deleted now it is on post 876!