Hates Sites

[TicTacToes]

I’m very interested to know whether sites that are clearly pro Meghan and Harry are now considered ‘hate’ sites when they publish opinion pieces supportive of either of them. A case in point being Celebitchy where I’ve taken a gander at the articles which seem supportive of H and M and other celebrities, the latest article is kinda supportive of Taylor Swift. I see it’s been around for donkeys. Some of the comments, however, posted by people seem out there and I do not get the humour at all. Overall, it seems the ‘working’ British Royals are not thought well of so it may also have a Republican strain running through it. Anyway, be interested to know if there is a history to be aware of as I do not like hate sites and if this is rabidly communist or fascist it should be flagged up as such.

Well well.

The replies to the article tell me all I need to know.

The use of ‘haters’ also tells me what I need to know. babieee.

I clicked. This Kaisery person is correct. ✅

I can't see Venus 'beginning to stand', she seems to be seated to me.

Either way, it seems to be a paid for - by money or mutual interest - award.

Presumably Harry was happy to have it, which is a bit sad. But his choice.

The comments on that YouTube video and the lack of likes is going to need a lot more fluffy PR, according to the comments over 33k dislikes (I don’t know how you see them). Wouldn’t be too bad if it was from a troll YouTube as you’d expect the ratios but an ESPN video.

It's all a bit sad, isn't it? There was so much potential for good, but egos got in the way

'Reply:

“…they’re just relying on the stupidity of the readers. It’s actually very clever to figure out how to make a resounding success look like a failure – they’re masters at propaganda.”

Reply:

“…People who don’t care one way or the other about Harry will hear “Venus snubbed Harry,” they’ll internalize it and move on. They’re not going to bother asking “does this make sense?” If anything, they might have read about the “controversy” and this added thing about Venus is confirmation. That’s the interesting thing about propaganda – it’s not about convincing the haters.”'

These 2 replies are bonkers. The posters on the site admit Kaiser' interprets' news stories for them, so they do exactly what they're accusing others of doing, namely blindly accepting what they're told by a warped individual who obviously hates the Royal Family and particularly Catherine, making no effort to find out what actually happened. 'they're just relying on the stupidity of the readers......' Well, yes, indeed. You couldn't make it up.

Marie Tillman and the 3 veterans on stage were tearful having just watched the video of Invictus competitors, which was very moving (I think it was an excerpt from Heart Of Invictus); not because Harry was going up on stage. Marie Tillman looked hugely uncomfortable every time the camera panned to her during Harry's long speech.

It's absolutely undeniable that Venus sat for a good 30 seconds, arms folded, not smiling and giving Meghan the side eye. Whether she stood up later is a bit of a moot point imo. People in audiences (especially in the important seats)are constantly watching the director's monitor and whether the camera is showing them, and they react when they realise they are in fact visible to the viewer. You can see people looking up and across to the relevant screen in some of the stills. Venus must have known the camera was picking up her reaction. And yet she remained visibly seated.

I also hope the two female veterans on stage were ok during Harry's long speech. I do wonder if standing still for that length of time might have caused them some physical discomfort.

I also hope the two female veterans on stage were ok during Harry's long speech. I do wonder if standing still for that length of time might have caused them some physical discomfort.

I should imagine that Harry believed Harry’s discomfort trumped their discomfort - physical or otherwise.

If ever you wanted a visual representation on how he thinks he is what is important about Invictus?

That was it.

You stay here FOR ME

Yes, Kaiser with her online following who seem to need her to filter and direct their opinions was, apparently, one of the utter fruit loops who targeted Benedict Cumberbatches wife. No evidence now of course because it's been edited, but actually people tend to remember things like that. Far too much power given to a person who just happens to internet, bit like the mythic Q, another figure who has much more importance than is warranted among the credulous.

You know how a picture is worth a thousand words? Well, the image of Venus Williams spoke volumes and it was most certainly not approving. I have seen it, we've all seen it and I defy the most ardent fan to say that it signalled heartfelt warmth, because it didn't. I'm sure if she had reacted to eg Kate in the same manner, many would be quick to say that she was not happy.

Yes, I saw them. That was my point. Some of the same posters who were outraged by the rumours concerning Kate and William will happily indulge in rumours about Meghan and Harry.

So, Some royal family supporters do have one rule. The rule is they won’t tolerate rumours about Kate or William’s marriage, but will then indulge in Harry and Meghan marriage rumours.

Harry is currently dealing with a judge that wants his past texts. Not a good idea to mention them on SM. 😁

Is this regarding the NGM court case? Murdoch’s lawyers asking to see them? I read that the judge has requested them (I thought emails, not texts).

If so, this could be bad for Harry, but it could also be bad for other members of the RF. If the judge finds the emails and/or texts can be used, it may well help Murdoch’s case, but it also may very well give Murdoch access to matters not only about Harry but also private matters concerning members of his royal family.

I think it was mooted on here that William settled his case instead of going to court because he would have been risking more private stuff being in the public domain, courtesy of Murdoch owned media.

It was reported that Harry cut a lot out of Spare after the late Queen died. Who knows if this is true.

What demographics do you mean @CoffeeCantata ?

AccountCreateUsername · Today 03:06

I'm only referring to my experience on MN - I can easily believe that on other sites there are some more extreme anti-H & M commentators and I'm not referring to them, or defending them - for eg, people who use insulting names for H & M. I'll try to explain what I mean...

My personal experience on here, in the 18 months or so that I've been on, is that commentators who are neutral or broadly sympathetic to the RF tend to be articulate, well-informed, willing to argue points in a rational way, without resorting to insults either to the public figures or other posters. Their posts are well-written and thoughtful.

In contrast (and with some honourable exceptions) there are frequent 'guerrilla attacks' from posters with unfamiliar user names who seem to dive-bomb the discussion and are never heard of again. Their comments are often much more mean-spirited and partisan. They don't engage with the flow of the discussion - just parrot from a script of hackneyed allegations or insults. Whatever developments in the H & M story are being discussed, they ignore them and just come out with the same old nastiness. They don't respond to questions from other posters and...it can't be denied...their posts are often pretty illiterate and sometimes end with that 'mark of the beast', lol. I'm guessing that these posters are not regular MNers, but co-ordinated Sussex Squaddies.

It's honestly my experience on MN that the pro-RF posters keep away from cheap jibes and malicious rumours about H & M's marriage. They might suggest, for eg, that Meghan has the upper hand in the relationship, but it doesn't usually get nastier than that. Whereas the SS posters trot out long debunked rumours about W & C and worse about W's 'anger issues' and even domestic violence - and even call him Peggy.

There are some serious commentators on the H & M camp who will engage in a proper discussion and who don't stoop to these tactics, but I find on the whole the two sides are different in character. Just my experience! I think the explanation is simple: over the last few years it's become increasingly difficult to defend H & M's behaviour so it's fallen largely to the SS to fight their corner.

I did too. They are absolutely shocking. I really can’t stand the woman but the level of bullying, misogyny and sheer nastiness is breathtaking. She’s still a woman and a mother even if she’s a dreadful person. It’s helped me understand why those critical of H and M on this site are often called ‘haters’. There are obviously some very unpleasant people who post really venomous stuff about H and M on other forums.

“I think it was mooted on here that William settled his case instead of going to court because he would have been risking more private stuff being in the public domain, courtesy of Murdoch owned media.”

william settled his case as that is the correct procedure for civil proceedings. The courts are there to settle disputes, not for people to argue their grievances in public. it’s why the without prejudice correspondence is so powerful. You can win but if the judge believes you’ve wasted courts time then financially it’s a bit of a hollow victory.

I do recall some fans of the dragon slayer calling William a coward for settling. No mind to Harry’s fellow litigants, who foolishly turned down substantial settlements under CPR Part 36 that they were not able to beat in trial - thus saddling themselves with, respectively, no damages (she didn’t beat the Limitation Act) and much lower damages than he’d have received by settling; and both required to pay the newspaper’s costs. Hollow victory indeed.

Hugh Grant got the message that using the court system to this end is an abuse of process and foolish. He’s moaned about it, but he’s settled. As do the vast majority of litigants.

William gave his settlement to Invictus. Yes, what a big coward he is.

Thank you @CoffeeCantata for taking the time to respond and explain what you meant.

I suppose it really depends on the forum, I’ve seen some pretty nasty and vitriolic comments directed towards Harry and Meghan on sites like the Daily Mail, but not much positive comes from those reader comments. I would hope we do better on mumsnet.

@CoffeeCantata Your analysis is perfect, and I agree with your observations.

Super creep.

Der Duckmauser. Der Mucker. I love Google translate 🤣

Agreed 👏🏾

Dan (sleaze ball) started that supposed “snub” no news claptrap. Desperate Dan needs to learn how to throw shade much better than that!!! 😂😂

I don't like him at all - I always find it odd that the SS don't, he's got more in common with them with his hatred of William. He, after all, started the affair rumour.

Did he start the "snub" rumour? Many outlets are saying the same thing. They were saying it at the point the event was being live aired, I was watching a live steam and they all pointed out Venus's demeanor.

Is he desperate? Didn't DW successfully defeat Byline Times' claims leading to the police saying there was no case for him to answer. Didn't he force a settlement for defamation out of the Guardian and another newspaper who had repeated the Byline Times claims? Is he still suing them?

What is the source that says William gave his £1million settlement to Invictus.?

The Daily Mail’s Richard Eden revealed the Royal Foundation linked to the Cambridges transferred $1.11 million to the charity Prince Harry founded to support injured veterans last year. August 25 2021 Sky

Under the headline:

Prince William, Kate gave Harry and Meghan $1m donation for Invictus Games Foundation

The sky headline has conflated things I think. They’ve added 1 and 1 and come up with the story they wanted to print.

There was a substantial portion of money transferred from the foundation belonging to William Harry and Kate to Invictus that had always been meant for Invictus - in 2000.

But the idea that William gave a donation of approx a million pound seems to be just that - an idea, not a reality. And the idea that it was his settlement money from NGN is also without foundation afais.

Also, do we know what settlement amount William received from Murdoch? This seems to be generally what is on record:

Prince William, the heir to the British throne, quietly received “a very large sum of money” in a 2020 settlement with the British newspaper arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire for phone hacking, according to court documents aired Tuesday in one of his brother’s lawsuits.
August 25, 2023 associated press.

’A very large sum of money’ lol. Is that by royal pow standards, average worker income standards, UK court settlement standards? We don’t know how much it was.

I find it hard to credit that anyone likes Dan Wootton. He sat and giggled while that Fox bloke spoke disgracefully about a female journalist. It turned my stomach.

In regard to the allegations - it was found he had not done anything criminal. The Guardian has apologised for printing that he was being investigated and have paid him some money. Last I read, byline times had not apologised or paid him any money.

Even GBN didn’t seem to want him back. Dan’s a you-tuber now and talking about things like Meghan and dark arts of to the internet. Pathetic.