Dan Wootton obsessed with H &M

[BeverleyMakka]

Why is Dan Wootton so obsessed and full of hatred for Harry & Meghan?

i recently listened to Spare on audible - purely because it was free and I was interested to see what he had to say. ( most of it was boring self indulgent crap imo)
predictably the algorithms have filled my YouTube with H &M stuff!

it seems there is a daily barrage of videos from DW about them, such vitriol from this man. It’s unhinged!
I mean don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of theirs at all but Jesus he acts like they murdered his granny.
He’ll post a picture of one of them literally smiling and turn it into a massive conspiracy theory about smirking at the Queen on her deathbed or some utter nonsense

rant over!!!

Pigeons you say …… my MIL hates pigeons and one once shat on my husbands head, so we don’t have a good experience with them in our family TBH, and we definitely don’t buy into the myth of a pigeon shitting on your head bringing good luck, so I can see where the previous poster is coming from, they are nasty fuckers. 😜

My DP has a ‘pet’ wood pigeon in the garden that he feeds, but he’s been supplanted in its affections recently by the arrival in the neighbourhood of a potential boyfriend or girlfriend pigeon.

I’ve told him, ‘pigeons will just mess you around, Gavin, every time. Total time wasters.’

I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm absolutely not speculating on individual motives or diagnosing anyone on MN. I am not qualified to do that.

My post was strictly about broad behavioral science and how commentators like Dan Wootton construct toxic formats on platforms like X. The psychological studies I cited show how his specific business model commercially exploits human behavior to engineer outrage loops for profit.

It's an look at media manipulation, not a personal critique of posters here.

I have only one comment!!!
holy wrong psychological over explaining BATMAN !!!!

Pigeon, you say ? , shat on your husband’s head you say? ….you don’t know pain until you have had a seagull shat on your head!!! …gavel down …no discussion….no take backs…the end!! 😁

They may show up with baby pigeons in the future.
My brother has a pigeon who perches on his arm to eat, but only if he wears a particular plaid flannel shirt. It is now his bird feeding shirt. It's Black Watch plaid.

Oi, leave the robins out of this! The pigeons are already being shat on enough without dragging the robins into it 🤭

@LipglossAndLies - thank you for that - I think I understand your point more. I do agree that on various topics journalists or eg YT posters / commentators etc will take a stance for clicks and visibility & it is a little like mass mailings - if only 2% react it's a win. (that may not be a completely accurate analogy) . & of course there will be those who like to whip up controversy.

So I do understand your point. I do think many posters here comment on what they have seen ( in the context of Harry and Meghan ) what they have seen from their (H&M) own publications on either TV / MSM or SM. And that's OK , people will agree or not.

But thank you for answering. I suspect I may disagree with you on various things but polite disagreement is OK in my book. 😊Appreciate your answer.

You can disagree but these psychologists are renowned in their field and understand human behaviour more than most people and well hard pill to swallow for those people who do find it entertaining to mock other people.

Qctually nownyou mentioned this forum there have been one or two posters who have said they were missing Meghan posting something last week just so they could ridicule her. So the behaviour does exist and clearly isn't confined to some platforms.

Robins ???? , never mind the robins!!! , what about the bats?? , 🦇, hysterically maligned throughout history, complicit with vlad the impaler ( many thanks bram stoker!) , a euphemism for being crazy!!! …honestly…😉

Here I am ! …a man outstanding in his field!

I wasn't disagreeing with you in that these psychologists are renowned in their field . I was thanking you for explaining it. There may be other things we disagree on but I was thanking you for explaining your post.

Joking aside! , do people really want an answer to the question? , waving aside armchair diagnosis and psycho babble for a moment, it’s inherently simple and human …..after taking a look behind the curtain…it seems that Dan Wooten was a favoured mouth piece of the Sussex’s …until he wasn’t..outliving his usefulness or ( to quote someone) being fed to the wolves…he was discarded and blamed ( not unlike piers ) however this wasn’t enough and what followed was a campaign to destroy his reputation and career in a most foul and insidious fashion with accusations of criminality and sa abuse claims…although then investigated by the police and cleared of all charges, the damage was done….wooten wants exactly what anyone else would want under those circumstances…revenge…unmasking…transparency of those who used their power to malign him! , it’s really that simple 🤷‍♀️

You mentioned psychiatrists but I don’t see specific research or studies cited.

-One psychiatrist you mentioned is dead.
-One created the questionnaire you cited 25 years ago. I think it’s probably more relevant to many of the Sussex fans like the one that showed up in court.
-The last is unlikely to be in favor of posting photos of your children on social media. His main area of focus is the impact of screens and social media on children. That includes the negative impacts of parents who use social media and smartphones to excess.

Even the dead one?

Oh dear! …the dangers of ai !! , however as ever …the truth will set you free!!

Further research shows that the work of these 3 men has been terribly misconstrued.

That’s a shame! 😁

Oops!

.

What’s actually embarrassing here is the complete lack of reading comprehension. They are psychologists not psychiatrists!

To dismiss an entire field of actual science as 'psychobabble' ...I have no words.

I don't need AI for this, thanks. I covered individual differences and celebrity attitude scales as part of my own university degree years ago, and we had to study Dr. John Maltby’s work. He’s been a prominent UK psychology professor since the early 2000s, and his research is standard textbook stuff that is still taught today.

Yes, his landmark Celebrity Attitude Scale study is over 20 years old, and Dr. Albert Bandura passed away a few years ago but claiming that makes the science irrelevant is hilarious. By that logic, we shouldn't use gravity because Isaac Newton has been dead for centuries.

Also, saying Dr. Jonathan Haidt is only about kids on screens (this is his recent work) is dismissing the rest of his work which has mainly been moral psychology and how online groups use 'moral licensing' to justify obsessive bullying under the guise of 'holding people accountable.'

As for the idea that Dan Wootton was ever a 'favoured mouthpiece' for them? Complete revisionist history. He built his entire brand on relentless hostility, and his mainstream career derailed entirely over his own actions specifically when he was sacked after hosting a broadcast that Ofcom ruled was an unambiguously misogynistic attack on a female journalist. He did that to himself; it wasn't some grand Sussex conspiracy. This is a person you want to defend...?

Nitpicking publication dates or rewriting his history doesn't change the reality of how these digital spaces work. He commercially engineers these outrage loops for profit sinxe he no longer has his job he needs to mske money somehow.

Zzzz

So, Byline Times may get a mention in court this week again (i.e. Wooton’s attempted nemesis) as the huge court case that Harry, Elton John etc badly lost rolls into the costs hearing(s) stage on Wednesday.

The judge was not happy about that little deception. What was the word he used? ‘Dishonest’?

Fwiw I found what you said about the psychological motivation behind a lot of posting fascinating LipglossAndLies
and it made a lot of sense to me. I like having terms that I can put to a pattern of behaviour one has long observed but hasn’t been able to precisely pinpoint or name.

Please ignore the very rude responses on here!

Oh and yeah my heart really bleeds for Dan Wootten (not) the poor wee hard done by guy! The fact that posters are minimising and sticking up for him and Clarkson tells you all you need to know!

Oh and yeah my heart really bleeds for Dan Wootten (not) the poor wee hard done by guy! The fact that posters are minimising and sticking up for him and Clarkson tells you all you need to know!

I was about to post exactly that! Clarkson and Wootten seem to have a fanclub on here 😮🙄

FWIW Clarkson is not all bad in that his emphasis on British farming was good. However his vile article on Meghan was too much. Ditto Piers Morgan. Despite his obsession with Meghan, I have been surprised lately to agree with him on his stance about Gaza as he has had a complete about turn.
There are no good points about Wootten in my opinion