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!!!

Is it necessary to be so rude and unpleasant
AnAutumnCrow?

With replies like this and all the in-jokes about pigeons, it really is like returning to the play ground on these threads.

People are allowed different opinions to the pack. H&M haven’t done anything particularly wrong imho and certainly not enough to justify this global campaign of hatred against her, I feel sorry for her dc who are going to grow up reading this stuff.

Meghan Markle was an actress, and a divorcee in her thirties when she joined the royal family, with a mind of her own and experience of life; she found the culture alien and didn’t like being told what to do. You may not like her but she was perfectly entitled to decide that it wasn’t for her and leave.

This action on their part didn’t constitute some great rejection of the UK as a whole, it was one women finding life difficult within the confines of a toxic and dysfunctional family while pregnant and away from the country she was familiar with and her mother. What she did is not a crime! (Unlike AMW!)

I have no idea what's happened on this thread, I'm back on and can't make sense of it. Is it me?
I just think sometimes it's easy to judge people and I mean that in the broadest sense. Although a lot of the stuff is new to me, so thank you to people who have done some explaining. I'm bewildered!

Agree completely!

I am sure all three men have characteristics that only their mothers can appreciate 😆

But what joins Wootten, Clarkson and Morgan is misogyny, amply demonstrated by their output long before MM came on the scene. Meghan just provided an extra outlet for it.

Morgan actually called Meghan a smart cookie when they first met but his enormous ego couldn’t tolerate her not wishing to meet with him when she found out what he was really like.

I think in Morgan’s case, he is a huge Royalist, so I think it was more to do with with Harry and Meghan claiming all sorts about the RF, true and false things. he seems to detest Harry as much as he does Meghan. He was also one of the first to highlight the inaccuracies in the Oprah documentary and had to quit his job as a result of Meghan pulling rank, calling the top dog and demanding Piers apologizes. He was subsequently proven right on a lot of the things he called them out for.

Dan Wooten is awful, but he also was falsely accused of things which were subsequently not proven, we now know the links to Harry via Hacked Off and the Byline Times.

Clarkson’s article was disgusting, there is no other way to describe it.

Meghan & Harry are not innocents in any of this, they are often trying to provoke reactions. So much of what they say and do is duplicitous or outright incorrect. Herself and Harry like to bait the media, unfortunately it backfires on them more often than not.

👏 👏

we now know the links to Harry via Hacked Off and the Byline Times.

And the Mosley money - from both Oswald and Max - that at least partly originates with Nazi blood money from WW2. This is going to be one to watch in future, and if not mentioned during the ANL costs hearings this year (starting this week) then it will be in the future.

It’s so interesting and more to come I’m sure. Definitely one to watch.

Thanks. I've alwsys had an interest in behavioural science and its still partly relevant for my current job and coupled with being a millennial who remembers life before social media (like many of us on here too) its been eye opening to see how technology has changed how we interact and behave online, particularly when noone knows who you are.

Parasocial relationships, online disinhibition, group polarisation and outrage driven engagement is well established research.

As I have said before online media relies on ad revenue which depends on clicks, comments and engagement so publishing rage bait articles will give them that which generates revenue and the cycle repeats. But it's not just newspapers its content creators on platforms like tiktok and YouTube all needing subscribers, clicks, comments to make money...its a whole ecosystem.

As you say its hard to not notice the patterns once you see them and then knowing the psychology behind the behaviour explains the why and it's not a pretty look when you peek behind the curtain so to speak

Absolutely. To paraphrase the Press Gazette, in his 7th July 2026 judgment in Lawrence & Others v Associated Newspapers Limited, the judge called a proposal involving the Byline Investigates website as 'improper and dishonest'. He ruled that this, alongside other strategies, was designed to artificially create 'watershed' moments to bypass the six-year statutory limitation period for privacy claims.

This what got Sir Simon Hughes into such a pickle during his evidence.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/prince-harry-mail-landmark-privacy-judgment/

It does need to be said for clarity that Byline Times and Byline Investigates are separate legal entities. However, both evolved out of Byline.com, whose own website says is a crowdfunding journalism platform launched in the mid-2010s to fund independent reporting outside the control of major media conglomerates. Despite their structural independence, they cross-promote as part of the wider 'Byline family'.

That 'structural independence' is very deliberate and very handy, in terms of that which Byline Investigates has been used to leverage in recent years.

Yes, I hope there is an investigative expose on Hacked Off / Byline Times / Mosley Nazi money funding it all, and the crooks running the show.

That is one of the positives to come out of the ANL case, how closely they are all tied together and acting as puppet masters behind the scenes.

Didn’t Liz Hurley donate her almost half a million settlement, from the Sun I think, to Hugh Grants Hacked Off and here she, is a decade later, trying to destroy the reputation of more journalists.

Seriously?

Clarkson’s odious rhetoric speaks for itself and he had to apologise formally for it.

Both Morgan and Wootten have form for being outright misogynists.

Wootten famously for laughing at disparaging sexual comments made by Laurence Fox about the journalist Ava Evans.

Morgan, prior to meeting MM, was criticised for aggressively defending a cricketer who made highly highly inappropriate, live on-air comments to Australian sports reporter Mel McLaughlin. He previously criticised actress Susan Sarandon about her cleavage and there are a litany of other incidents.

This was aside from their attacks on MM, who Morgan has been verbally antagonising non-stop since 2020 but to which, her credit, she has very wisely not said a single word in response and yet he continues… .

The words that both Morgan and Wootten use to attack Meghan are inherently gendered adjectives such as “shameless” and are highly critical and derogatory.

I am surprised that so many posters on here are sticking up for them. It shows what will be tolerated to defend an inherently misogynistic institution such as the Monarchy frankly!

Morning, everyone. We've had a fair few reports about this thread overnight and about the fact that the thread is being derailed. We feel there’s quite enough drama in the actual Royal Family without posters creating a rival court here.

By all means disagree robustly, but please could we do away with the personal digs, coded in-jokes jokes and group heckling. We ask posters to argue with the point, not the poster, and derailing threads in this way isn't fair and is also pretty irritating to anyone simply trying to read the thread.

We hope you understand. Thanks for everyone's cooperation.

I don’t particularly like any of those three, although I do have a little bit more regard for Piers as he actually walked the talk and stood by his actions

Harry and Meghan have publicly made some very misogynistic and outrageous comments about their own family members and others they have crossed paths with.

So I don’t feel outraged on their behalf, at all

All of them are publicity wh*es.

There is an ANL thread already yet the derailing continues 🤨

Oh didnt even see mumsnet hq post. Good it was needed.

This article from Feb 2024 gives a 'Wootton timeline'.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/21/dan-wootton-cleared-of-alleged-criminal-behaviour-after-six-month-investigation

I don't personally watch him or the others mentioned upthread. I'm certainly not on 'Tik Tok', nor Instagram. It sounds like I should revel in my naivety. Or is that bad, too? Who knows.

I am however interested in the 'Byline umbrella', its source(s) of the money and its motives. Why do they go after certain people; why do they support certain people? Why the connection with the Mosley estate? As previously published (legally unchallenged, as far as I am aware), there is a huge amount of Nazi blood money from WW2 Europe still to be tracked down.

Anyway, that's me over and out.

There are people who despise hypcrocrisy but seeminglymokay to defend the hypocrite that Dan W is..

Immediately after being sacked he went on an apology tour and publicly apologised for his reporting thay branded Johnny Depp a wife beater. Claiming he had a moral awakening and that interfering was wrong and he had hit rock bottom whi h gave him this epiphany and understanding of public takedowns.

Despite this epiphany he launches his own YouTube channel and shifts the focus to attacking political figures and H&M. He is still bitter about losing his job he now trashes the very media landscape he was apart of.

He lost a 6 figure income and needs to make money somehow and this is a lucrative way of doing it.

I think the Byline Times connection to Dan Wooten is not a derail at all, the opening post is about DW and why he appears to hate Meghan & Harry, we can link it back to him breaking the news of Megxit and Byline Times going after him with what appears to be lies or manipulation of the facts at the very least.

The ANL case has exposed a legit connection between Harry and Byline Times thanks to the ANL court case, it has exposed a quagmire of interference by the likes of Hacked Off and celebrities in how they will go to any lengths to shut down critique.

The MNHQ derailing comment is this

By all means disagree robustly, but please could we do away with the personal digs, coded in-jokes jokes and group heckling.

which is fair enough.

I totally agree but the Mickey Mouse mansplanation of basic media marketing conflated clumsily to denigrate and silence posters on this thread who have extensive professional knowledge and experience of media and law that they clearly don’t is just embarrassing for them.

@AnAutumnCrow Byline et al are going to exposed for exactly what they really are and I hope we don’t have to wait too long.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/10/06/our-small-news-site-had-to-shut-down-after-reporting-on-dan-wootton/

If you are going to be a site dedicated to ‘telling readers the truth. It will come back to bite you if you don’t actually do that.

So basically to get back to the point of the OP, the Hams are a big part of DW's fame, notoriety, income stream etc . These people are the online versions of the journos who used to run about the streets. They say a certain amount, raise eyebrows but never or rarely step too far to be accused of anything concrete. It's car crash TV like Jerry Springer brought to a device near you for whatever reason. It's entertainment for some, doomscrolling for others, toilet reading even! You can either choose to engage with this stuff or ignore. The method though funnily enough is very similar to the techniques used by the Hams - suggestion, eyebrow lifting, facial expression, insinuation about their own lives. There has always been ridiculous lurid headlines in certain publications esp in the USA. This is today's version.

Who are you addressing? Because you seem to be replying to me yet bringing in words and topics to hit me over the head with that I’ve never mentioned at all. Psychobabble? Defending Dan Wooten?

I’ll reiterate that you’ve misrepresented the work of these men. Now you seem to be misrepresenting my comments.

Also, surely you are familiar with a typo. I think one now and then is not so terribly embarrassing.

How am I mispresenting your comments? I addressed several points in one go without tagging anyone in or directly quoting you with my response. You know which parts apply to you and which don't so you can easily ignore those.

Exactly they are all symbiotic and all use the exact same media agitation / plausible deniability methods to make $$$$$.

It’s amusing to stand above it and watch it backfire and them all flounder and fall over in their own homemade shit of self serving delusional, grandiosity - pure comedy gold that they inadvertently pump out day in day out.