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!!!

That’s why the derailing happened IMHO

Even the OP has abandoned ship.

I think someone was expecting hordes of Dan Wooten fans to join in the discussion and defend him in order to prove a point.

I haven’t seen any defense of Dan or evidence that anyone here even watches his content.

I already did if you had read my earlier posts 💁‍♀️

Agree. It was IMHO also an attempt to tar the many posters here with highly relevant significant professional experience in law and media and other posters with hugely intelligent insights as consumers of DW type content suggesting they/we were rapid haterz as per their pop psychology - rather than people who consider the evidence directly from the horses mouth, consider the complex context before making an evaluation.

I suspect a few of the old and new birds of a feather are very disappointed.

Who cares why he doesn't like them ? It's probably for the same reasons as many others and it makes him money too.

There are loads of people who do this both FOR and AGAINST the Hams. So what ? It's the nature of the beast.

Threads evolve - how can one person decide what is or is not relevant 🤷‍♀️

@Bobbbb No need to be humble, Bobbbb. I think your opinion is apt.

I did not care for the repurposing of work by esteemed psychologists here. We often cite a poorly translated caution found on a tag of a consumer good in my household. “Not for the other use”. That’s what it felt like to me: using their work “for the other use” of armchair diagnosing internet contributors.

I don’t like Dan Wooten’s content and find his facial expressions rather rodent like, but he lost his job and this is how he’s chosen to feed himself now. Not my taste or values but apparently it works for him.

I clearly missed that in amongst the meandering posts but if you would be so kind, did you agree or disagree that if DW gets criticised for making money off criticising people then H should too - or not? (Don’t have posh mn so can’t search just your posts).

For me, it isn’t really about how many times they’ve spoken badly about someone or the amount of views or the amount of money made.

They are the same in this instance. Making money out of slating someone else.

A similar argument would be if someone chooses to sell sex for money, does it matter whether they make £20 or £2000? For me it is the same there too.

I have no real opinion of Dan Wooten one way or another! , I don’t really watch any of these YouTube channels or videos from either side of the spectrum, however learning about byline times and being on that thread on here at the time makes me believe he is not only entitled to feel critical about them but deserves to earn money from them the same way they have earned money saying equally unkind things about Harry’s family and the U.K. and commonwealth! 🤷‍♀️

The same worked for H. Not my taste or values but he boosted his coffers by doing something similar.

I don’t see what the difference is at all.

If OP could tear herself away from Big David down The Feathers (😉) I would love to hear their take on it.

I have to agree. It’s a tasteless choice but I hold their work in the same esteem (or lack thereof). Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Harry’s victims/subjects were private citizens (the school teacher, the old lady horsewoman he shagged). Also people he had a personal relationship with like his sister-in-law. I find that far more classless than Dingo Dan ranting about strangers based on public info.

Meant to add lipgloss that it wasn’t a comment thrown out into the air just for you!

I genuinely am interested to hear why some would think differently to me.

I truly can’t see any difference - which is why it would be nice to hear other points of view. I can’t see me changing my mind but if folk can persuade me with a decent reason, then I’m all ears.

I don’t care for DW much and certainly don’t watch (did look today to see if he enabled comments) but on this subject, I do feel they are cut from the same cloth.

IndefatigableSusan
the old lady horsewoman he shagged

The one who was celebrating her 19th birthday and was just about 2 years older than Harry?
Not blaming you, I think it just proves your point. He said it was an older woman (people were guessing in terms of someone like Liz Hurley). That sort of silly description sticks and now she was an "old lady" in some people's memories.
I wonder if he reminds Meghan that she's an "older woman", being 3 years older than him.

Edited because I pressed "Post" instead of "Preview" initially

Yes. That lecherous old crow who stole his innocence.

😆

I thought she was actually only a couple of months older due to the timing of their birthdays?
( and worked in the royal stables, so as “staff” the position of power is definitely weighted in his favour!)

No Jeff, she was what we now call a cougar; a savvy and experienced older horsewoman and Harry was a young, naive poor lad who didn’t even know what was happening. Who knows how many times she did this?

She was only a year or so older, and her father was employed by Charles - so her family's livelihood depended on Harry's father. According to the woman, who the papers eventually tracked down, she'd recently been dumped and it was her birthday, so emotionally vulnerable too.

The papers were always going to track her down. H gave enough details to enable them to do so I think.

Ungallant at best.

I did think he made it sound as though she was cougar-y and that she’d taken advantage of him a bit by describing her as older (true but hardly) woman.

And treated like a young stallion? Bless.

To not warn her was despicable but he made a few bob out of the book so it’s ok eh?

So is your argument really that anyone who gets paid to criticise someone is "the same"? Because that would lump memoirists, journalists, columnists and YouTubers together, regardless of what they're actually doing. I don't think that's a logical way to assess it.

I think part of the issue with that section was it was leaked in a foreign language version first (Spanish?) and it was translated very oddly for the first time if was printed in the UK tabloids.

Lipgloss

I didn’t ask that.

I asked if there was any difference between H and DW.

Do you think there is any difference between them?

You could be right there if you mean it was regarding the victimy take on it?

To me though, he would have been kinder and more gentlemanly to make the episode very vague.

He choose not to and that was such a shame for the woman concerned. And for those the press got it wrong about too.

Poor liz Hurley had to come out and deny it was her!! ( as if Harry !)

From the English edition:

Inglorious episode, with an older woman. She liked horses, quite a lot, and treated me not unlike a young stallion. Quick ride, after which she’d smacked my rump and sent me off to graze. Among the many things about it that were wrong: It happened in a grassy field behind a busy pub.

Daily Mail went with this translation from the Spanish edition.

“… a humiliating episode with an older woman who liked macho horses and who treated me like a young stallion. I mounted her quickly, after which she spanked my ass and sent me away. One of my many mistakes was letting it happen in a field, just behind a very busy pub.”

Quick ride.

Jesus.

Alluding the act to being horsey related is bad enough.

There is no mistaking the other meaning of that. Degrading and debasing I think. I would hate anyone to have ever used that term about me.

Although it goes some way to convince me I’m not wrong about how I feel about him.