Meghan and Prince Harry are moving to the U.S./Canada - OFFICIAL

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:She made the right call - starting off the year free. Must be a relief to know those haters can’t touch her in Canada.


They most certainly can touch her in Canada. It will actually be easier to go after in Canada in fact.


Exactly. I think they're going to find out that they miss the protection of the Royal Rota and British law. Notice that you've seen more paparazzi shots of her in the last two weeks than you have in the last two years? That's not an accident. They're now fair game. Harry has never lived outside of the Royal bubble, so you can excuse his naivete, but Megan was in the entertainment business. Surely she knew what to expect?


I think that's exactly what MM wants. She didn't like that there were limits to what was put out in public. Now, she will be able to charge for the photos of Archie and the family. She is loving that she's getting all these papp shots.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:She made the right call - starting off the year free. Must be a relief to know those haters can’t touch her in Canada.


They most certainly can touch her in Canada. It will actually be easier to go after in Canada in fact.


Exactly. I think they're going to find out that they miss the protection of the Royal Rota and British law. Notice that you've seen more paparazzi shots of her in the last two weeks than you have in the last two years? That's not an accident. They're now fair game. Harry has never lived outside of the Royal bubble, so you can excuse his naivete, but Megan was in the entertainment business. Surely she knew what to expect?


I think that's exactly what MM wants. She didn't like that there were limits to what was put out in public. Now, she will be able to charge for the photos of Archie and the family. She is loving that she's getting all these papp shots.


Absolutely! Which is why I LOL'd when they issued the paps a "warning." I wonder if M and H are even on the same page.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:With Kobe’s death, the impeachment and upcoming election, I don’t see the US press caring about them one bit.


Not to mention the coronavirus...
Actually, people will want a feel good story more after all of the other crappy news.


Except they don’t have a “feel good story.” They have an entitled out of touch story.


Exactly. They have a “feel sorry for myself” story.


Totally. They are nauseating.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:She made the right call - starting off the year free. Must be a relief to know those haters can’t touch her in Canada.


They most certainly can touch her in Canada. It will actually be easier to go after in Canada in fact.


Exactly. I think they're going to find out that they miss the protection of the Royal Rota and British law. Notice that you've seen more paparazzi shots of her in the last two weeks than you have in the last two years? That's not an accident. They're now fair game. Harry has never lived outside of the Royal bubble, so you can excuse his naivete, but Megan was in the entertainment business. Surely she knew what to expect?


I think that's exactly what MM wants. She didn't like that there were limits to what was put out in public. Now, she will be able to charge for the photos of Archie and the family. She is loving that she's getting all these papp shots.


Absolutely! Which is why I LOL'd when they issued the paps a "warning." I wonder if M and H are even on the same page.


They actually didn't even issue the paps a warning which is what makes it all the more comical. They issued the warning to the publications printing the photos. Word is because MM wants to be able to charge for the photos, but she's definitely not upset that the photos were taken! Their hypocrisy continues to amaze me.
Anonymous
Harry lost his suit against the Daily Mail.

He had published 'wildlife pictures' in a post about conservation efforts. The Mail called him out on the fact that these were tranquilized and tied up animals (elephants, rhinos) he was taking pics of and that he had cropped the ropes out of the pictures. He sued them. His reasoning was that the pictures had to be cropped for instagram formatting reasons and that he wasn't trying to hide anything. The Mail showed how the entire picture would easily be uploaded to Instagram and that the hiding was intentional. They won.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Harry lost his suit against the Daily Mail.

He had published 'wildlife pictures' in a post about conservation efforts. The Mail called him out on the fact that these were tranquilized and tied up animals (elephants, rhinos) he was taking pics of and that he had cropped the ropes out of the pictures. He sued them. His reasoning was that the pictures had to be cropped for instagram formatting reasons and that he wasn't trying to hide anything. The Mail showed how the entire picture would easily be uploaded to Instagram and that the hiding was intentional. They won.


How embarrassing.
This is just the beginning folks.
I'm not looking forward to what happens next.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Harry lost his suit against the Daily Mail.

He had published 'wildlife pictures' in a post about conservation efforts. The Mail called him out on the fact that these were tranquilized and tied up animals (elephants, rhinos) he was taking pics of and that he had cropped the ropes out of the pictures. He sued them. His reasoning was that the pictures had to be cropped for instagram formatting reasons and that he wasn't trying to hide anything. The Mail showed how the entire picture would easily be uploaded to Instagram and that the hiding was intentional. They won.


How embarrassing.
This is just the beginning folks.
I'm not looking forward to what happens next.


Wow, that is so hypocritical! Shame on him.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Harry lost his suit against the Daily Mail.

He had published 'wildlife pictures' in a post about conservation efforts. The Mail called him out on the fact that these were tranquilized and tied up animals (elephants, rhinos) he was taking pics of and that he had cropped the ropes out of the pictures. He sued them. His reasoning was that the pictures had to be cropped for instagram formatting reasons and that he wasn't trying to hide anything. The Mail showed how the entire picture would easily be uploaded to Instagram and that the hiding was intentional. They won.


How embarrassing.
This is just the beginning folks.
I'm not looking forward to what happens next.


Sure, except this is all in PP’s imagination...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Harry lost his suit against the Daily Mail.

He had published 'wildlife pictures' in a post about conservation efforts. The Mail called him out on the fact that these were tranquilized and tied up animals (elephants, rhinos) he was taking pics of and that he had cropped the ropes out of the pictures. He sued them. His reasoning was that the pictures had to be cropped for instagram formatting reasons and that he wasn't trying to hide anything. The Mail showed how the entire picture would easily be uploaded to Instagram and that the hiding was intentional. They won.


How embarrassing.
This is just the beginning folks.
I'm not looking forward to what happens next.


Wow, that is so hypocritical! Shame on him.


And don’t forget made up

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Harry lost his suit against the Daily Mail.

He had published 'wildlife pictures' in a post about conservation efforts. The Mail called him out on the fact that these were tranquilized and tied up animals (elephants, rhinos) he was taking pics of and that he had cropped the ropes out of the pictures. He sued them. His reasoning was that the pictures had to be cropped for instagram formatting reasons and that he wasn't trying to hide anything. The Mail showed how the entire picture would easily be uploaded to Instagram and that the hiding was intentional. They won.


How embarrassing.
This is just the beginning folks.
I'm not looking forward to what happens next.


Sure, except this is all in PP’s imagination...



Not in my imagination
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/prince-harry-loses-ipso-complaint-against-mail-on-sunday-over-criticism-of-his-instagram-wildlife-photography/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7948233/Prince-Harry-loses-Ipso-complaint-criticism-wildlife-photographs.html
https://www.insider.com/prince-harry-complaint-about-edited-photo-of-elephants-dismissed-2020-1
Anonymous
Here is the post that he made. You can see the comments he wrote about each picture. Lots of comments about the fact he didn't disclose that the animals were tranquilized and tethered. They make it seem he was a photographer capturing these animals in the wild.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bwj2roEBbwL/
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Here is the post that he made. You can see the comments he wrote about each picture. Lots of comments about the fact he didn't disclose that the animals were tranquilized and tethered. They make it seem he was a photographer capturing these animals in the wild.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bwj2roEBbwL/


And in the post he included a link to a longer article from the conservation org with the uncropped picture AND an explanation about what was happening. (The animals were being relocated.)

This is much ado about nothing.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Harry lost his suit against the Daily Mail.

He had published 'wildlife pictures' in a post about conservation efforts. The Mail called him out on the fact that these were tranquilized and tied up animals (elephants, rhinos) he was taking pics of and that he had cropped the ropes out of the pictures. He sued them. His reasoning was that the pictures had to be cropped for instagram formatting reasons and that he wasn't trying to hide anything. The Mail showed how the entire picture would easily be uploaded to Instagram and that the hiding was intentional. They won.


How embarrassing.
This is just the beginning folks.
I'm not looking forward to what happens next.


Sure, except this is all in PP’s imagination...



Not in my imagination
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/prince-harry-loses-ipso-complaint-against-mail-on-sunday-over-criticism-of-his-instagram-wildlife-photography/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7948233/Prince-Harry-loses-Ipso-complaint-criticism-wildlife-photographs.html
https://www.insider.com/prince-harry-complaint-about-edited-photo-of-elephants-dismissed-2020-1


That’s a lot creative writing.

He published a cropped photo on Instagram with a link to the uncropped pictures and an article explaining what was happening in the photos.

Yes, sounds SUPER misleading

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Here is the post that he made. You can see the comments he wrote about each picture. Lots of comments about the fact he didn't disclose that the animals were tranquilized and tethered. They make it seem he was a photographer capturing these animals in the wild.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bwj2roEBbwL/


And in the post he included a link to a longer article from the conservation org with the uncropped picture AND an explanation about what was happening. (The animals were being relocated.)

This is much ado about nothing.



There is no linked article in the instagram post. Some people in the comments linked to the article. And he lost the complaint - he was the one who filed it in the first place so he obviously felt there was something to ado about.
Anonymous
Today is #earthday - an opportunity to learn about, celebrate and continue to safeguard our planet, our home.

The above, Their Royal Highnesses in Rotorua, New Zealand. Of the 170 different species originally planted in the early 1900’s, only a handful of species, including these majestic Redwoods, remain today.

Next, we invite you to scroll through a series of 8 photos taken by The Duke of Sussex©?DOS sharing his environmental POV including:

Africa’s Unicorn, the rhino. These magnificent animals have survived ice ages and giant crocodiles, amongst other things! They have adapted to earth’s changing climate continually for over 30 million years. Yet here we are in 2019 where their biggest threat is us.

A critical ecosystem, Botswana’s Okavango Delta sustains millions of people and an abundance of wildlife. Huge bush fires, predominantly started by humans, are altering the entire river system; the ash kills the fish as the flood comes in and the trees that don’t burn become next year’s kindling.

Desert lions are critically endangered due partly to human wildlife conflict, habitat encroachment and climate change. 96% of mammals on our ? are either livestock or humans, meaning only 4% remaining are wild animals.

Orca and Humpback whale populations are recovering in Norway thanks to the protection of their fisheries. Proof that fishing sustainably can benefit us all.

Roughly 3/4 of Guyana is forested, its forests are highly diverse with 1,263 known species of wildlife and 6,409 species of plants. Many countries continue to try and deforest there for the global demand for timber.

We all now know the damage plastics are causing to our oceans. Micro plastics are also ending up in our food source, creating not just environmental problems for our planet but medical problems for ourselves too.

When a fenced area passes its carrying capacity for elephants, they start to encroach into farmland causing havoc for communities. Here @AfricanParksNetwork relocated 500 Elephants to another park within Malawi to reduce the pressure on human wildlife conflict and create more dispersed tourism.

Every one of us can make a difference, not just today but every day. #earthday

This is the post. Where is the link to the article?
Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture
Go to: