#brokenbottleboy

[eaglesnick]

A DOG'S DINNER

While our unelected, multimillionaire Prime Minister enjoys a well earned break in his £5 million penthouse overlooking the Pacific Ocean in California, the country is being run by a simpleton.

His ineptitude has attracted headlines such as:

“Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary is a barely useful idiot..."  (brokenbottleboy: 11/11/20)

“Musicians hit back at Oliver Dowden’s “utterly pathetic” boast of Brexit touring breakthrough."  (NME:05/06/21)

“Oliver Dowden has resigned as Conservative co-chair after the party’s disastrous double by-election losses..." Guardian: 24/06/22)

But perhaps the most damning insight into Dowden’s lack of intelligence is this revelation by Sasha Swire, in her book “Diary of an MP's Wife", Little,Brown, 2020).

“Oliver Dowden, in the lobby, tells H (Sasha’s husband) he is so sick of his wife’s vegan cooking he was absolutely delighted when he came home and finally saw a ham and chicken bake in the fridge. He gobbled it down lustily. When his wife came back, she asked him where the dog’s food had gone.”

It’s good to know the country is in such competent hands.

[ingek73]

Fairytales for fuckwits: Meghan, a children's book, and the school bully tactics of the British tabloids...

Piers Morgan's obsession with Meghan Markle continues, while Mike Graham appears worried there may be too many big words for him to understand.

Mic Wright

May 6

On May the 4th, there was a great disturbance in the force, as if thousands of tabloid reporters and talk radio pundits cried out at once: The Duchess of Sussex had announced she was writing a children’s book.

Since the earth-shattering news that Meghan has written a story about the relationship between father’s and their sons — apparently based on a poem she wrote for Prince Harry — the tabloid press and talk radio stations have gone into meltdown.

The Sun has managed to crank out seven hysterically-pitched stories on the announcement since it dropped — the book isn’t out until June 8th — with each more unhinged than the last:

MEG TO PAPER Meghan Markle writes children’s book inspired by Prince Harry and baby Archie about ‘bond between father and son’

MEG-A MOVE Meghan Markle’s first priority should be mending broken relationships with royals not writing kids’ book, expert claims

SOUNDS A BIT WOODEN ‘Schmaltzy’ Meghan Markle ‘on dodgy ground’ with kids’ book celebrating fathers ‘after own bust-up with dad’ says author

DOUBLE DUCH Meghan Markle accused of copying her kids’ book The Bench from another story – but author defends her

NOT WRITE Piers Morgan slams ‘hypocrite’ Meghan Markle for kids’ book on ‘father-son bond’ after ‘ruining Harry and Charles’ ties’

'RIDICULOUS' Meghan Markle using Duchess of Sussex as author name ‘laughable’ after she wanted to cut Royal ties, says royal expert

CUT PRICE Meghan Markle’s kids’ book has price slashed already at Amazon and Waterstones

You’ll notice that Piers Morgan — a man who has turned one drink with Meghan after which he claims she “ghosted him”, which took place in 2016, into a five year and counting obsession — gets his own story there. That’s The Sun filleting Morgan’s spittle-flecked Daily Mail column on the book for its own news piece.

Morgan, who trails his columns on Twitter like they are exciting new releases rather than the tabloid equivalent of a letter scrawled in faeces forced through your letterbox, dashed out his thoughts on The Bench with the indecent haste of a man running along while his trousers fall down.

Image description: “Twitter avatar for @BreeNewsome

DEFUND & ABOLISH POLICE, REFUND OUR COMMUNITIES

@BreeNewsome

Piers Morgan’s obsession with Meghan Markle is genuinely disturbing. He’s really just using the guise of journalism to be a public stalker and harasser.

May 5th 2021

1,414 Retweets10,252 Likes”

-

Beneath a typically screaming Mail headline — How the hell can Meghan 'I hate royalty but call me Duchess' Markle preach about father-child relationships when she's disowned her own Dad, and wrecked her husband's relationship with his? — Morgan howled:

… she continues to cynically exploit her royal titles because she knows that's the only reason anyone is paying her vast sums of money to spew her uniquely unctuous brand of pious hectoring gibberish in Netflix documentaries, Spotify podcasts or children's books.

Of course, her equally cynical publishers don't give a damn about any of this shocking double standard.

Forget the fact that Meghan had a good degree of personal fame before she ever met Prince Harry, Piers Morgan accusing anyone else of being a cynical fame chaser is beyond parody. From his earliest days as a gossip hack, Morgan has muscled into pictures with the rich and famous, desperate to be someone.

When Meghan was willing to indulge him, he showered her with praise, but once she stopped taking his calls, he turned into the Tinder match from hell. That he has been married to his second wife, fellow controversialist columnist Celia Walden since 2010 seemingly did nothing to dampen his obsession.

Having repeatedly interviewed Meghan’s estranged father Thomas Markle — another man aggrieved because a woman would rather not spend time with him — Morgan sneers:

If she really cared about father-child relationships, she'd take a chauffeur-driven limousine on the hour-long trip to see her own father who's never even met either Harry or Archie.

It’s projection again: Piers Morgan’s ego is so egg-shell thin that after Meghan decided that one drink was more than enough, he’s spent 5 years seeking revenge and convinced that he’s been wronged, just like her ‘poor old dad’. That’s the ‘poor old dad’ that insists on talking about his daughter to journalists at every possible occasion.

At the end of an article that implies Harry and Meghan contributed to the death of Prince Philip — he died of natural causes — and rants on about “the woke”, Morgan ends with this:

But then as we've seen from her gruesomely self-interested behaviour during a pandemic that's caused so much devastation and pain to billions around the world, Meghan Markle doesn't really care about anyone but herself.

Remember, the Duchess of Sussex’s only ‘crime’ here is to write a children’s book which people will be free to buy or ignore with equal ease. But, as ever, Piers Morgan treats the news with all the proportionality of a US drone strike.

The real story here is about how Morgan — the bittiest of bit-part players in the narrative of Meghan and Harry’s lives — is so desperate to upgrade his place in the cast list that he will rant and rave to stay relevant. His departure from Good Morning Britain came after his last stream of invective about Meghan and he knows this schtick gets him the attention and money he craves.

Image description: “Twitter avatar for @MariaLRoach

Maria Roach

@MariaLRoach

Meghan Markle inside the tiny space called Piers Morgan’s head. #duchessofsussex Tap Dance GIF by Miss America

May 5th 2021

122 Retweets1,619 Likes”

-

Aside from Morgan’s column, MailOnline has published 9 other news stories on or related to the book announcement. The most telling of them is one that links the Duchess of Sussex’s book to another one… by the Duchess of Cambridge.

Headlined Bookshelf battle royale! Kate Middleton shares a glimpse inside her Hold Still photobook just a day after Meghan Markle unveiled her own £12.99 children's story, the story unsurprisingly treats Kate with kid gloves while continuing to imply that Meghan is the kind of person who would make gloves out of kids if it suited her devilish schemes.

There’s no shade thrown at the Duchess of Cambridge for revealing further details of her book just hours after Meghan’s announcement. Instead, the story — lavishly illustrated with images from the book — gushes:

The Duchess of Cambridge has shared a glimpse of her photography book Hold Still ahead of its release on Friday…

… Kate, 39, a keen photographer, launched a campaign during the first lockdown last year to ask the public to submit images which captured the period.

It even includes a mention of an image of a BLM protestor saying:

Over the course of the project, the Duchess shared a number of her favourite images on the Kensington Royal Instagram page, including a Black Lives Matter protester holding a sign reading: 'Be on the right side of history.'

If Meghan had done the same she would have been decried for “supporting extremists”. Remember the contrasting way their mutual taste for avocado was covered?

15 Headlines Show How Differently The British Press Treat Meghan Markle Vs Kate Middleton | Bored Panda

Over at The Daily Telegraph, Spiked alumna Ella Whelan offered her thoughts on a book that isn’t released until next month under the headline Meghan Markle’s fun-free children’s book may put an entire generation off reading, which makes it sound like a grimoire full of dark magic rather than a gentle children’s book about kids and their dads.

Just as with the Mail’s story on Kate’s book, it’s worth imagining what Whelan would say if the Duchess of Cambridge had written The Bench. Look at the following section…

It reveals something of the political superficiality of Harry and Meghan’s activism that an “inclusive” book would use the military father as its promotional message. Perhaps it’s a cultural thing, but if my kids have to read about soldiers, I’d prefer Hans Christian Andersen’s tin version rather than the woke posturing of a former royal.

… and notice that because Meghan is the author including a father who is in the military is “political superficiality”. If Kate had written a story that featured an analogue for Prince William — who also spent time in uniform, though in less dangerous circumstances than his ‘spare’ brother — Whelan would likely deem it a ‘touching tribute to their love’.

Similarly, Sarah Ferguson — the ex-wife of Prince Andrew, top Yelp! reviewer for Jeffrey Epstein’s houses and noted avoider of FBI questioning — uses the title Duchess of York on her many execrable children’s books.

Now that Meghan is the tabloid’s new monster in the monarchy, Fergie’s antics are pointed to as a positive with her books flattered even as Meghan’s as-yet-unpublished book is panned.

Image description: “Twitter avatar for @talkRADIO

talkRADIO

@talkRADIO

Meghan Markle is releasing a new children's book about father-son relationships.

Mike Graham: "It's so juvenile. This is somebody who acts like she's still in high school... it's not exactly Tennyson, is it?

@mrmarkdolan | @Iromg Image

May 5th 2021

36 Retweets221 Likes”

-

Over on talkRADIO, Mike Graham — a melting mass of expired meat — ranted about a children’s book, worried perhaps that it will contain too many long words. Speaking to his colleague, Mark Dolan — Dennis Pennis without the charm — Graham crowed:

It’s so juvenile. This is somebody who acts like she’s still in high school… I don’t have anything against her for any particular reason, other than she’s a bit too American, you know. She thinks everything is just great and cheesy. Rhyming the words ‘joy’ and ‘boy’. It’s not exactly Tennyson, is it?

Ah yes, that famous children’s author, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, known for such devastating rhymes as this one from The Lady of Shallot: “She left the web/ She left the loom/ She made three paces through the room.”

I’m not saying The Lady of Shalott is rubbish — though I do still hold a grudge against Tennyson after some very tedious teaching in high school — but that focusing on one rhyme in a poem is an easy trick if you want to say its shit. That Graham cannot see the irony in decrying writing a children’s book as “juvenile” is just one of the reasons he’s employed by a station with less than 1% reach.

Image description: “Twitter avatar for @NadimJBaba

Nadim Baba

@NadimJBaba

Piers Morgan ranting about the one who got away in 5, 4, 3.......

Media Guardian @mediaguardian

Meghan wins copyright claim against Mail on Sunday over letter https://t.co/cJZTgDMvgz

May 5th 2021

1 Like”

-

There’ll be a new round of these columns, stories, and talk radio segments when the book is released, particularly as The Mail on Sunday just lost the second part of Meghan’s copyright claim against it.

There’s nothing that either Meghan or Harry could do that wouldn’t drive these rats in a sack rabid. If they did nothing, they’d be called lazy. When they make things, take jobs, or really say anything the very media that benefits hugely from stories about them scream that it’s a cry for attention. And yet Piers Morgan regularly pissing himself in public is “commentary”.

[megandzane]

https[:]//brokenbottleboy[.]substack[.]com/p/prince-philandering-nudge-nudge-wink?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy this is such a good article!

Thank you for sharing, this was an interesting read x

I think it’s crazy the way they just don’t report on things and assume we won’t notice. Or dance around the topic. A random woman getting a front row seat at limited capacity funeral ....yeah I knew what was a mistress

[frankpodmore]

♲ Dr Eleanor Janega (GoingMedieval@twitter.com)2021-05-07 09:54:32:

Really tired of hearing this line without it being interrogated. "Working class" is not actually a vibe, and is a reflection of material conditions. Young people in cities working paycheck to paycheck as baristas *are* working class. Really sick of middle class people's analysis. https://twitter.com/brokenbottleboy/status/1390559154188787713

[news-mashable-yahoopartner-blog]

The Queen is getting a massive pay rise and Twitter isn't impressed

At 91, the Queen might be well beyond her pension age, but that hasn't stopped her from getting a massive pay rise. 

SEE ALSO: Baby survives Grenfell, or not: Facebook’s fake news problem continues apace

A record-breaking performance by the Crown Estate, which owns residential properties, commercial offices, businesses, and land across Britain, means the Queen will get an 8% increase in income from public funds. 

The Sovereign Grant, which funds the monarch's household, official travel, and upkeep of palaces, will increase from £76 million ($97 million) in 2017-18 to £82.2 million ($104.9 million) next April. 

Not bad, huh? It's a £6 million pay rise. 

Now, before the French revolutionary in you starts ranting about royal privilege and taxpayers' money, it has to be reiterated that the Queen's funding is based on the profits of the Crown Estate, whose profits rose by £24 million to reach a new high of £328.8 million. 

Sir Alan Reid, whose title is "Keeper of the Privy Purse," defended the Queen, claiming she represents "excellent value for money." 

"When you look at these accounts, the bottom line is the Sovereign Grant last year equated to 65p per person, per annum, in the United Kingdom. That's the price of a first class stamp," he said. 

Also, Queen's pay rise will take place as refurbishment is taking place at Buckingham Palace, costing £369 million.

However, people on Twitter weren't happy, to say the least, about the new funding, linking it to the Grenfell Tower fire:

Glad we can find more taxpayer money to fix up Buckingham Palace while hundreds of tower blocks are dangerous. Priorities, hey?

— Mic Wright 🗿 (@brokenbottleboy) June 27, 2017

It would appear Austerity is only for poor people Queen to receive £6m pay increase from public funds - https://t.co/IY8ZGRlTxt

— codfather (@codfather) June 27, 2017

The Queen is getting a £6m pay rise LOL beginning to see a theme here with the Conservatives' spending priorities #MagicMoneyTree

— Political Hipster (@escofree) June 27, 2017

So the Queen is getting a payrise to £82mil per tax year - to help pay for refurbishments to Buckingham Palace..... 👍🏼 pic.twitter.com/Uvs6IJqa78

— Barcho 👑 (@LouisMarch) June 27, 2017

Queen gets £82m pay rise to pay for Buckingham Palace works but we need to cut benefits for the poor to save money 🤔https://t.co/gsLXFzSuUV

— Parveen Agnihotri (@Parveen_Comms) June 27, 2017

If the government wants to save money on the Buckingham Palace refurb, there are some very good deals to be had these days on cladding

— Aunt Olive (@HelpfulOlive) June 27, 2017

WATCH: How ‘The Walking Dead’ show left the original comic behind

[moodlymoo-blog]

Retweeted New Statesman (@NewStatesman):

Why stop there? Why not rebrand sleeping bags as “affordable and bijou cloth studio flats for the go-getting young exec”?

Mirrored with best and lest the circular key strives manfully into a back of bent grapg fruit like winged band angels ! mDW

@brokenbottleboy on the report saying millennials don't need living rooms:

https://t.co/nsvTUDPWIu

[jose-borges]

Have you taken over the Tumblr notifications now, @warrenellis? pic.twitter.com/XqeTk0J1CA

— Mic Wright (@brokenbottleboy) July 5, 2018

[thesepeopleproject]

These people haven’t actually *read* much if any Marx. He’s just a character that they honk on about.

— Mic Wright (@brokenbottleboy) May 16, 2018

[ingek73]

[pern-dragon]

THREAD

[alanafsmith]

Facebook is rolling out 'permission screens' so users can opt out of targeted ads — but there's no 'decline' button

Facebook now needs to ask your permission to use your data to target ads or turn on face recognition in Europe.

It's a requirement that's part of a new EU privacy law called GDPR.

But Facebook provides no simple button to "decline" permission, although there's a big blue "I accept" option.

The button labeled "manage data setting" brings users to another page where Facebook tries to convince you not to opt out of face recognition or targeted ads.

Clicking "manage data setting" twice finally gives users a chance to opt-out.

  Facebook will ask you in the coming weeks and months to give it permission to target ads and use your face for facial recognition.

It's part of a new requirement that Facebook must comply with as part of a new European Union privacy law, called GDPR, which prohibits tech companies from collecting personal information without explicit permission. 

But Facebook won't just ask permission from Europeans, the company announced on Tuesday. It's going to roll out the new privacy screens for everyone. "We want to be clear that there is nothing different about the controls and protections we offer around the world," the company wrote in a blog post. 

Europeans will see the privacy screens this week, and they will show up around the world in the future, according to Facebook. 

But even Facebook's new privacy screens don't explicitly give the user an option to "decline," according to Reuters. 

From the Reuters report: 

The screens will not give Facebook users the option to hit “decline.” Instead, they will guide users to either “accept and continue” or “manage data setting,” according to copies the company showed reporters on Tuesday.

“People can choose to not be on Facebook if they want,” [Facebook Deputy Chief Privacy Officer Rob] Sherman said.

Here's how Facebook presents the facial recognition permission screen in its blog post: 

And here's how it appeared in the wild earlier this week: 

This is the screen where they ask for consent. No clear option for 'no' cc @darkpatterns pic.twitter.com/GDlsCImyZj

— Jennifer Cobbe (@jennifercobbe) April 16, 2018

Clicking on "manage data setting," which is the button to decline face recognition, brings you here:

Clicking "manage data settings" brings you here Going hard on user experience is expected. Promoting facial recognition as an accessibility features for other people is an interesting move Still haven't managed to get opt-out. Just Facebook having another go at changing my mind pic.twitter.com/PjrUhokpFJ

— Jennifer Cobbe (@jennifercobbe) April 16, 2018

You have to click on "manage data setting" again to get to the actual opt-out screen. 

Finally, the page where I can actually opt-out. Again, framed as all being about user experience pic.twitter.com/ZmoZjfaPtu

— Jennifer Cobbe (@jennifercobbe) April 16, 2018

This screen is *designed* to be confusing and to cause people like me who have actively opted out of Facebook’s pernicious facial recognition programme to suddenly leap back in. Dark patterns a-go-go. pic.twitter.com/8rPvgE8oft

— Mic Wright (@brokenbottleboy) April 18, 2018

Several commentators have criticized Facebook since the announcement, pointing out that instead of giving users a clear choice, Facebook is trying to use user interface tricks, often called "dark patterns," to get people to give it permission.

Facebook "GDPR" settings are mostly set-up to get you to "accept and continue" and go through messy options if you try anything else—and you don't get full data collection control. This UX design is obviously intentional, driven by the business model. Simple as that. https://t.co/i7qFXPuUPA

— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 18, 2018

Remember when we thought Facebook would be GDPR compliant? We were so naïve. https://t.co/ydyWj8ZKrc

— David Carroll 🦅 (@profcarroll) April 18, 2018

"Facebook’s consent flow starts well enough with the screen above offering a solid overview of why it’s making changes for GDPR and what you’ll be reviewing. But with just an ‘X’ up top to back out, it’s already training users to speed through by hitting that big blue button at the bottom," wrote TechCrunch's Josh Constine, who was briefed by Facebook on Tuesday.

"Overall, it seems like Facebook is complying with the letter of GDPR law, but with questionable spirit," he concluded later. 

The use and reasoning behind using these kind of user interface tricks to spur user growth at Facebook was outlined in a leaked post by executive Andrew Bosworth in 2016. 

"The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good," Bosworth wrote.

"That’s why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it," he continued. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Facebook can still track you even if you delete your account — here's how to stop it

from All About Law http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-permission-screens-opt-out-targeted-ads-no-decline-button-2018-4

[davidchanus]

Facebook is rolling out 'permission screens' so users can opt out of targeted ads — but there's no 'decline' button

Facebook now needs to ask your permission to use your data to target ads or turn on face recognition in Europe.

It's a requirement that's part of a new EU privacy law called GDPR.

But Facebook provides no simple button to "decline" permission, although there's a big blue "I accept" option.

The button labeled "manage data setting" brings users to another page where Facebook tries to convince you not to opt out of face recognition or targeted ads.

Clicking "manage data setting" twice finally gives users a chance to opt-out.

  Facebook will ask you in the coming weeks and months to give it permission to target ads and use your face for facial recognition.

It's part of a new requirement that Facebook must comply with as part of a new European Union privacy law, called GDPR, which prohibits tech companies from collecting personal information without explicit permission. 

But Facebook won't just ask permission from Europeans, the company announced on Tuesday. It's going to roll out the new privacy screens for everyone. "We want to be clear that there is nothing different about the controls and protections we offer around the world," the company wrote in a blog post. 

Europeans will see the privacy screens this week, and they will show up around the world in the future, according to Facebook. 

But even Facebook's new privacy screens don't explicitly give the user an option to "decline," according to Reuters. 

From the Reuters report: 

The screens will not give Facebook users the option to hit “decline.” Instead, they will guide users to either “accept and continue” or “manage data setting,” according to copies the company showed reporters on Tuesday.

“People can choose to not be on Facebook if they want,” [Facebook Deputy Chief Privacy Officer Rob] Sherman said.

Here's how Facebook presents the facial recognition permission screen in its blog post: 

And here's how it appeared in the wild earlier this week: 

This is the screen where they ask for consent. No clear option for 'no' cc @darkpatterns pic.twitter.com/GDlsCImyZj

— Jennifer Cobbe (@jennifercobbe) April 16, 2018

Clicking on "manage data setting," which is the button to decline face recognition, brings you here:

Clicking "manage data settings" brings you here Going hard on user experience is expected. Promoting facial recognition as an accessibility features for other people is an interesting move Still haven't managed to get opt-out. Just Facebook having another go at changing my mind pic.twitter.com/PjrUhokpFJ

— Jennifer Cobbe (@jennifercobbe) April 16, 2018

You have to click on "manage data setting" again to get to the actual opt-out screen. 

Finally, the page where I can actually opt-out. Again, framed as all being about user experience pic.twitter.com/ZmoZjfaPtu

— Jennifer Cobbe (@jennifercobbe) April 16, 2018

This screen is *designed* to be confusing and to cause people like me who have actively opted out of Facebook’s pernicious facial recognition programme to suddenly leap back in. Dark patterns a-go-go. pic.twitter.com/8rPvgE8oft

— Mic Wright (@brokenbottleboy) April 18, 2018

Several commentators have criticized Facebook since the announcement, pointing out that instead of giving users a clear choice, Facebook is trying to use user interface tricks, often called "dark patterns," to get people to give it permission.

Facebook "GDPR" settings are mostly set-up to get you to "accept and continue" and go through messy options if you try anything else—and you don't get full data collection control. This UX design is obviously intentional, driven by the business model. Simple as that. https://t.co/i7qFXPuUPA

— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 18, 2018

Remember when we thought Facebook would be GDPR compliant? We were so naïve. https://t.co/ydyWj8ZKrc

— David Carroll 🦅 (@profcarroll) April 18, 2018

"Facebook’s consent flow starts well enough with the screen above offering a solid overview of why it’s making changes for GDPR and what you’ll be reviewing. But with just an ‘X’ up top to back out, it’s already training users to speed through by hitting that big blue button at the bottom," wrote TechCrunch's Josh Constine, who was briefed by Facebook on Tuesday.

"Overall, it seems like Facebook is complying with the letter of GDPR law, but with questionable spirit," he concluded later. 

The use and reasoning behind using these kind of user interface tricks to spur user growth at Facebook was outlined in a leaked post by executive Andrew Bosworth in 2016. 

"The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good," Bosworth wrote.

"That’s why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it," he continued. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Facebook can still track you even if you delete your account — here's how to stop it

from Legal News http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-permission-screens-opt-out-targeted-ads-no-decline-button-2018-4

[rebuilderremodeling]

@fnkey: @brokenbottleboy It was a movie made for the under teens as a remodeling Spider-Man into avengers than a spinster.

http://twitter.com/fnkey

[socialmediashow]

Social Media Show this week discusses the Chad Evans/Twitter case.

Download the audio here.

On the show this week are Mark Hunter (@postableltd), Mic Wright (@brokenbottleboy) & Ian Stewart (@ianstewart1985)

why has Twitter become a place where people feel anonymity equates to be able to break the law and say some pretty horrific things?

does ignorance of the UK's rape laws excuse breaking said laws via Twitter?

can anonymity on Twitter be a good thing?

is bad behaviour via Twitter a UK problem?

is this bad behaviour a new thing, or is it just part and parcel of the 'net?

check out Mic's blog post "The Marshall Mathers LP is about the internet"

is the fact that the press have "a hard on for Twitter" the reason the "public" are hearing about such instances of the Chad Evans case?

in other news, check out Mic's articles on his blog, plus he's been training people on how to deal with journalists...scary. The big idea is "never trust a journalist". Ian has been building social media content for his company, namely Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and, shockingly, Google +

is Google+ going to amount to anything, and should the smart businesses be looking to have a proper presence on this piece of Google property?

Mark's been to Paris with his wife, and he's been running workshops for Postable, training people to use Facebook and YouTube. He's been inspired to write a piece on whether social media is "the magic bullet".

during the recording of #socialmediashow, we received a comment from @GlasgowOsteo using that hashtag on Twitter, read it here.

the guys have a chat about Google+'s facelift and how social search is growing in America

is it sensible to choose between Facebook and Google+, or should you always go for both as part of your social media strategy?

If you've got any comments, feedback or disagreements you want to share, please do so via Twitter using #socialmediashow!

[ingek73]

Exiting the vampires' palace: The tabloids are angry because Harry revealed how it works

You're not meant to explain how the gossip gets made.

Mic Wright

7 hr ago

The British Royal Family, the Captain Renault in Casablanca of repressed and repressive families, is shocked! shocked! to find out that bad parenting was going on in there. Prince Harry’s decision to talk about parenting — his experience of it and approach to it — on the Armchair Expert podcast has sent the firm and its frenemies in the tabloid press into a frenzy.

But the real issue is not that Harry discussed his relationship with his father or the fact that coldness permeates the parenting style of the royal family from top to bottom, it’s that he continues to unpick the devil’s bargain between the monarchy and tabloid press. It’s a deal that’s epitomised by the headline and sub-deck over pictures of William and Kate in yesterday’s Daily Mail:

Here’s how to do it, Harry!

William and Kate get stuck in with a day of play — and pets — for Mental Health Awareness Week…

On the previous page, the paper castigates Harry for choosing to “broadcast his pain again”. So there’s how you do it to get the approval of the tabloid press:

Don’t actually talk about mental health issues, just goon around for the cameras and make sure you tolerate The Mail on Sunday publishing creepy calendars full of pictures of your children. That’s the deal.

[Twitter avatar for @arusbridger

alan rusbridger

@arusbridger

Sometimes, when Prince Harry says sensible things (eg this morning about parenting), it would be nice if journalists discussed what he said rather than whether he has pissed off the Royals or Meghan put him up to it

May 14th 2021

866 Retweets6,723 Likes]

The quote that’s really angered the newspapers is not one you see plastered in the headlines or dropped into huge pull quotes. It’s the moment early on in the Armchair Expert episode when Harry says:

I used to be fearful of it. Now, it’s almost like the same groups of people that come at it so negatively or try to turn it against you or weaponise it, and therefore prevent so many millions of people from doing so, actually encourages me to speak out more… I’m going to be vulnerable, if I get attacked for it, let’s see who’s actually attacking me and what’s their story? What’s their agenda? Who do they work for?

The tabloids — and I do include The Daily Mail among their number — are particularly aggrieved because Harry is refuting their claim that he was ‘turned’ against them and the monarchy by Meghan. He says he wanted out long before he met her and that the British press was a huge cause of that:

It’s the job, right? Grin and bear it. Get on with it. I was in my early twenties and I was thinking, ‘I don’t want this job. I don’t want to be here. I don’t want to be doing this. Look what it did to my mum. How am I ever going to settle down and have a wife and family, when I know it’s going to happen again?’ I’ve seen behind the curtain, I’ve seen the business model, and seen how this whole thing works and I don’t want to be a part of this.

It’s those words that are driving the tabloids even more deranged than usual. The business of celebrity gossip — and royal reporting is just celebrity gossip about one family — requires the people playing the game to pretend there is no game.

In the most privileged professional wrestling ever, Prince Harry has broken kayfabe; he is consistently choosing to tell the story behind the story, to point at the paparazzi, the columnists, the palace flunkies, and the press barons and say, “Who are they working for? And what is their agenda?”

It’s one of the things a prince is categorically not allowed to do.

That’s why a softly spoken line about how he’s trying to be a different kind of parent than his own parents and grandparents becomes “a broadside”, “a bitter attack” and “a parenting bombshell” in the hands of the tabloids.

[Twitter avatar for @nazirafzal

nazir afzal

@nazirafzal

Having listened to Prince Harry on @ArmchairExpPod I urge you to ignore the faux Royalists (some might say Racists) who want to criticise him & through him their real target, Meghan

This is a man comfortable taking about mental health, masculinity & parenting

Essential listening Image

May 14th 2021

352 Retweets1,799 Likes]

Just look at how Harry’s words were trailed in yesterday’s Daily Mail:

Prince Harry yesterday launched another broadside at the Royal Family in which he appeared to suggest both his father and the Queen failed as parents.

But what did Prince Harry actually say? Well, substantial quotes — even then partial and cherry-picked — didn’t feature on the front page of the paper. You had to go digging inside to find them. Harry said:

“Isn’t life about breaking the cycle? there’s no blame. I don’t think we should be pointing the finger or blaming anybody. But…when it comes to parenting, I’ve experienced some form of pain or suffering because of the pain or suffering that perhaps my father or my parents had suffered…

… For me it comes down to awareness like I never, I never saw it, I never knew about it, and then suddenly I started to piece it all together and go, okay, so this is where he went to school, this is what happened, I know this bit about his life. I also know that’s connected to his parents, so that means that he’s treating me this way that he was treated which means, how can I change that for my own kids? And, well, here I am.”

It hardly reads as a broadside or a condemnation of his parents or grandparents. It comes across even less like that if you listen to the podcast to hear the tone of Harry’s words and place them within the context of the conversation. But context isn’t king for the tabloids, it’s not even allowed into the palace. Context lives out the back, milks the cows, and waits for a regime change.

In 1994, when Prince Charles was 46, 10 years old than Prince Harry is now, he spoke to Jonathan Dimbleby for an authorised biography and a notorious documentary. As The Independent reported at the time:

It is abundantly clear that Prince Charles did not feel the affect of a loving father and mother, and that he considers his parents, in the words of the child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, to have been not 'good enough'.

Dimbleby, with Prince Charles's approval, accuses the Queen of being physically and emotionally distant. But his deepest anger is reserved for the Duke of Edinburgh, who is described as 'harsh', 'hectoring' and deeply irked by his son's solemn and over-sensitive nature.

Prince Charles blames his father for sending him to Gordonstoun, the Scottish public school, where he was beaten up, bullied and abused, and he accuses Prince Philip of forcing him into marriage with a woman he scarcely knew and never loved.

But with Prince Philip now dead, the Queen in her final years, and Prince Charles set to succeed her as King Charles, all that stuff is meant to be stuffed back into the wardrobe. The story is that Harry and Meghan are bad and William and Kate are good and anything that complicates that picture is ignored.

[Twitter avatar for @KaindeB

Resilient

@KaindeB

@brokenbottleboy This is Penny talking about Philip bullying Charles. 😳 Image

May 14th 2021

5 Retweets16 Likes]

So instead we get stories about how shocking! Prince Harry’s mild comments actually are and outraged stories from places like The Sun about swearing:

TURN THE HEIR BLUE

Prince Harry SWEARS on podcast as he asks Dax Shepard about ‘s*** load of drugs’ and ‘getting s*** done’

Yes, The Sun that leers over women daily and writes lasciviously about “romps” is too chickens*** to write the word “shit” out in full and pretends that the Royal Family themselves don’t swear like navvies when they’re in private.

Meanwhile, in The Daily Telegraph, Royal Family sources — the same family who forced Prince Harry to walk in public beside his mother’s coffin when he was just 12, remember — decry him for his “woeful lack of compassion”. And, of course, the issue of swearing is brought up:

And aside from the highly personal content, royal sources suggested that the family was disappointed by the foul language used during the expletive-strewn 90-minute interview.

There’s nothing but compassion in the interview, but focusing on the ‘rude’ words and implying criticisms that simply aren’t there is just part of the tabloid game. They are livid with Prince Harry for making it clear that the dirty deal with the press was a huge part of what made him leave.

It’s not that Prince Harry is talking that so angers the tabloids, but that he is talking about them and the things they do; that one of his examples of times he felt helpless is being in a car with his mother and being chased by paparazzi. Royals saying quotable things is part of “the business model” but royals talking frankly about the poisonous role of the British press in public life is not.

[Twitter avatar for @Jasamgurlie

BLACKLIVESMATTER

@Jasamgurlie

Yep, Meghan, The Duchess Of Sussex made him say it all. 😂

The way I can keep pulling out these clips… Image

May 14th 2021

71 Retweets304 Likes]

Sarah Vine, deploying the industrial-strength feigned ignorance which is one of her great superpowers as a columnist, wrote in The Daily Mail yesterday:

It’s clear now that Harry is someone who, for whatever reason, has come to loathe the very fabric of royal life and managed to convince himself, for all the privilege and status afforded him, his upbringing was a prolonged torture. And that is very sad and destructive…

… Far from exorcising his demons, Harry’s newfound freedom seems only to be feeding the monsters. He talks about his shoulders dropping and a weight lifting since he moved to America; but all the evidence seems to point to him becoming more, not less, unhappy.

As ever, it’s The Daily Mail delighting in gaslighting and a partial retelling of the facts, cutting itself and its rivals from the frame. What could possibly have made Prince Harry feel he was trapped in a golden cage? The media looks around and conveniently spies no mirrors. And, even if it was a cage, Sarah Vine argues, this songbird should have been grateful for the accommodation.

Curiously Vine and The Mail don’t include the section about it taking pictures of people’s children or when Prince Harry says…

…because of the way the UK media are they feel an ownership over you. Literally, a full-on ownership, and then they give an impression to… most of their readers that that is the case.

… your saying that the moment we step out of our house that it’s open season and free game, what because of public interest? There’s no public interest in you taking your kids for a walk down the beach.

… it’s this rabid feeding frenzy.

[Twitter avatar for @MsAlishia83

Alishia A

@MsAlishia83

Help me to understand why some of you all act like Prince Harry broke up with you personally.

May 13th 2021

309 Retweets2,793 Likes]

I’m a republican — I don’t believe the UK should have a monarchy at all — so I don’t believe the golden cage should exist. But while it does, the tabloids benefit from it and they cannot allow anyone to get away with disparaging the system. They exist not to criticise it but to defend it and feed on it.

Prince Harry cannot ‘be normal’ now or simply shut up because even if he did, the tabloid press would not respect that silence. They would tell their own stories of why he wasn’t speaking, filling the void with fictions and half-truths. In talking about parenting and pain — even from the extraordinarily unusual situation he finds himself in — Harry will help others.

And while he’s a little too fond of Californian therapy speak, the fact that he’s talking about how we can parent differently to the way our parents or grandparents did it is an unquestionably good thing.

If you only read his words pushed through the prism of the tabloid press, you’ll think he was ranting and raving about his families failings but actually, he’s saying — he knows they did their best but he wants to do better for his own children. In the abnormal world of the royals, that’s one of the most normal things anyone has said in ages…