Lalala explain has defended emily Clarkson on her stories . I think it’s really sad what her dad has done tbh . I feel for Emily a bit , imagine your own dad behaving like that?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Jeremy has ALWAYS been an outspoken loud mouth - offending/upsetting folk has been his thing for donkeys years
Let's not pretend that the outrage from JC is not in anyway going too boost Emily's platform.
Willing to bet, she's LOVING the attention on her right now.
Eta - if M & H HATE the BRF so much, then stop using the titles.
Let's not pretend that the outrage from JC is not in anyway going too boost Emily's platform.
Willing to bet, she's LOVING the attention on her right now.
Eta - if M & H HATE the BRF so much, then stop using the titles.
What sort of things did she message your friend saying ?!
It’s a tricky one, she shouldn’t be blamed or hounded for what her dad says. But she treats all her followers like little friends and shouldn’t be surprised when they behave like that. A friend of mine would absolutely say ‘whoa your dad is out of line saying that’, it’s normal. I guess when your follower count is in the 1000s that’s overwhelming, but those 1000s are also lucrative for her ads and add links.
She’s also putting up her preachy reels for every one else but clearly not starting those hard conversations at home. She’s asking her followers to have these conversations with their racist/misogynistic/fat phobic family members but she’s not actually putting the work in herself at ‘home’.
She’s also putting up her preachy reels for every one else but clearly not starting those hard conversations at home. She’s asking her followers to have these conversations with their racist/misogynistic/fat phobic family members but she’s not actually putting the work in herself at ‘home’.
clarkson wrote that article because he knew it would be condemned, because he knew it would get his name trending, that he’d be spoken about. He’s an old has-been, whose fan base consists of a nasty selection of entitled members of society and a spattering of deluded car enthusiasts. He does this to keep himself relevant, a la piers Morgan.why am I not even vaguely surprised that Em's bestie Alex Light didn't mention Jeremy's comments - when usually, that kind of misogynistic article would have her racing to film a critical reel. the opinions her shared were truly vile - far worse than some of the stuff both Em and Alex have latched onto previously and made a huge drama out of, yet on this occasion, Em posted a very planned out statement, basically just saying she didn't agree with her dad's misogynistic opinions - very careful to describe his comments, but not him, as a misogynist and a bully - and then a few hours later, Alex shares a story all about Em, and criticising anyone who had the audacity to contact Em about comments made by her own father, because his opinions are not her responsibility, and she doesn't deserve to be bullied as the result of the Sun choosing to publish her dad's vile article - ensuring she totally twist the narrative to imply Em is the victim and anyone appalled at her dad saying he hates Meghan more than a serial killer, and dreams that she will be forced to walk naked down the street while the public hurl verbal abuse at her and pelt her with excrement is just a bully, and poor vulnerable pregnant Em doesn't deserve to receive "hate", be questioned or be expected to address the vile comments made by daddy Clarkson - turning it into an issue about "women shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of men" and that the onus isn't on Em to call her dad out on his misogynistic opinions. interesting, because both Em and Alex have made it their mission to do exactly that - except for situations that would potentially risk the benefits Em has as Jeremy's daughter, in terms of contacts, fame by association, success due solely to nepotism and wealth! obvs it's not worth risking her inheritance to criticise her father's disgusting attitude towards women!
Alex has decided that it's totally inappropriate to expect Em to respond, or even hold her father to account for his comments, because her and her dad are two individuals with different views abs values, and Em does not deserve or have her "feelings hurt" based on her dad's behaviour. she has put actual effort into ensuring Em is portrayed as the victim, claiming she is being "bullied" and receiving "hate", twisting the whole situation to turn it into the usual #womensupportingwomen spiel, to call out those justifiably questioning Em on her father's blatant misogyny! such a predictable reaction! if anything, she should be calling out her dad - not just because his opinions are disgusting and supposedly the direct opposite of her own beliefs, but also because he clearly thinks so little of women that he didn't for a second consider the impact his article could have on his daughter, who had literally just written a post about her disgust at the way Meghan is treated in the media! it's all so hypocritical and incredibly manipulative to use the "Em is pregnant and vulnerable and doesn't deserve hate, you mean cruel nasty bullies" narrative to discourage people from sending messages, when realistically, the majority of the DMs she is receiving won't be rude or nasty! they will be mainly be genuine and - given the context - totally justified questions. plus she is definitely deleting comments from her recent post about H&M, because i don't believe for one second that people aren't making the connection and leaving comments about Jeremy's article - yet the comments are all very positive and "we totally agree with you, Em!"
and sure, Em may feel overwhelmed, but that's an issue she needs to address with her father - not twist the blame and accuse her followers of "bullying".
the article was published on Friday so it’s not unreasonable to assume Em knew it was being written when she did her own post. But let’s assume she didn’t.
Em has copied her father and made a “career” out of being opinionated and outspoken. So if she posts something and wades into a public issue and is happy to accept and respond to comments agreeing - then she has to also accept there will be those who disagree, those who find it bizarre that she can comment on this openly but can’t address the problem within her own family - her tabloid writing, Meghan-hating father. It’s a relevant question to ask.
It’s not mean and bullying and it’s not even asking her to account for her dads opinions. Had she refrained from making her own post, no one would be making the link between her fathers opinions on it and herself.
but she’s happy to use his contacts and benefit from nepotism, she’s happy to share her opinions except when she’s asked to stand by them and speak to them and she’s not willing to accept people will disagree. The girl is a total hypocrite.
yeh, I’m intrigued because it sounds horrible.
And bearing in mind most people wouldn't make the connection if she still wasn't using her maiden name!
The messages were threats against my friends family, threats against her children and grandchildren. She has neither luckily but the messages were vile and scared her.
girl you need to share!
Share ?
I see they are mentioning her along side her father on telly this morning!
The more they talk about it the more attention is drawn to it and I'm sure Ms Emily is loving it!
Emily is loving the attention she's getting right now
Bet she won't stop using the Clarkson name though
Bet she won't stop using the Clarkson name though
Is anyone clever enough to set up a wiki with the messages story so it’s easily found for anyone new to the thread? I’m not 🫣 but might be a good idea?
exactly this! she is perfectly happy to continue using the Clarkson name, because generally speaking, it works to her advantage! if she was as disgustied by her father's misogynist opinions and threats of public bullying and abuse towards a total stranger, stripped naked and vulnerable as her fantasies about her being pelted with excrement, she has every opportunity to distnfnace herself from his sensationalist articles by adopting her husband's surname. but she won't. and sure, she will justify it with some bullshit about being an independent woman, challenging tradition and convention and refuses to give up her maiden name for a man - yet it would help people move away from associating her with her father, thus dramatically reduce the expectation that she share her views when Jeremy makes views that supposedly clash with and oppose her own.
nobody is expecting Em to "take responsibility" for her father's article - but equally, she is totally using the situation to her advantage, playing on their relationship to increase her audience and the engagement on her SM platform! she knows perfectly well that issuing a typed statement in her stories and then disappearing for a few days - when usually she spends hours each day reminding people she is pregnant and sick will result in floods of "u OK, hun?" messages from her supportive followers - especially at a time when she has made a huge deal out of how "vulnerable" she is.
and as for manipulating the narrative with the assistance of her best friend, ensuring Em is placed in the role of "victim", with claims she is being "bullied" - it's totally gross. if she feels hurt, she should be seeking an apology from her father - not labelling people who have messaged her asking for her opinion on her father's article as "bullying" when the majority were likely perfectly polite and simply so n tout of curiosity, as she had very recently written a post sharing her own opinions on H&M, with a totally contrasting viewpoint to that of her father. as always, she is benefiting from the media attention as a result of her father's vile misogyny - for which he is well-known, and makes such controversial comments specifically for media hype and to ensure he remains in the public eye - and whilst Em is staying quiet on SM, behind the scenes, she will be overjoyed that her association with the Clarkson name - including her being mentioned in articles about Jeremy with links to her IG account etc - because it helps boost her career! guaranteed she wouldn't give up the Clarkson name for anything, because she has built her career. on being Jeremy Clarkson's daughter - and as much as she claims she hates being known that way and wants to have her own identity, it benefits her in every possible way!
Why on earth would Jeremy Clarkson say something like this knowing his daughter is very VERY pregnant and would undoubtedly receive a LOT of pressure from it? How selfish can you get? I could just about deal with differences in politics and their clear different beliefs regarding animals (farmer vs vegan) but this would genuinely be the last straw for me. How could he care so little about her feelings and her needs right now. Not to mention the clear misogyny underlying the comments. I'd be so done.
So I’m gona go on a bit of a spiel, I’ll put it in a spoiler so as not to derail too much but I’ve decided that it’s relevant because Em has made a point of criticising the tabloid press (and ignoring she is firmly entrenched and part of said press but I digress…) in relation to their reporting on Meghan.
it’s a long read so please feel free to skip past 🥲
I previously mentioned that the hits were irrelevant; the royal family which Meghan and Harry are part of, is reported on. They rely upon press reporting.
so ems next vague point, was that press reporting was bullying and misogynistic. And I don’t doubt there is a lot of that in the press, especially towards women. (Though, again, em will happily turn a blind eye to this when she has a book to promote).
so what has the tabloid relationship between Meghan and the press actually been like? What have they actually said? Em doesn’t specify (probably because she doesn’t care to know).
it’s a long read so please feel free to skip past 🥲
I previously mentioned that the hits were irrelevant; the royal family which Meghan and Harry are part of, is reported on. They rely upon press reporting.
so ems next vague point, was that press reporting was bullying and misogynistic. And I don’t doubt there is a lot of that in the press, especially towards women. (Though, again, em will happily turn a blind eye to this when she has a book to promote).
so what has the tabloid relationship between Meghan and the press actually been like? What have they actually said? Em doesn’t specify (probably because she doesn’t care to know).
I think it’s fair to say, MM was relatively unknown in the U.K. when she started dating Harry in the summer of 2016.
People magazine published a gossip article in which a “friend” of the couple confirmed they were dating in late October 2016. Within hours, Meghan posted on Instagram, a picture of bananas cuddling. Fairly innocent, but it was clearly intentional - and her followers at the time picked up on it, as did other media outlets. In other words, someone from their camp had leaked their relationship to the press and Meghan was all but confirming it. Ok, fine. She wants the world to know they are dating. No biggy.
but then bizarrely, about a week later, Harry released a highly unusual statement to the press in defence of Meghan. He said she had been attacked as part of a smear campaign, the sun (remember, one of Em’s favs) specifically was referenced because it made a headline out of some of her suits content being on pornhub - painting her out to be a porn actress. A bit dodgy (but the sun argued they illustrated in the story that it was clips from Suits on pornhub) and they felt this was part of a smear campaign.
this statement is notable because it’s odd - a week prior, Meghan had been actively engaging with tabloid gossip and suddenly there’s a u-turn. the couple seem to take umbridge at actually, rather innocuous silly headlines. Not pleasant but this is a tabloid gutter press (sorry Em). No other royal girlfriend had a statement released in this way (except Kate Middleton, after years as a confirmed girlfriend).
in September 2017, the couple had been dating about a year when Meghan gave an unprecedented interview to Vanity fair. It’s notable because Meghan, prior to her relationship with Harry, simply wasn’t well known enough to be on the cover of VF. The interview was called “mad about the boy” and was essentially all about her relationship with Harry. You can dismiss this as not being a big deal but it does raise questions - amid a difficult relationship with the media, why give interviews at all? Interviews that focus entirely on the relationship? Why not just keep your head down, like Harry’s other girlfriends? No other royal girlfriend has given an interview like this, and exploited their relationship with a member of the RF in this way.
it’s the start of a weird paradox in which the couple simultaneously claim they are victims of press intrusion whilst also courting the press.
Weeks later, in November 2017, they announce their engagement, 18 months after meeting. The press coverage around this time was overwhelmingpositive, including from the sun (with a headline “she’s the one”) and the daily Mail. Headlines focused on Harry finding his happily ever after.
in the months leading to their May 2018 wedding, the vibe started to change. Scandals surrounding her family and her dad specifically, but again, the couple largely enjoyed favourable press. They were given an opulent televised wedding. The future King walked her down the aisle, the wedding ceremony itself played homage to her American background. It’s hard to see where any bullying is happening at this point.
immediately afterwards, they are given titles and a mansion called frogmore house. Not a bad wedding gift. In an move that can only described as accepting and welcoming, Meghan is accompanied by the queen on her first official outing as a working royal - a unique stamp of approval. Even Kate didn’t enjoy this level of support - her first engagement as a working royal was a rather unglamorous lifeboat naming ceremony.
in the months after - positive press continues. MM has outings in which she is supported by other members of the RF. so where is the negative press and where does it start??
We start to see some news stories trickle that aren’t openly critical but… the turning point seems to be November 2018, when Harry and Meghan (who up until that point had lived in a “cottage” which was part of the Kensington palace complex) decide to move to frogmore. Rumours of a rift (published by Em’s fav, the sun, again) start to circulate but equally, most news outlets attribute it to the couple moving into a marital home and seeking some space for themselves. Not exactly innocuous. But there was a shift from then on.
the good ole sun, aka Em’s favourite, published a story in which it is claimed there were bad tempers in the lead up to the wedding and reference tiaragate.
The daily beast - an American news outlet - claimed Kate was left crying after an altercation with MM.
Is this bullying? Perhaps you could consider it that. But MM is happy to engage with tabloid gossip when it suits her (the banana pictures). It’s reporting from an unnamed source, but the Harry and Meghan are happy to use the “unnamed source” when it suits them (they were all but confirmed as the “unnamed survey” behind “finding freedom”) and this type of reporting isn’t uncommon in gossip tabloids. It’s not even that scathing, it’s mildly critical about events that may or may not have happened.
in December 2018, multiple aides of the couple resign in a short space of time and this is reported on. This is noteworthy and it’s factual. It isn’t bullying, although there are clear negative subtexts.
In perhaps the most scathing and open attack, piers Morgan claims he was ghosted by Meghan in a story in December 2018 and called her a “social climbing actress” Now, no doubt we all have opinions on PM, but the fact they met up has never been disputed. His version of events hasn’t been disputed even, and it doesn’t reflect well on Meghan. His ongoing vendetta against her is his problem, but it’s not indicative of collective bullying because… it’s his opinion piece. Just like Clarkson’s was his. If we accept Harry and Meghan are doing interviews and speaking their “truth” then we also have to allow for the likes of piers to speak his “truth” on his experiences even if we are skeptical.
Meghan goes to the British Fashion awards that month and it’s all a bit odd - she presents an award when Rosalind pike is the ambassador and was due to have that honour. Pictures of her are pulled from official Instagram accounts and photographers. This is reported on, but it’s not inherently negative. There’s a sense something is up though.
In jan 2019 - news outlets start softly criticising and publishing how much Meghan’s clothes cost (and compare it to Kate). This isn’t bullying, this isn’t unfair or untrue. But it does demonstrate a shifting change in tabloid treatment of the pair.
In January 2019 the couple are booed at cirque du soleil at the royal Albert hall - not the first or last time it’s happened, but it’s social media where the video and recording starts to gain traction. Again, it’s something that occurred - not a made up attack against them. Meghan later goes on to claim during the Oprah interview she felt suicidal that night, but she is pictured in makeup and smiling.
it’s just another paradox surrounding this couple; on one hand Meghan claims to have been a wreck that night, but the pictures paint a wholly different view. Harry has worked on mental health ambassadorship - couldn’t he have accessed help for her? Why did they bother attending at all? It just doesn’t make sense.
And again, this isn’t media bullying. This is social media reporting on it. The daily mail article from that same night is pretty positive. It’s headline is “MM joined PH at the Royal Albert Hall for Cirque Du Soleil”. Meghan is called “elegant” and mentions how she visited an animal shelter that day. It is a glowing review of Meghan - and simply doesn’t support the narrative that this couple have peddled since a week of being an official couple. If the tabloid press were out to get her, wouldn’t the have reported the Boos instead of focusing on how “elegant” she looked?
my view; the tabloid press can be nasty. But they’ve also been very sycophantic towards them. This couple are full of contradictions and inaccuracies. From day one, they have peddled the narrative that they have been under attack when the evidence points to this not being quite the case. If Em was capable of recognising this she’d be able to engage in mindful debate and make interesting points instead of just accepting their claim as fact, jumping on a mindless and unintelligent bandwagon. She’d be able to understand her own role in the tabloid press, being a big supporter and benefactor of it. She’d be able to grapple with some of the nuance of it all instead of throwing out sound bites like “bullying, “misogny” without really understanding how it applies here.
Victim hood is a social currency and it’s one this couple have adopted it seems, to justify airing private family disputes and access to behind the scenes of the illusive and private royal family. This is a totally far criticism of them, as I’ve mentioned before - they are part of a powerful institution. It is right and proper that they are criticised when there is cause for it. They’ve said they want to build a life outside of the confines of the Royal Family which is entirely their prerogative, but the life they are building has consisted of making vague but emotive claims against the RF, giving tell-all interviews and selling private access to behind the scenes goings on. That is fair game from criticism, and doing so is not bullying.
the media treatment of Meghan and Harry is complex, but dislike of Meghan seems to be much deeper rooted than that. Public commentary has been divided on her and its social media that has been more openly critical of her than news outlets. In short, the media are following the wave of public opinion in how they report on said couple in my view.
people who just dismiss it as bullying, imo aren’t really any better than the people who dismiss Meghan as being nasty and “uppitty” and follow the daily mail religiously. Neither side is right, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle
People magazine published a gossip article in which a “friend” of the couple confirmed they were dating in late October 2016. Within hours, Meghan posted on Instagram, a picture of bananas cuddling. Fairly innocent, but it was clearly intentional - and her followers at the time picked up on it, as did other media outlets. In other words, someone from their camp had leaked their relationship to the press and Meghan was all but confirming it. Ok, fine. She wants the world to know they are dating. No biggy.
but then bizarrely, about a week later, Harry released a highly unusual statement to the press in defence of Meghan. He said she had been attacked as part of a smear campaign, the sun (remember, one of Em’s favs) specifically was referenced because it made a headline out of some of her suits content being on pornhub - painting her out to be a porn actress. A bit dodgy (but the sun argued they illustrated in the story that it was clips from Suits on pornhub) and they felt this was part of a smear campaign.
this statement is notable because it’s odd - a week prior, Meghan had been actively engaging with tabloid gossip and suddenly there’s a u-turn. the couple seem to take umbridge at actually, rather innocuous silly headlines. Not pleasant but this is a tabloid gutter press (sorry Em). No other royal girlfriend had a statement released in this way (except Kate Middleton, after years as a confirmed girlfriend).
in September 2017, the couple had been dating about a year when Meghan gave an unprecedented interview to Vanity fair. It’s notable because Meghan, prior to her relationship with Harry, simply wasn’t well known enough to be on the cover of VF. The interview was called “mad about the boy” and was essentially all about her relationship with Harry. You can dismiss this as not being a big deal but it does raise questions - amid a difficult relationship with the media, why give interviews at all? Interviews that focus entirely on the relationship? Why not just keep your head down, like Harry’s other girlfriends? No other royal girlfriend has given an interview like this, and exploited their relationship with a member of the RF in this way.
it’s the start of a weird paradox in which the couple simultaneously claim they are victims of press intrusion whilst also courting the press.
Weeks later, in November 2017, they announce their engagement, 18 months after meeting. The press coverage around this time was overwhelmingpositive, including from the sun (with a headline “she’s the one”) and the daily Mail. Headlines focused on Harry finding his happily ever after.
in the months leading to their May 2018 wedding, the vibe started to change. Scandals surrounding her family and her dad specifically, but again, the couple largely enjoyed favourable press. They were given an opulent televised wedding. The future King walked her down the aisle, the wedding ceremony itself played homage to her American background. It’s hard to see where any bullying is happening at this point.
immediately afterwards, they are given titles and a mansion called frogmore house. Not a bad wedding gift. In an move that can only described as accepting and welcoming, Meghan is accompanied by the queen on her first official outing as a working royal - a unique stamp of approval. Even Kate didn’t enjoy this level of support - her first engagement as a working royal was a rather unglamorous lifeboat naming ceremony.
in the months after - positive press continues. MM has outings in which she is supported by other members of the RF. so where is the negative press and where does it start??
We start to see some news stories trickle that aren’t openly critical but… the turning point seems to be November 2018, when Harry and Meghan (who up until that point had lived in a “cottage” which was part of the Kensington palace complex) decide to move to frogmore. Rumours of a rift (published by Em’s fav, the sun, again) start to circulate but equally, most news outlets attribute it to the couple moving into a marital home and seeking some space for themselves. Not exactly innocuous. But there was a shift from then on.
the good ole sun, aka Em’s favourite, published a story in which it is claimed there were bad tempers in the lead up to the wedding and reference tiaragate.
The daily beast - an American news outlet - claimed Kate was left crying after an altercation with MM.
Is this bullying? Perhaps you could consider it that. But MM is happy to engage with tabloid gossip when it suits her (the banana pictures). It’s reporting from an unnamed source, but the Harry and Meghan are happy to use the “unnamed source” when it suits them (they were all but confirmed as the “unnamed survey” behind “finding freedom”) and this type of reporting isn’t uncommon in gossip tabloids. It’s not even that scathing, it’s mildly critical about events that may or may not have happened.
in December 2018, multiple aides of the couple resign in a short space of time and this is reported on. This is noteworthy and it’s factual. It isn’t bullying, although there are clear negative subtexts.
In perhaps the most scathing and open attack, piers Morgan claims he was ghosted by Meghan in a story in December 2018 and called her a “social climbing actress” Now, no doubt we all have opinions on PM, but the fact they met up has never been disputed. His version of events hasn’t been disputed even, and it doesn’t reflect well on Meghan. His ongoing vendetta against her is his problem, but it’s not indicative of collective bullying because… it’s his opinion piece. Just like Clarkson’s was his. If we accept Harry and Meghan are doing interviews and speaking their “truth” then we also have to allow for the likes of piers to speak his “truth” on his experiences even if we are skeptical.
Meghan goes to the British Fashion awards that month and it’s all a bit odd - she presents an award when Rosalind pike is the ambassador and was due to have that honour. Pictures of her are pulled from official Instagram accounts and photographers. This is reported on, but it’s not inherently negative. There’s a sense something is up though.
In jan 2019 - news outlets start softly criticising and publishing how much Meghan’s clothes cost (and compare it to Kate). This isn’t bullying, this isn’t unfair or untrue. But it does demonstrate a shifting change in tabloid treatment of the pair.
In January 2019 the couple are booed at cirque du soleil at the royal Albert hall - not the first or last time it’s happened, but it’s social media where the video and recording starts to gain traction. Again, it’s something that occurred - not a made up attack against them. Meghan later goes on to claim during the Oprah interview she felt suicidal that night, but she is pictured in makeup and smiling.
it’s just another paradox surrounding this couple; on one hand Meghan claims to have been a wreck that night, but the pictures paint a wholly different view. Harry has worked on mental health ambassadorship - couldn’t he have accessed help for her? Why did they bother attending at all? It just doesn’t make sense.
And again, this isn’t media bullying. This is social media reporting on it. The daily mail article from that same night is pretty positive. It’s headline is “MM joined PH at the Royal Albert Hall for Cirque Du Soleil”. Meghan is called “elegant” and mentions how she visited an animal shelter that day. It is a glowing review of Meghan - and simply doesn’t support the narrative that this couple have peddled since a week of being an official couple. If the tabloid press were out to get her, wouldn’t the have reported the Boos instead of focusing on how “elegant” she looked?
my view; the tabloid press can be nasty. But they’ve also been very sycophantic towards them. This couple are full of contradictions and inaccuracies. From day one, they have peddled the narrative that they have been under attack when the evidence points to this not being quite the case. If Em was capable of recognising this she’d be able to engage in mindful debate and make interesting points instead of just accepting their claim as fact, jumping on a mindless and unintelligent bandwagon. She’d be able to understand her own role in the tabloid press, being a big supporter and benefactor of it. She’d be able to grapple with some of the nuance of it all instead of throwing out sound bites like “bullying, “misogny” without really understanding how it applies here.
Victim hood is a social currency and it’s one this couple have adopted it seems, to justify airing private family disputes and access to behind the scenes of the illusive and private royal family. This is a totally far criticism of them, as I’ve mentioned before - they are part of a powerful institution. It is right and proper that they are criticised when there is cause for it. They’ve said they want to build a life outside of the confines of the Royal Family which is entirely their prerogative, but the life they are building has consisted of making vague but emotive claims against the RF, giving tell-all interviews and selling private access to behind the scenes goings on. That is fair game from criticism, and doing so is not bullying.
the media treatment of Meghan and Harry is complex, but dislike of Meghan seems to be much deeper rooted than that. Public commentary has been divided on her and its social media that has been more openly critical of her than news outlets. In short, the media are following the wave of public opinion in how they report on said couple in my view.
people who just dismiss it as bullying, imo aren’t really any better than the people who dismiss Meghan as being nasty and “uppitty” and follow the daily mail religiously. Neither side is right, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle
For the same reason he lost his Top Gear job for punching a producer for not organising him his lunch. He’s a terrible person.
He didn't lose his job, the contract wasn't renewed.
Agree with you entirely
I don't believe that PH and MM have been entirely truthful to the British public, on a LOT of points.
I don't think it's bullying to question their actions or behaviours. Especially in the years that DOE and HMTQ were so elderly/frail.
Of course, Emily is the victim here
Emily IS a victim here. MM IS a victim here. With comments like this, tbh, ALL women are victims. It doesn't matter who is right who is wrong who did what, ALL women suffer from misogyny like this.
Today right now Emily will be feeling that directly with the thousands of people in her DMs saying say more do more cut him off blah blah blah. MM will be feeling it while thousands parrot JC's violent words. Saying you hate someone on a cellular level and describing sexual violence of this level is not 'questioning actions or behaviours'.
But men having platforms to say tit like this damages us all by giving men a free pass to speak about us and our daughters that way on small and large scales. Anyone who makes this incident into an anti-MM thing is completely missing the point.
Today right now Emily will be feeling that directly with the thousands of people in her DMs saying say more do more cut him off blah blah blah. MM will be feeling it while thousands parrot JC's violent words. Saying you hate someone on a cellular level and describing sexual violence of this level is not 'questioning actions or behaviours'.
But men having platforms to say tit like this damages us all by giving men a free pass to speak about us and our daughters that way on small and large scales. Anyone who makes this incident into an anti-MM thing is completely missing the point.
how is Emily a victim exactly? A victim of what? She makes a career out of having opinions and airing them. How is this victim hood? Who says she has thousands of DMs?
I didn’t say JC was questioning or criticising MM’s behaviour or actions though. We’ve all agreed his comments are vicious and out of order. I was referencing Em’s point that the media collectively bully MM, which simply isn’t true. And not all negative articles are bullying. What is the point in having a free press if every article has to be complimentary and rose tinted so as to not harm feelings? How is that a robust challenge to positions in authority and holding people accountable?
It’s possible to think clarkson’s comments are vile (personally I can’t stand the man and I don’t disagree there are undertones of misogny in his writing and career that Em herself defends.)
bit it’s also possible to simultaneously recognise that Meghan Markle has demonstrated some questionable behaviour worthy of criticism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
again, I don’t think a single person on this thread has defended cla
bit it’s also possible to simultaneously recognise that Meghan Markle has demonstrated some questionable behaviour worthy of criticism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
again, I don’t think a single person on this thread has defended clarkson in the slightest. Em made a point of saying Meghan markle was the victim of bullying and misogyny and that’s why everyone dislikes her - my take, echoed by others, is that this isn’t the case, irrespective of what her dads opinion is.
Sorry, it seems you think I was replying to you. My response in reference to questioning behaviours was directed towards Sniffing Eggs... I didn't read your message as you said it was a spiel so I presumed off topic so didn't read it...
Edit to say I don't even know why you're talking about MM in a response to my comment it's just not relevant to my point
I can’t see where @Sniffing Eggs said anything in defence of clarkson though…? To quote;
“I don't believe that PH and MM have been entirely truthful to the British public, on a LOT of points.
I don't think it's bullying to question their actions or behaviours. Especially in the years that DOE and HMTQ were so elderly/frail.
Of course, Emily is the victim here”
How is that defending clarkson or his comments? If I’m not mistaken, sniffing eggs is agreeing with me that there are some legitimate cricisms of MM. Nothing to do with clarkson or saying his recent column was one of them.
I referenced MM because… you literally did. In your comment. See BIB below???
- Status