Harry and Meghan 15

[SoSoNosy]

When they used the alternate entrance to the venue, there were security people with them.  Were they also participating in the car chase?  I agree with the PP who mentioned all the cameras and people with cell phones, where are those records?

Editing to add:  I did find another source that said there were security vehicles; one was pulled over by the NYPD for speeding.  And M&H switched from one of their vehicles to the taxi.  But that spokesperson also asked why they didn't just drive to a police station.

Edited May 18, 2023 by SoSoNosy

[TN-peach]

And no one was wearing a seat belt. What would have saved Diana’s life? Wearing a seat belt. 
 

 

[just_ordinary]

@Antimony I agree. To be able to be chased with 80mph, all parties must have speed up to that mileage. It’s not as if they tried to shoot them up. So H&M were ok with speeding and endangering others themselves. It was a choice. And they were willing to make it.  For a couple of photos. Everyone involved can thank the universe that no one was injured.

[KnittingOwl]

3 hours ago, TN-peach said:

And no one was wearing a seat belt. What would have saved Diana’s life? Wearing a seat belt. 
 

 

I was wondering the same thing! I wear a seat belt in an Uber or a cab. Does that make me weird? Maybe. But I sure as hell wouldn’t be involved in an 80 mph chase with no seat belt!

[Jackie3]

10 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

@Antimony I agree. To be able to be chased with 80mph, all parties must have speed up to that mileage. It’s not as if they tried to shoot them up. So H&M were ok with speeding and endangering others themselves. It was a choice. And they were willing to make it.  For a couple of photos. Everyone involved can thank the universe that no one was injured.

Harry did not use the word "high speed".  He said "chase." It's different. You can chase people at many different speeds.

Try to stick with the facts.

[AmazonGrace]

If they were all driving nice and slow and still managed multiple near collisions none of the people involved should drive ever again.

[TN-peach]

Harry said 2 hours - NYPD sources told ABC News 20 minutes. 

Harry and Meghan left in a blacked out window SUV and then they got into a taxi.  Why?! It doesn't make sense.  

"Near catastrophic car chase" implies that there was some danger to others.  From the video that has been released, there was no danger.  No other cars were almost hit.  No pedestrians were almost hit.  NOTHING.  This is another case of "recollections may vary." 

The taxi driver said "I don't think I would call it a chase. I never felt like I was in danger. It wasn't like a car chase in a movie. They were quiet  and seemed scared but it's New York - it's safe."  He also said they were good tippers $50 for a `10 minute ride. 

[Jackie3]

22 minutes ago, TN-peach said:

Harry said 2 hours - NYPD sources told ABC News 20 minutes. 

Harry and Meghan left in a blacked out window SUV and then they got into a taxi.  Why?! It doesn't make sense.  

"Near catastrophic car chase" implies that there was some danger to others.  From the video that has been released, there was no danger.  No other cars were almost hit.  No pedestrians were almost hit.  NOTHING.  This is another case of "recollections may vary." 

The taxi driver said "I don't think I would call it a chase. I never felt like I was in danger. It wasn't like a car chase in a movie. They were quiet  and seemed scared but it's New York - it's safe."  He also said they were good tippers $50 for a `10 minute ride. 

Four SUVs with BLACKED OUT PLATES followed them. I'd be scared too, if SUVs with blacked out plates were following me.

Presumably, the taxi driver did not have a mother who died while being chased by paps.  Harry did. Of course he was scared, he was incredibly triggered. As for Meghan, she's had multiple death threats and has been hounded by the press for years. Of course she was scared, too.

I mean, you can dislike the Sussexes and still have empathy for them and Doria. Sounds awful.

What a lot Meghan lost by marrying Harry! She can never walk down the streets of NYC again without harassment.  He's a lucky man to have found someone willing to give up regular life, particularly someone who is smart and gorgeous. 

At least the gilded cage in Montecito is much nicer than the damp palaces in London. And there's far more freedom, since they can ignore the royal rota, the king's orders, and  the ever-present courtiers.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Jackie3

[Baxter]

If my mother had been killed in a car crash where the only survivor had been the only person wearing a seat belt, I would surely always be wearing my seat belt. Heck, I have no horrible car accident trauma and I always wear a seat belt because it's common sense. 

Harry may have a lot of legitimate trauma related to the press but not wearing your seat belt just seems like the height of stupidity. 

[hoipolloi]

Apparently, the main reason for the 2-hour drive/chase/whatever around Manhattan was to prevent the paparazzi from seeing where H & M were residing while in NYC -- they are staying with friends. They did stop at a NYPD precinct and then switched to a taxi but had to return eventually due to the crush of paps that were following them.  

SMH over not wearing seatbelts. 

[Antimony]

I don't think any security team would necessarily allow this, but I have to wonder if it would be theoretically possible for Harry and Meghan to walk through NYC unnoticed. Obviously, you need a decent change of clothes to pull this off but it's a pretty common paps dodging technique. I think the right face mask, baseball cap, and pair of sweats, and you could move through NYC virtually unnoticed, for both of them, even with a private security person doing the same. 

The beauty of NYC for celebs is that there is so much stimuli all of the goddamn time that anybody who has been in NYC long enough learns to regulate their internal self to avoid overstimulation and just...there are so many things New Yorker's won't look twice at. I didn't live full time in NYC but I experienced this to a certain degree and I bet this would have worked for them if they could make that switch either early enough leaving the venue or with enough cover. That could be the idea behind the yellow taxi -- one of the most anonymous vehicles in the city. Blends in. 

[DalmatianCat]

2 hours ago, Baxter said:

If my mother had been killed in a car crash where the only survivor had been the only person wearing a seat belt, I would surely always be wearing my seat belt. Heck, I have no horrible car accident trauma and I always wear a seat belt because it's common sense. 

Harry may have a lot of legitimate trauma related to the press but not wearing your seat belt just seems like the height of stupidity. 

THANK YOU! I’ve never understood why it’s only the paparazzi who get blamed (and they are horrible), but Diana and (now) Harry ignore the thing they can control which is seatbelts and it’s shrugged off by so many. Maybe it’s different in the UK, but growing up in the US wearing seatbelts was non-negotiable and still is for my family today.

[rosamundi]

2 minutes ago, DalmatianCat said:

THANK YOU! I’ve never understood why it’s only the paparazzi who get blamed (and they are horrible), but Diana and (now) Harry ignore the thing they can control which is seatbelts and it’s shrugged off by so many. Maybe it’s different in the UK, but growing up in the US wearing seatbelts was non-negotiable and still is for my family today.

In the UK, front seatbelts were mandatory to be installed from 1968 but they weren't mandatory to be used until 1983.

Rear seatbelts became mandatory for children in 1989 and all adults in 1991. (source)

Harry was born in 1984, so was five when the mandatory seatbelt law for children came in, but I think many people were already using them for their children before then, certainly my parents had them retrofitted to a car in the very early 1980s.

[louisa05]

34 minutes ago, DalmatianCat said:

THANK YOU! I’ve never understood why it’s only the paparazzi who get blamed (and they are horrible), but Diana and (now) Harry ignore the thing they can control which is seatbelts and it’s shrugged off by so many. Maybe it’s different in the UK, but growing up in the US wearing seatbelts was non-negotiable and still is for my family today.

Don’t forget the drunk driver part of that equation 

[DalmatianCat]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

Don’t forget the drunk driver part of that equation 

That too…I tend to break down some of it into what you can/cannot control.

Not control: paparazzi following you

Can control: wearing your seatbelt; your speed if you’re driving

Neutral: drunk driver…drunk driving is a obviously a very serious problem, but you might not know your driver has been drinking until it’s too late (I assume this is what happened in Diana’s case)

I loved the taxi driver’s quote. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by DalmatianCat
Typo

[Jackie3]

It's certainly important to wear a seat belt. If H&M weren't wearing theirs, that was dumb.

Though it doesn't have anything to do with whether paps should have followed them around for hours.

 

7 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

If they were all driving nice and slow and still managed multiple near collisions none of the people involved should drive ever again.

The paps think it's worth it to score thousands on a picture. Apparently they were driving on the sidewalk. 

I imagine whatever fine they got is irrelevant compared to the money they'd get for the right pic

 

18 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

@Antimony I agree. To be able to be chased with 80mph, all parties must have speed up to that mileage. It’s not as if they tried to shoot them up. So H&M were ok with speeding and endangering others themselves. It was a choice. And they were willing to make it.  For a couple of photos. Everyone involved can thank the universe that no one was injured.

Ah. . . read their statement,. NO mention of 80mp. They said "chase". You can chase someone at 8 mph (perhaps the likely scenario in NYC).

 

20 hours ago, TN-peach said:

And no one was wearing a seat belt. What would have saved Diana’s life? Wearing a seat belt. 
 

 

I'm glad you found something they did wrong so you can focus on blaming them.

It's clear that only perfect people--who must earn empathy--deserve protection from crazy paps. People who make mistakes, well, the paps can go crazy with them. 

There's definitely a connection between the seatbelts and the scary media harassment. I don't see it, but seems like you do.

 

3 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Don’t forget the drunk driver part of that equation 

My God, Diana died at 36. That is sad, whether she "deserved it" or not due to her failure to wear seatbelts and her willingness to have a drunk driver. It's sad, period.

 

On 5/17/2023 at 5:49 PM, tabitha2 said:

Are they the “Victims” though? 
 

The Jury is still out for me. So far This Whole story is fishier and smellier than Dollar store  clambake from start to finish  And Goodness we know they have a very Picasso way with facts and truth.  

Maybe imagine Kate and Wills were in the car. Perhaps then the whole story will sound more reasonable--"Kate and Wills harassed by media, can't leave car for two hours due to papparazzi." 

 

20 hours ago, TN-peach said:

And no one was wearing a seat belt. What would have saved Diana’s life? Wearing a seat belt. 
 

 

This makes the paps completely innocent. Good point.

 

It's fine for Wills to yell at the media who are harassing him. Here he is doing it last year. Harry's the only one who needs to put up and shut up.

 

[Manda]

Another pack of lies from Scobie.  They've lost all credibility with me.

I know Wooten doesn't like them, but if they didn't give him ammunition, he wouldn't talk about them.

 

On 5/17/2023 at 1:09 PM, Coconut Flan said:

Key - no arrests.  No one did anything really outrageous.

Reportedly one of H&M's team was driving recklessly and pulled over by police.

[Mrs Ms]

There is a chance that by the time they transferred to the taxi, some of the paparazzi had backed off so it was business as usual for the taxi driver, but the adrenaline hadn’t worn off yet for the passengers or they were worried it could pick up again. 

[TN-peach]

Apparently they are demanding the photographers turnover the pictures and videos to them. Here is the agency’s response:

 

[treehugger]

I just listened to this 13 minute discussion on CBC talking about Harry and Meghan's relationship with the press, and it is very interesting.  I enjoyed the discussion on how the relationships between celebrities and the paparazzi has changed over the past decades.  

https://www.cbc.ca/arts/commotion/harry-and-meghan-and-the-politics-of-the-paparazzi-1.6847838

 

[just_ordinary]

3 hours ago, TN-peach said:

Apparently they are demanding the photographers turnover the pictures and videos to them. Here is the agency’s response:

 

Well well well

I have questions. Disclaimer : I am no fan of Backgrid. I don’t think they are in any way ethical or trustworthy. “No intention of causing any distress, or harm” is weak if that is what the end result was.

Isn’t Backgrid known for staged paparazzi shots that have been tipped off by the celebrity itself? Has the relationship turned sour?

Surely, H knows that there are different approaches to personal data? Will this be his newest lawsuit? Is that’s his new career path? Self righteously fighting the dark sides of journalism (or whatever you call creating articles for tabloids).

How can they not realise that they should put the shovel away and step back from the hole.

Do they not realise it’s always H that is the centre of the backlash? M looks gorgeous and accepts awards while H complains and it’s always always about his trauma.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I can kinda see driving around trying to avoid revealing where they were staying. Because it's not just where they were staying but probably a friend who would then be subjected to prying and harassment any time H&M went to nyc for ever after. There seems to be quite a few credible stories of their friends and neighbors having a lot of privacy invasion and some neighbors selling them out. 

I once read a story about Daniel Radcliffe wearing the same outfit over and over so the paparazzi photographs became worthless. That's what I would do. Or buy those weird scarves and vests that have crazy reflective holographic stuff that flashes back and ruins pictures. 

But it would be very hard to protect my friends' privacy. I think I would feel very guilty if my friends were harassed over me.

[Jackie3]

On 5/18/2023 at 8:33 PM, TN-peach said:

Apparently they are demanding the photographers turnover the pictures and videos to them. Here is the agency’s response:

 

 "We love the US!" but we still desperately want photos of former British royals!

Choose a lane!

They know King Charles doesn't. have the power to demand a used cigarette butt from a British citizen. They are just playing the patriotism card.

 

21 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I have questions. Disclaimer : I am no fan of Backgrid. I don’t think they are in any way ethical or trustworthy. “No intention of causing any distress, or harm” is weak if that is what the end result was.

 

They're scared. 

 

21 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Surely, H knows that there are different approaches to personal data? Will this be his newest lawsuit? Is that’s his new career path? Self righteously fighting the dark sides of journalism (or whatever you call creating articles for tabloids).

 

Maybe so. You want him to just "take it"? I'm glad he's got a backbone, unlike his weak brother.

 

On 5/17/2023 at 5:21 PM, tabitha2 said:

The Sussex Squad on Twit er  is already calling Royal! plot!  

As opposed to the haters. They are perfectly rational. They also know what MM thinks. And they love to make fun of an old Black woman.

[Ozlsn]

20 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

I once read a story about Daniel Radcliffe wearing the same outfit over and over so the paparazzi photographs became worthless.

Pretty sure Russell Crowe did/does that as well. Wears the same flannel shirt every time he goes out to do normal stuff.

20 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

But it would be very hard to protect my friends' privacy. I think I would feel very guilty if my friends were harassed over me

Yeah, I can see that being a major consideration for them - I'd be worried about friends' security as well. Not sure how you manage that while still being able to see friends.

20 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Or buy those weird scarves and vests that have crazy reflective holographic stuff that flashes back and ruins pictures. 

My first thought was glimmer gear (reflective running clothes for night/low light running safety) and now I want to test out if it works with camera flashes, heh.

[Jackie3]

On 5/19/2023 at 12:50 AM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

But it would be very hard to protect my friends' privacy. I think I would feel very guilty if my friends were harassed over me.

I would too! Their friends are doing them a favor. H&M don't want to expose their home to the press. That's what any considerate person would do.

 

On 5/18/2023 at 6:18 PM, Manda said:

Reportedly one of H&M's team was driving recklessly and pulled over by police.

If I was being chased by SUVs in the night, I'd probably drive recklessly too. But this is good fodder to blame the victims. It changes everything of course. This means even Doria can be snarked on. Thanks.