It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
I stared at it for some time.
"Umm ... the punctuation is a bit weird" I said, "though I've seen worse".
"Keep looking", she said. Eventually the penny dropped.
Offset "(Emp) - a little heavy on the hyperbole."
Ian
Lowering my expectations has succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
At a human level, I'm genuinely sorry for anyone who gets diagnosed with that, but I don't see why the royals should really get any special concern / public sympathy over any other normal family in a similar situation. At least the royals will have the absolute best healthcare available whilst not having to worry in the slightest about their income or housing or longer-term repercussions - unlike the thousands of regular families.
Offset "(Emp) - a little heavy on the hyperbole."
So when someone like Kate, a young mum who has quietly and undramatically given the position she stepped into her all, suffers something like this, it does touch people's hearts. Yes, at root she's just like everyone else, but I think her role, both in its real and symbolic senses, does put her on a different level.,
So she’s obviously going to be given a higher profile than old Maud round the corner who’s maybe terminally ill, lost the postcode lottery for the latest treatment, but isn’t known to millions around the world.
I hope that now it’s public knowledge the media frenzy stops asap and she’s allowed to fight this without constant front page headlines and speculation about her condition.
All the speculation confirmed.
really? All of it?It was obvious something was seriously wrong, surely the most ethical choice would be to wait to be told what was going on, rather than (as some people have) publishing lurid and insensitive fantasies.
It reminds me of the Nicola Bulley case, or the Joanne Yeates case
Murder of Joanna Yeates - Wikipedia
People/press demanding the final verdict instantly, being content to vilify anyone, and having no concern at all for those more affected.
BTW I am mildly anti-royalist: for me, they can keep their titles, have less onerous PR calendars, and live in their private accom, pay normal tax and not get allowances, or live in Buck House, etc
You can't have digitally manipulated photos in the newspapers unless declared as such when asked. Just for example, if a prosecution was to submit photo evidence in court of a crime using a digitally manipulated image it would be quite correctly thrown out as admissible evidence on the basis it was a falsification of the truth with a subsequent charge of contempt of court following. Media couldn't publish the fake image without declaring it as such and merely asked for the original. No problem with that so why was it not forthcoming unless they were hiding something.
As far as privacy is concerned then yes, on a detailed level of exactly what the problem is I agree. However, wingnut came clean about his cancer so why not Catherine? As far as it goes they, to an extent, forego their right to absolute privacy as we, the taxpayers, keep them in the luxury to which they are accustomed and so that privacy is somewhat tempered by things like this being in the public interest or being public domain.
Another thing whilst I think about it. All the millions, if not billions, that has been raised through cancer research and we aren't that much further on treating this horrible disease. Yes, survivability of certain cancers has improved but that's down to early detection. Detection technology is used for many conditions (ultra sound, NMR, CT, blood screening etc) and would have come along anyway and wasn't the sole preserve or down to cancer research funding necessarily. We are still treating it with chemo and radio therapy as we have done for decades now. That treatment is brutal and isn't directly directly at the cancer and attacks the whole body in a kill or cure approach. If it doesn't get rid of the cancer then it kills the patient. All that funding and little in advancement to show for it. The jury is still out on alternative, largely experimental immunotherapy, with some mixed results and worrying lack of effectiveness. Seems to me that it's the one disease (and I know there are many forms of it) that we just cannot find an effective cure for. It's still the death sentence it always was for many people.
Cancer recently took a member of my family and in my opinion, and others, it was very badly managed and mistakes were made but that's a different matter. I think he should still be here and so does an oncologist friend of mine. An inexact treatment coupled with poor healthcare 'professionals' isn't a good prognosis.
Apologies for such a downbeat post but I think it's true and had to say it.
Ian
Lowering my expectations has succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/6670302971/kate-middleton-s-photoshop-manipulation-is-a-wake-up-call-to-the-threat-of-misinformation
Ian
Lowering my expectations has succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
There's the magic "but" which so often invalidates the concession that precedes it. Did you not consider that she might actually be scared and that broadcasting her infirmity serves to reinforce that she might die prematurely? That the royal family did not seek maliciously to "engage in misinformation," as you put it, but were rather trying to spare Kate the brutal exposure that she might die soon before the nation?
And then to accuse her and them of "cynically" "using the situation to gain sympathy and public goodwill" - for real? I got nothing of that. I saw a young woman, visibly ill, talking with great dignity and self-control about something that probably frightens and upsets her because she's been hounded by ignorant and idle-brained speculation.
Your sympathy does not seem to run too deep, from what what you say here.