I don't see it in the article, but Iassume they also hadn't been around anyone smoking either.

I love that if you didn't know who bought it and why, you could totally think they were mocking him.

Yeah, that’s a stupid thing to ok. Though I also would have been worried about the kid getting the shit kicked out of him.

Well, that sucks.

“e case were all appointed by Republicans”

I mean, traumatic event; and I can make money off this years later; aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

Didn’t mean to imply you were implying they could just run rampant. But internet comment section, so I feel I need to explain what I mean ad nauseum. nOT THAT YOU DISAGREED OR AGREED WITH MY POINT. And oh god cap lock.

So were they endangering people by

Is that worse than TMZ or something (I know nothing about Paparazzi things).

Eh, the NYPD released a statement from my understanding. So while I wouldn’t say the story the PR person gave is true (they are paid to serve these people), it does seem it isn’t completely fabricated (as in the NYPD was involved in some way and paparazzi was there). Not saying we should assume anything important, but…

Eh, probably to get more info than from the person who is literally paid to make look as good as possible to make make a judgement on what actually happened. That isn’t to say that we can’t assume Paparazzi were harassing them or were reckless. But the article is based on a statement sent out by someone who is paid to…

? did they claim 10PM was rush-hour? To be clear I agree they are being a bit hot on this (posted about it). But would to star ya but don’t get if “Rush hour? At 10pm? Have *you* been to New York?” is a serious statement or a factious statement.

I’m mean it’s only been a little bit of time. Not that I would trust the Sussex’s PR person at their word (they are paid to make them look as good and sympathetic as possible). But I’m sure we will get more over time from other sides (like the police and maybe some of the Paparazzi). But our media economy doesn’t…

Oh I don’t know that anyone has accused them of anything. But I also don’t trust a PR person for them to be volunteering anything about anything that they may have done (such as reckless driving) to ditch the paparazzi.

So wait, is she only counting on cotton? And only during enslavement in those states? I mean, tobacco was another major crop that was largely crown through slave labor (and that is ignoring the numerous more domestic crops grown all over but heavily using slave labor where allowed). And people leased and rented…

Rule #1, don't sleep with and/or marry your cousin.

“The more time that passes where children are subjected to a threat of unknown origin and unknown magnitude, the greater the danger to their physical and emotional well-being”

Doesn’t seem like a good reason to disregard the safety of others on the road to me.

So, the Paparazzi obviously shouldn’t be driving recklessly. But what started the chase? Where the Paparazzi driving recklessly, or just following them? Did Harry’s vehicle speed up to get out of a dangerous situation (understandable) or just to avoid having pictures and the like (then they would have recklessly…

Not really. Really. Your assailant has no right to sexual access to you (as opposed to Harry and them not really having a right not to be photographed or asked questions in public). Additionally your skirt isn’t endangering others (where as speeding to get away is endangering others).