Brutal sport of royal baiting

The sight of royal tears this week would not have bothered media who reported them. Far from it. They’d have been an exciting development. As for the young Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, who really cares? She’s rich and good looking, and her tears are tabloid gold.

I don’t like the rich much either, but I’m reminded of the brutal old ‘‘sport’’ of bear baiting. You know, it’s funny if it screams.

I guess in the UK it’s revenge on the class system where Eton and Oxford run the show, and royalty gets the pretty girls. In a display of dormitory taunting, and as a taste of how the elite prepares for governing, the old Etonian former prime minister calls the current old Etonian one ‘‘the greased piglet’’.

The Duke of Sussex is an old Etonian too, but he’s never been a wit. The possible ‘‘joke’’ of him once wearing Nazi drag misfired. His wife isn’t jokey either. They are achingly sincere, and so achingly vulnerable.

Julian Assange, who I’ve never called a hero, also had me feeling a bit sorry for him this week. He appeared in court to be an emotional wreck, the end result of publishing classified material on one hand, and dodging rape charges in Sweden on the other.

It’s no fun to be in the teeth of the pitiless legal system. The fatal flaw theory had it that you bring such tragedy on yourself through a failing in your nature. In Assange’s case it would be hubris, which is sad in itself because we’re all human and have a share of it. But that’s as much sympathy as an accused sex offender who evaded justice gets from me.

I’ll save it for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, whose life in the aquarium of celebrity is making them miserable, and whose fatal flaw is being human. You need a steel-plated ego to thrive in that world, by turn envied and ripped to shreds. That savage sport was once played exclusively by tabloid media, but you can be hounded today on multiple fronts, with phone tapping, women’s magazines trumpeting lies from gaudy covers, and the ruthless internet.

Privacy? Who cares? People are justly shocked by stalkers, but they’re magnified many times more if you’re a famous actor, or beauty, or just marry into royalty.

Relentless scrutiny is corrosive. The best tactic is not to react, but when you’re a Californian, like Meghan, you believe it’s possible to win hearts with honesty, yoga, bean curd, and doing no harm. Not so. Very not so. You should be especially on the alert when you’ve been softened up by a friendly journalist and camera crew who’ve trailed you around Africa, hopefully making an anodyne documentary about your good works and charitable plans. You may have come to trust them, because familiarity breeds trust, but trust is a luxury you can’t afford. The journalist involved moved in for an interview with gentle promptings, and was rewarded with Meghan’s unwise truth.

The royal family doesn’t do honesty about its feelings. As far as we know the Queen doesn’t have any. Instead it does public relations, hinting vaguely at concern over serious matters, and gets photographed going to church. Nobody objects to harmless Christian piety and silly hats.

Meghan and Harry are suing some print media, but this invasion of their privacy came with their permission. Honest revelations about their difficulties with celebrity then became ammunition to fire at them. That’s quite usual, but not illegal.

If they’ve any sense the royal portcullis will now clang shut, and nobody will get close to them again.

Noting Vivienne Peters complaining on seeing a dog peeing in the CBD, I’ve seen it too, even in the suburbs – really sickening isn’t it? I’ve even seen cats from other properties in my garden (and birds pooing).

Please send me some ideas on getting rid of these filthy creatures from our planet so us humans can . . . ?

When I was training to be a police officer in the UK back in the late 60s, I was taught, unofficially, always to tick the ‘‘speed was a factor’’ box in my reports. This ensured that 100 per cent of accidents reported by me would show speed as a factor.

It was a false premise because speed is nearly always a factor when considering the degree of injury but almost never a guide to the cause of the accident.

I believe that poor driver behaviour is the over-riding cause of road accidents.

In 200 words it isn’t possible for me

to address your page 5 rewrite (on Monday) of the NZTA website. I can only say that NZTA’S journey-time sums are simply wrong; slower speed limits mean slower drivers; New Zealand roads are unique, not least because of their construction. The NZTA initiative is aimed fairly at improving Road Safety, however blanket speed limits do not achieve improved safety.

Speed is a factor in the toll of injuries, driver behaviour is the major factor in road safety.

Let’s make our roads safer, not necessarily slower.