The British Monarchy

[SJT]

Ask yourself if she would have asked the same question of a white woman. Age is not an excuse.
Proven? There is a transcript of the conversation - the evidence is clear - but if you choose to deny what it is, that is your right.

No, I believe there is a transcript, and that's fundamentally wrong in itself, that it even exists at all, I mean, who records conversations? and why? what for?...and isn’t that illegal anyway? certainly to pass that onto a third party is.
You know what - there’s another question here...

'Is it illegal to record a conversation in secret?'​

Recording a conversation in secret is not a criminal offence and is not prohibited. As long as the recording is for personal use you don’t need to obtain consent or let the other person know.

Things change if the matter is addressed with a claim for damages or if the recordings have been shared without the consent of the participants. Even worse, if the recording is sold to third parties or released in public without the consent of the participants then this could be considered a criminal offence.

 

[Ric]

No, I believe there is a transcript, and that's fundamentally wrong in itself, that it even exists at all, I mean, who records conversations? and why? what for?...and isn’t that illegal anyway? certainly to pass that onto a third party is.
You know what - there’s another question here...

'Is it illegal to record a conversation in secret?'​

Recording a conversation in secret is not a criminal offence and is not prohibited. As long as the recording is for personal use you don’t need to obtain consent or let the other person know.

Things change if the matter is addressed with a claim for damages or if the recordings have been shared without the consent of the participants. Even worse, if the recording is sold to third parties or released in public without the consent of the participants then this could be considered a criminal offence.

Is there any actual evidence that Fulani recorded the conversation?! Or is this just the latest smear tactic?

 

[bluethrunthru]

No, I believe there is a transcript, and that's fundamentally wrong in itself, that it even exists at all, I mean, who records conversations? and why? what for?...and isn’t that illegal anyway? certainly to pass that onto a third party is.
You know what - there’s another question here...

'Is it illegal to record a conversation in secret?'​

Recording a conversation in secret is not a criminal offence and is not prohibited. As long as the recording is for personal use you don’t need to obtain consent or let the other person know.

Things change if the matter is addressed with a claim for damages or if the recordings have been shared without the consent of the participants. Even worse, if the recording is sold to third parties or released in public without the consent of the participants then this could be considered a criminal offence.

why is it wrong - she as a person was offended. Three people standing close by heard it all in disbelief. When the three witnesses check on her and ask is she ok they all discuss it and say they can't believe what they heard and repeat it and thats how the recollection comes about - its not sinister - its not illegal - its like some whopper coming up to you in a pub and asking why are you wearing a City top....no why are you wearing a City top..... is it your City top.......are your people from Manchester? Then walking off and Blues around you say to you fuck me mate I just heard that I mean like what was that all about and then you have a chat and what happened is embedded in your memory hence you can recount it later.

The bit you are assiduously overlooking is that the account as presented has not been challenged by Lady Hussey nor the Palace nor denied. Lady Hussey resigned or was asked to or be pushed by the Palace which indicates that they thought it was racist and Ngozi Fulani has made it clear she didn't want or request that to happen.

What has followed from this event is simply a classic case of victim blaming end of.

 

[oldius]

No, I believe there is a transcript, and that's fundamentally wrong in itself, that it even exists at all, I mean, who records conversations? and why? what for?...and isn’t that illegal anyway? certainly to pass that onto a third party is.
You know what - there’s another question here...

'Is it illegal to record a conversation in secret?'​

Recording a conversation in secret is not a criminal offence and is not prohibited. As long as the recording is for personal use you don’t need to obtain consent or let the other person know.

Things change if the matter is addressed with a claim for damages or if the recordings have been shared without the consent of the participants. Even worse, if the recording is sold to third parties or released in public without the consent of the participants then this could be considered a criminal offence.

Does all that stop it being racist?

 

[hilts]

It's a bit like being forced to watch the scousers vs the rags and being told to pick a side. Can't I just think both sides are a bit shit and watch golf.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

You know, although I understood what the monarchy was about and loved the way the Queen dealt with her duties, I don’t really give a monkeys about the rest of them, including whatever is going on with H&M in the celeb reality space, but when I see Camilla, the Queen Consort, I feel a sense of detest.

I just don’t know why.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Who gives a fuck, honestly Harry fought for his country and I respect that but seems he’s been pussy whipped, old white family are set in their ways with racist undertones, shock horror! Now they’ve fucked off to USA just stay there and be irrelevant.

 

[BlueHammer85]

James O'Brien exposes the 'national embarassment' of newspapers hating Sussexes

After the release of two trailers for Harry and Meghan’s documentary series set to air this week, James O’Brien challenges newspapers on why they keep talking about the royal couple if they want them to receive less attention.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[bluethrunthru]

Its Wednesday - its still not aired - so many people making so much out of a 60 second promo video

 

[Brewster's millions]

James O'Brien exposes the 'national embarassment' of newspapers hating Sussexes

After the release of two trailers for Harry and Meghan’s documentary series set to air this week, James O’Brien challenges newspapers on why they keep talking about the royal couple if they want them to receive less attention.

www.lbc.co.uk

On that logic then, shouldn’t he just be ignoring the newspapers, which he believes should be ignoring the idiots in California in the first place? I presume he believes there’s lots of other, more deserving news stories to cover on his show, so why publicise the newspapers and draw attention to their poor behaviour?

Or is he just publicising the newspapers - which he so clearly disapproves of - to get people to listen to his show, and to get people to click on the LBC website?

I’m not sure he really thought that one through.