The Harry and Meghan fuss

[urban genie]

I suspect you don't read the Times as it is behind a paywall (I do but certainly wouldn't pay for the privilege).

It definitely isn't Tory supporting in my view and I'd say it's centre/centre left. The ultra Remain editorial policy is an example of how far off it is. There are plenty of left wing writers on there with shite table tennis player turned even shiter 'journalist' Matthew Syed as a prime example.

The times centre/centre left.


Shirley youra is a parody post

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

The times centre/centre left.


Shirley youra is a parody post

Do you read it or are you just going off recollection from years ago?

There aren't many, if any, articles supporting the government and like I say, the Remain stance is completely at odds with the Conservative party.

They now have to satisfy only those people who are prepared to pay for a subscription and that means a different audience from when people bought the paper.

 

[urban genie]

Do you read it or are you just going off recollection from years ago?

There aren't many, if any, articles supporting the government and like I say, the Remain stance is completely at odds with the Conservative party.

They now have to satisfy only those people who are prepared to pay for a subscription and that means a different audience from when people bought the paper.

Being remain doesn't make you left wing.

Finding this government rubbish doesn't make you left wing.

It is cemte right if anything more new labour teritory, not quite tory, but not far off

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Being remain doesn't make you left wing.

Finding this government rubbish doesn't make you left wing.

It is cemte right if anything more new labour teritory, not quite tory, but not far off

Do you read it or is that just based on your previous knowledge of it? I'd put it close to the Lib Dems and probably that is a commercial decision based on the type of subscriber they have.

Most/all media outlets are based on reaching the maximum audience in order to drive revenue rather than any great ideological ideals.

 

[urban genie]

Do you read it or is that just based on your previous knowledge of it? I'd put it close to the Lib Dems and probably that is a commercial decision based on the type of subscriber they have.

Most/all media outlets are based on reaching the maximum audience in order to drive revenue rather than any great ideological ideals.

Well I don't and wouldn't pay for it so no.

But I never said it was a tory paper, just disagreed with the assesment that it is centre left.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Well I don't and wouldn't pay for it so no.

But I never said it was a tory paper, just disagreed with the assesment that it is centre left.

You're right - it may be left of the current Tory party, but it isn't leftwing by any means. The govt probably view it was leftwing though!

This is up there with the poster a while back who said the Telegraph was balanced because it criticised Johnson - it criticises people it wants out or brought to heel.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Well I don't and wouldn't pay for it so no.

But I never said it was a tory paper, just disagreed with the assesment that it is centre left.

I wouldn't pay to read it either :)

 

[kaz7]

I am not a royalist or anti royal.

I have seen a few bits of this interview and it just seems to contradict themselves in my eyes.

Dont want to work for the royals but still want the freebies and titles.

Why are they so bothered about archie not being a prince when they dont work for the royals ?
Why did they try to say it was down to skin colour when infact it can only happen when Charles is king. Why didnt they not know their facts or was it to try and make it seem more than it is ?

Other working royals pay for their own security yet them being none working still want his tax payers to pay theirs !

To accuse someone of asking what colour will the baby be, but not naming them so putting all the royals under a cloud.

They dont want to be in the press/media but are never out of it ! I never hear of Anne or Edward they seem quite capable of staying out of the press/media.

Funny isnt the royals have only had two Americans in the royal family and both seem to have been trouble !

Stop readi g at dont want to work for the royals , they wanted to work for the queen in the commonweath , keep serving the queen just not in their senior position , the queen said no

 

[ROCKET80]

No mate, there's none so blind as those refusing to see their bias does not
give credence to their opinions. We have no power to privatise the monarchy, what you want is straight out of the Chavez playbook, expropriation.
We've seen the results of that.

Haha Chavez, you are a card!

Privatising comment was a bit of fun but it would appease both sides and if it is possible to abolish it, it must be possible to privatise it in some way.

Yes I am anti-Monarchy so I have no particular dog in this fight. I'm trying my best to see the interview for what it was and not how it is being portrayed by those with a vested interest in it's survival.

The bluster around it is all smoke and mirrors, look over there at Meghan isn't she a woman, look over here at racism, look over there at mental health...Just don't look here at the how it all operates, ignore the comments about the institution/the firm or the symbiotic relationship it has with the press, because if we look closely at it we'll understand it and question the point of it all.

The Monarchy will continue to survive because, I don't know, tourism? tradition? or other such bollocks to peddle to the flag waving serfs.

 

[mat]

Seems the crown princesses PR stunt yesterday has backfired amongst the commoners and peasantry

There's a difference between being discreet and having a Daily Heil photographer with you discreet.