The Harry and Meghan fuss

Invisible Man's Bandage said:
So you couldn't care less if they bullied their staff? They had a huge churn with their staff over a very short period and seemingly none of them stuck around very long. I'd be very interested to hear what those staff members recall as 'their truth'.
Click to expand...

I’m sure we all would, and while they are investigating they can also do the rest of the Royal Family because if there isn’t a culture of bullying at the Palace I’d be amazed. An archaic, heredity system built on rank and privilege? I’m sure it functions like a hippie commune.

They can also do a dive into Prince Andrew and his ‘activities’. Now wouldn’t that ‘truth’ be worth reading about?

Whatever the truth of the bullying claims against Meghan, the fact remains it will be spun as a smear or the consequences of the isolation and pressures she was subjected to. The only people that will buy it are the people who don‘t support her or her actions so it isn’t going to move the dial.

It‘s a bad PR move because it can lead to other areas and the Royal Family is less than squeaky clean. Also, the Palace and the British media are getting their arses handed to them on a global stage, so they still want to go head to head with her? Seriously, how dumb are these people?
 
urban genie said:
Seems the crown princesses PR stunt yesterday has backfired amongst the commoners and peasantry
Click to expand...
You'd 'a thought somebody in the Royal PR would have advised her to turn up, make sure some friendly press photographers get photos of her getting out of the car walking to the site while she puts her mask on making it all look natural and seamless.
Job done and it doesn't look like it's a stunt.
Whereas now....
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
The Times has an article saying that the investigation into bullying allegations against both Harry & Meghan has been handed over to an outside law firm. This is interesting as normally you would expect at best a discreet internal check followed by not a lot.

The article says that the most serious allegations aren't yet in the public domain and many of them are 'harrowing'. If these claims are found to be true by an independent investigation then you'd expect the pair of them to be finished in the UK but I suppose that won't bother at least one of them.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, the paper known as the Tory Times.
A word (or two) in your shell like.
Prince Andrew.
 
give it to gordon said:
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 !
Click to expand...
You're right.
But I wouldn't overthink it.
These kind of crises will happen from to time with this anachronistic institution.
When Liz goes it will (IMO) face the biggest crisis of all - it's survival.
In the meantime let's all have a larf at them!
 
Len Rum said:
Oh yes, the paper known as the Tory Times.
A word (or two) in your shell like.
Prince Andrew.
Click to expand...
A couple of points. The Times isn’t particularly a Tory paper these days and it is heavily pro Remain, for instance.

Andrew is an obnoxious **** and always has been. However, any accusations of paedophile criminal activity has got fuck all to do with the palace. They have to be investigated by law enforcement agencies and they should be. Bullying isn’t criminal and so shouldn’t be investigated as a potential crime.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
A couple of points. The Times isn’t particularly a Tory paper these days and it is heavily pro Remain, for instance.

Andrew is an obnoxious **** and always has been. However, any accusations of paedophile criminal activity has got fuck all to do with the palace. They have to be investigated by law enforcement agencies and they should be. Bullying isn’t criminal and so shouldn’t be investigated as a potential crime.
Click to expand...
Far too sensible and 'technical' a reply mate.
You 're missing the bigger picture.
Oh and by the way the Times used to be a heavyweight slightly right of centre paper but 'these days' has gone full on Tory.
 
Len Rum said:
Far too sensible and 'technical' a reply mate.
You 're missing the bigger picture.
Oh and by the way the Times used to be a heavyweight slightly right of centre paper but 'these days' has gone full on Tory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
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.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one mate ( the Times).
As for Syed do not get me going on that one!
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
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.
Click to expand...

The times centre/centre left.


Shirley youra is a parody post
 
urban genie said:
The times centre/centre left.


Shirley youra is a parody post
Click to expand...

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.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
urban genie said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
urban genie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
give it to gordon said:
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 !
Click to expand...
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
 
Ancient Citizen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 bitch, 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top