Things i really dislike or downright hate.

boltonbonce wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Btw Sluffy, Boncey, has taken to altering my posts to amuse his nearly sane intellect

I most certainly have not. Although I was tempted to translate some of them into English.

Ah, apologies to both of you.

It seems that one of the other Admins had 'censored' the words 'twerp' and 'twerps' to read instead 'Silly or annoying people' everytime those words are typed.

I've had to change it back to how it was in order that I could post this explanation.

I'm not trying to get in the middle of things over a word but maybe it is time to move on from using 'twerps' from now on as clearly it is causing unnecessary annoyance to others.

Many thanks for your cooperation with this.

Was listening to a former head of Palace security who responded to their claim that they (and baby Archie awwwww) were not given a security team as others royals have - with the implication that the firm were intentionally putting their baby at risk.
Guy pointed out that they had a security team in the UK and in Canada but when they quit the firm and moved to the States it was withdrawn.
Basically because they had packed their jobs in and were no longer representing the Queen. He made the point about having foreign aka British armed guards is only allowed by the US for diplomats and representatives of the Queen - so as they had packed in their jobs it wasn't legally possible anymore and moreover it had been their decision to forego that privilege.
A bit like telling your boss where to stick his job but still expecting to use the company car.

The thing that winds me up most about these morons is that they claim that they wanted out because of the pressure of media attention and having to make public appearances. Kinda conflicts with the idea of setting up an attention-seeking worldwide broadcast interview with Oprah doesn't it?

As for the alleged racist comment, seems to me she was getting that in early to control the narrative, although it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a certain royal did come out with a proper racist comment. At least they seem to be waiting until he comes out of hospital before naming the old goat

It's not media coverage per se that they object to, but the vicious campaign against Meghan that began the day she set foot on British soil. 

Obviously Harry is permanently conscious of the fact that his mother was harassed and finally died, partly due to the influence of the paparazzi and would want to ensure that the same does not happen to his wife, as you would. 

Even if only half the things that they mention are true, that would still constitute more than adequate grounds for their actions which--notice-- are not accusatory but mere recounts of the things that have taken place. In fact, they have exonerated the Queen, refused to accuse any particular person of racism and talked in loving terms of their family. They are keen to reconcile where there have been tensions. 

They should have been left alone to get on with their lives, as should Diana, as should we all, including all the famous and not-so-famous people to whom the gutter press have been forced to make payments in settlement for lies and harassment.

 The royal family bring in huge amounts of money to the UK via tourism. For their privileges, they understand they will be the subject of media coverage but that doesn't mean that they should be made targets for grosssly unfair vilification. There is a world of difference between publicity and constant sniping by the media that causes mental torment and distress.

Sluffy wrote:

Ah, apologies to both of you.

It seems that one of the other Admins had 'censored' the words 'twerp' and 'twerps' to read instead 'Silly or annoying people' everytime those words are typed.

I've had to change it back to how it was in order that I could post this explanation.

I'm not trying to get in the middle of things over a word but maybe it is time to move on from using 'twerps' now as clearly it is causing unnecessary annoyance to others.

Many thanks for your cooperation with this.

Great Scott! If they start swapping a word for 'slippers' , mayhem might ensue.

With possibly hilarious consequences. Which reminds me, I might one day tell you about my encounter with Kenneth Williams.

And now, just before 6pm today, the royal  family's response.....perfect, as you would expect from the Queen.

Wise, conciliatory and hitting all the right notes of understanding. love and concern.

It's the vicious media that is the villain here.....as it always is. Their influence is enormous, causing division and hatred, setting  the tone in a most objectionable way.....not just about this situation but also about politics, Brexit, sport, culture. Only two newspapers are neutral, the rest push their agendas relentlessly, and too often hatefully.

The wedding of Harry and Meghan could and should have been the catalyst for modernising the monarchy, making it relevant for this century, but a black actress was never accepted by the media from day one. The press made her life a misery, with consequent sadness and lost opportunity for a much wider world. 

I hope the private Royal inquiry is successful, but previous failed lessons from how Lady Di or Millie Dowler were treated don't give us much cause for optimism that real change can occur.

The recommendations of the Leveson Report must now be resurrected and implemented fully, with no scope for self-regulation any more. The media must be forced into adopting a set of priciples based on common decency and fairness. No longer can they hide behind the right to free speech when that right is constantly abused.

.....and now, before 7pm, Morgan has "left" GMB after 41000 complaints to Ofcom and ITV. concerning his abuse of Meghan and his disregard for mental health issues.

Good riddance to a mere apology of a human being. May you not suffer from such problems as you have caused.

I liked watching Piers Morgan, liked the way he pressed the politicians for answers when they were avoiding answering the questions.

He’s a cock.

He never let's the person he is interviewing try to defend themselves by answering the question. It's just a barage of crap that comes out of his mouth to feed his big ego.

I do agree with the odd thing but thats's about it.

I'm surprised he had lasted so long on GMB TBH.

karlypants wrote:He’s a cock.

He never let's the person he is interviewing try to defend themselves by answering the question. It's just a barage of crap that comes out of his mouth to feed his big ego.

I do agree with the odd thing but thats's about it.

I'm surprised he had lasted so long on GMB TBH.

I thought this was a very good explanation of things and well worth a read -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56341511

I don't follow celeb culture, Morgan, or social media but from what little I've read what Morgan said...

On Monday's programme, Morgan picked up on the duchess's claim that her request to senior Buckingham Palace officials for help was rejected, after she told Winfrey she had had suicidal thoughts.

"Who did you go to?" he said. "What did they say to you? I'm sorry, I don't believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn't believe it if she read me a weather report.

"The fact that she's fired up this onslaught against our Royal Family I think is contemptible."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56334082

...I agree with.

With their type of money they could have got the best help in the world and received it in the utmost secrecy too!

I'm not having it at all that they 'sought' help within the 'firm' and when they were told 'no' simply reluctantly 'accepted' it!

Doesn't make any sense does it???

She may have been ill and not thinking straight but her husband Harry, with at least £10m to his name at the time could have got her the help she needed if it was all genuine as is claimed.

Why didn't he then?

Sounds like complete bollocks to me - and if one part of their tale smells like bullshit then how much of the rest of it is too?

I'm not standing up for Morgan, he's big enough to do that for himself but I agree with him that her story just doesn't ring true.

If you are ill and money is no object - then you get help (or your love one does for you) - simple as that.

They didn't.

Why was that then...?

Funny how Oprah seemed not to ask that question either - I would have, seems an obvious one to ask to me.

Sluffy wrote:

I thought this was a very good explanation of things and well worth a read -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56341511

I don't follow celeb culture, Morgan, or social media but from what little I've read what Morgan said...

On Monday's programme, Morgan picked up on the duchess's claim that her request to senior Buckingham Palace officials for help was rejected, after she told Winfrey she had had suicidal thoughts.

"Who did you go to?" he said. "What did they say to you? I'm sorry, I don't believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn't believe it if she read me a weather report.

"The fact that she's fired up this onslaught against our Royal Family I think is contemptible."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56334082

...I agree with.

With their type of money they could have got the best help in the world and received it in the utmost secrecy too!

I'm not having it at all that they only 'sought' help within the 'firm' and when they were told 'no' they simply reluctantly 'accepted' that as an end to the matter!

Doesn't make any sense does it???

She may have been ill and not thinking straight but her husband Harry, with at least £10m to his name at the time could have got her the help she needed if it was all genuine as is claimed.

Why didn't he then?

Sounds like complete bollocks to me - and if one part of their tale smells like bullshit then how much of the rest of it is too?

I'm not standing up for Morgan, he's big enough to do that for himself but I agree with him that her story just doesn't ring true.

If you are ill and money is no object - then you get help (or your love one does for you) - simple as that.

They didn't.

Why was that then...?

Funny how Oprah seemed not to ask that question either - I would have, seems an obvious one to ask to me.

Whatever anyone may think of Piers Morgan, there's summat wrong with Ms Markle and its not got much to do with the colour of her skin or her nationality.  I'm not supposed to use the T-word but there's no shortage of other words to describe what a pea-brain Harry is and its hard to see how his bell is going to ring anytime soon.

I can actually believe that she went to the senior officials and they did nothing, does no one remember how they treated Diana and how they initially handled her death? 

Its all about image with the Royals and i suspect that the actual Royals themselves know very little of what goes on day to day and the senior officials keep the machine running and see themselves as above the rest of us mere mortals.

As for Morgan, he was a bully who never let people get a word in edgeways so no great loss for me, just make sure Susanna stays 

I don't give a flying fig about the Royal family, Meghan or Morgan but for what it's worth I think she is just playing the victim card.

Going back a bit, were talking about a royal who thought it was fine, admittedly when he was younger, to go to a fancy dress party, dressed as Hitler. (no excuses, he was old enough to know better). I don't think he's as bright as we would all hope, and he's now being manipulated mercilessly. I have no doubt that some way down the road, when his usefulness is over, he'll be kicked into touch.

Written by columnist, Marina Hyde, shortly before the courts found in favour of Meghan and her suit against The Daily Mail re the right to privacy.

POSTED EDITED

The reason for this post (and future ones) to be removed is quite simple in that this site as ALWAYS insisted that any articles that are copied and pasted on to this forum include the link to the original publisher.

We do this for two reasons, the first is to protect ourselves from potential copyright claims and the second is to give the context to what is quoted is said - any quote can mean anything you want it to taken out of context.

I've asked repeatedly that the person behind this account comply with the site rules - and yet again they have not.

If they can manage to copy and paste a multi-paragraphed article, as was the case in this instance, then they can easily post the link to it also if they had wanted to.

Please provide links to articles that have been copied and paste from elsewhere in future, otherwise they will be removed from the forum.

Thank you.

Sluffy.

I'm still struggling to understand how Morgan saying that he doesn't believe her (i.e. questioning her honesty/credibility) can in any way be construed as an attack on the seriousness of mental health issues.

Totally unrelated issues as far as I can tell.

Enjoy....

wanderlust wrote:I'm still struggling to understand how Morgan saying that he doesn't believe her (i.e. questioning her honesty/credibility) can in any way be construed as an attack on the seriousness of mental health issues.

Totally unrelated issues as far as I can tell.

I'd have to disagree Lusty, they are linked. It sends out the wrong message that people with genuine mental health issues will feel they can't share their feelings in case they get told to man up or similar or told they are lying or exaggerating their problems.

wanderlust wrote:I'm still struggling to understand how Morgan saying that he doesn't believe her (i.e. questioning her honesty/credibility) can in any way be construed as an attack on the seriousness of mental health issues.

Totally unrelated issues as far as I can tell.

Haven't seen the programme but if that is all he said it is ridiculous. It seems that there are too many people who are offended by the mere mention of a contentious subject.

Norpig wrote:

I'd have to disagree Lusty, they are linked. It sends out the wrong message that people with genuine mental health issues will feel they can't share their feelings in case they get told to man up or similar or told they are lying or exaggerating their problems.

I get the point you are making Norpig but there seems to be a tendency these days to automatically believe anyone who claims to be a victim of some sort - remember Carl Beech? Just because somebody says something it does not mean it is true. Whether Morgan should have expressed his opinion is debateable though.

I actually posted earlier about me struggling at the moment due to a few different things then deleted it as i was embarrassed which kind of proves my point. People are too afraid to say anything for fear of ridicule or to be accused of milking it.