"They hide the training of marxist internationalism". This reminds me very much of their piece on Ralph Miliband, and by nudge-wink implication Ed Miliband, although this time without the antisemitic subtext as part of the whole sparkling package too.
Very Daily Mail, isn't it? Wrong conclusions built on a leaning tower of mainly false assumptions, wound up to be as sensationalist / sh*tstirring as possible, garnished with a pile of falsehoods, and an occasional nugget of factual truth to try and disarm the reader.
Suspect that Merkel's dad's ability to travel East / West was because he was a Lutheran Clergyman who had come from the West in the 1950s. Interesting family, however - grandparent was a Senator in Free Danzig (ie Gdansk).
To my eye, far from swallowing Marxist whatever, her experience in E. Germany seems to have significantly inured her against it. For which we can be grateful.
I was going to say, hasn't lots of her perceived missteps been previously being put down to exactly this, not wanting to repeat the mistakes of what she saw growing up in Communist East Germany.
Even by Daily Mail standards it is a very strange article.
Some Scots waking up to the fact the fact that the real nasty party is, and always has been, the SNP.
Usual crap from you, back under your rock for another week or two please.
Stop Press! A Nat uses the word please!! Well done, keep going to the lessons, perhaps you might even learn to be a decent human being. Your next challenge will be to stop being a hate filled purveyor of false history, and avoid starting sentences in your head with "I don't really hate the English but.."
I guess it doesn't worry you at all that Nicola apologised to the women that who were “failed” by the botched probe? What does this mean? Either she is lying and we believe the women were lying conspirators or that Salmond was lying about them all lying? I guess it also doesn't bother you about the nationalist trolls and Charlie Kennedy?
Nasty party indeed! Nationalism is a poisonous creed, and the Scottish version is one of the most hate filled. Many of your posts prove this. Go on, your little angry man, Little Scotlander response will no doubt prove me right.
Scottish Nationalists are poisonous and hate filled, says a poisonous and hate filled man.
Terrible idea. Kids don't learn more by being at school longer, just as people don't get more work done by being at work longer
Any evidence for that?
After school clubs and activities work well for those that do it.
I don't think there's anything magical about the current length of the school day.
I think some reform of school patterns is an excellent idea.
Whether I think Gavin wotsit is capable of delivering anything useful is a different question.
Continental day, more social things around schools, four or five terms, and more evenly distributed holidays seem to be good ideas to me.
If they also can back down from forcing Heads to behave like a petty-gestapo on school absence, that would be really excellent.
Does anybody think the fireplace salesman is the right man to oversee quite a significant change?
Personally I think it is a good idea, along with the biggest levelling of the playing field, the post A-Level application to unis, which the government is pursuing. It should be tied into this reshuffle of the school year.
If they follow through on this, that is a different matter.
Some Scots waking up to the fact the fact that the real nasty party is, and always has been, the SNP.
It is open door opportunity time for the other parties, thats for sure. The challenge for the other parties is that if they are campaigning on "the SNP are corrupt, vote for us", its a bit back to basics.
This is especially an issue for the Tories. Davidson's imminent chicken run to the Lords makes it hard to attack on democracy grounds. As for attacking on corruption or competence grounds, again difficult to do considering the Westminster government's shenanigans.
I can see turnout - lack of it - being the real change vs 2016.
Douglas Ross will lead the Holyrood campaign to be fair, but from a cast iron large majority in little over a week a poll this morning gives the SNP a majority of 1 and it should be also noted from the polling the Greens are losing a few points
Last week has opened the door to a different result in Holyrood than anyone thought before
If the drop in the Greens support is genuine, does that mean a reduction in the desire for independence or a reaction building against wokeness?
I'd like to say it's because they have been listening to more Green politicos or reading Green Manifestos whilst not drunk, but it probably is not.
Siri, can you me something more needle dicked than flying a small plane over Scotland's two largest cities with a banner saying "Resign Sturgeon" hanging off its arse?
Siri, can you me something more needle dicked than flying a small plane over Scotland's two largest cities with a banner saying "Resign Sturgeon" hanging off its arse?
Anyway politics off the agenda for the media today as they go way over the top with the Sussex's interview
Really who cares?
People always ask that but it sells papers and gets enough attention that media feel they need to do it. The answer is lots of people.
I wont bother to watch, but after such build up there better be something juicy out of it.
I won't be watching it either but I feel sorry for them.
The way they're being treated is like people who leave a cult getting shunned and ostracised by their own family.
They are the ones behaving appallingly. I just hope they stay in America, period. They are a busted flush on the UK.
Marrying an American never works.. there is history...
Confirmation bias does an awful lot of work here: those who are already republican or unsympathetic to the royal family are inclined to take Harry and Meghan's side, and vice-versa.
I've seen enough evidence to be fairly certain that (a) Meghan found it hard and wasn't prepared for the constraints and criticism that come with being a royal (b) she behaved with an exceptional sense of entitlement and treated many of her staff like a Hollywood diva, and her side doesn't deny that allegations of complaints exist (c) HMQ tried her best to find a solution that squared the circle, although she couldn't let them have their cake and eat it as that's not what being an active royal means or can mean (d) Harry has been torn and conflicted throughout but has sided with her as he genuinely loves her and much of the above played into his pre-existing fears and anxieties.
It seems to be they should have taken the middle ground solution, respecting Harry's difficult position, his friends and family in the UK, the impact on the wider institution, the need to give Meghan the flexibility and profile she wanted, and the Royals should have done their best to close down nasty snides and attacks from parts of the media at the same time, but it all fell apart and they seem to have gone nuclear instead.
Personally? I think Meghan has far more of her Dad in her than she'd care to admit.
In a way I feel most sorry for Harry as he's had to change most, from a fairly unremarkable member of the Royals to a campaigner against the media bombarding his wife. I think he deserves a lot of credit.
As for Meghan, I like her (and didn't like Diana, who seemed to want a cult of herself, though it's hard to assess fairly) but in any case I think the Palace staff are remarkably ill-advised to make it into a briefing contest with the media. If they merely said "The Sussexes are now pursuing their own course and we wish them every success" the story would die away quickly. It takes two to have a feud.
I don't think the Palace staff have initiating anything here. It's absurd to suggest they are. They have kept their lips sealed for a long time but, if they are going to be personally criticised in public, are ready to point out just how badly she treated some of them in response. There is particular resentment at the insidious accusation they might be institutionally racist - where the Royal Household has an exemplary diversity policy and appointed Nana Kofi, the Queen's equerry, as her mentor - and bent over backwards to be inclusive.
I think she struggled with the pecking order and hierarchy of monarchy as an institution - that is a feature, not a bug - and probably explains why so many republicans sympathize with her, but be in no doubt she behaved badly and ungratefully, and was entirely self-centred.
This pol and the other one yesterday offer a great opportunity for Unionist parties to fight effectively agsinst the SNP. However, I doubt whether either the LDs or Labour have it in them to play their part of the bargain and vote Tory where they are the challengers. In failing they could well bring the Union down.
Works both ways of course, in many places.
That is my point - the Tories have shown willing at both party and voter level. Not so the other two.
Of course. You have misunderstood the situation. We have it on the authority of HY no less, that the top priority for Conservatives is to defeat the SNP. It follows that Conservatives will vote for Lib Dem or Labour candidates if they have a good chance of defeating an SNP candidate.
On the other hand, most normal Labour and Lib Dem voters strongly dislike the Tories, and even more so under the leadership of the present shower. There is nothing I want to see as much as Conservative candidates defeated. I could even be persuaded to consider voting SNP (were the conditions right), so much do I detest and despise the present government.
Golly. How thick are you? Bye bye Union.
Regardless of whether or not he thinks the Union is any use, he might as well do as he sees fit. Unionist tactical voting is pointless, because the absolute floor of support for the SNP is now 45%, or somewhere very close to it (some of that will bleed away to the Greens on the list vote in May, but only because they are also very pro-independence and can be relied upon never in a million years to prop up the Tories.)
Scotland will elect an endless series of Nationalist Governments until independence occurs. The direction of travel is set. It's just a matter of how long it takes to get there.
At the 2017 GE SNP support fell to 37%. That can happen again.
This pol and the other one yesterday offer a great opportunity for Unionist parties to fight effectively agsinst the SNP. However, I doubt whether either the LDs or Labour have it in them to play their part of the bargain and vote Tory where they are the challengers. In failing they could well bring the Union down.
Works both ways of course, in many places.
That is my point - the Tories have shown willing at both party and voter level. Not so the other two.
Of course. You have misunderstood the situation. We have it on the authority of HY no less, that the top priority for Conservatives is to defeat the SNP. It follows that Conservatives will vote for Lib Dem or Labour candidates if they have a good chance of defeating an SNP candidate.
On the other hand, most normal Labour and Lib Dem voters strongly dislike the Tories, and even more so under the leadership of the present shower. There is nothing I want to see as much as Conservative candidates defeated. I could even be persuaded to consider voting SNP (were the conditions right), so much do I detest and despise the present government.
That is really stretching it , if the Tories great hopes are based on these two insignificant wards in Lanarkshire , where we saw a swing to SNP in reality.
On today's Panelbase poll there is a 0.25% swing from SNP to Scottish Conservative on the constituency vote since 2016
Much less than MOE then , that will surely make all the difference
SNP seats like Edinburgh Pentlands, Perthshire South and Kinrossshire and Aberdeen South and North Kincardine had an SNP vote under 40% in 2016 and would fall with that swing and even the smallest Labour and LD tactical voting for the Conservatives
Just for you HYFUD, given the numbers quoted are unweighted, here are the real numbers that will surely be confirmed soon. I wonder why they released unweighted numbers, very odd indeed.
Irrespective of the poll you like and the one you do not, it is clear this last week has been a PR disaster for Sturgeon and the mood music is changing
There is a lot more to come on this between now and May and the drip drip of incompetence and stitch ups are going to have a toll on both her and independence
People should note SNP is not same as INDEPENDENCE
Anyway politics off the agenda for the media today as they go way over the top with the Sussex's interview
Really who cares?
People always ask that but it sells papers and gets enough attention that media feel they need to do it. The answer is lots of people.
I wont bother to watch, but after such build up there better be something juicy out of it.
I won't be watching it either but I feel sorry for them.
The way they're being treated is like people who leave a cult getting shunned and ostracised by their own family.
They are the ones behaving appallingly. I just hope they stay in America, period. They are a busted flush on the UK.
Marrying an American never works.. there is history...
Confirmation bias does an awful lot of work here: those who are already republican or unsympathetic to the royal family are inclined to take Harry and Meghan's side, and vice-versa.
I've seen enough evidence to be fairly certain that (a) Meghan found it hard and wasn't prepared for the constraints and criticism that come with being a royal (b) she behaved with an exceptional sense of entitlement and treated many of her staff like a Hollywood diva, and her side doesn't deny that allegations of complaints exist (c) HMQ tried her best to find a solution that squared the circle, although she couldn't let them have their cake and eat it as that's not what being an active royal means or can mean (d) Harry has been torn and conflicted throughout but has sided with her as he genuinely loves her and much of the above played into his pre-existing fears and anxieties.
It seems to be they should have taken the middle ground solution, respecting Harry's difficult position, his friends and family in the UK, the impact on the wider institution, the need to give Meghan the flexibility and profile she wanted, and the Royals should have done their best to close down nasty snides and attacks from parts of the media at the same time, but it all fell apart and they seem to have gone nuclear instead.
Personally? I think Meghan has far more of her Dad in her than she'd care to admit.
In a way I feel most sorry for Harry as he's had to change most, from a fairly unremarkable member of the Royals to a campaigner against the media bombarding his wife. I think he deserves a lot of credit.
As for Meghan, I like her (and didn't like Diana, who seemed to want a cult of herself, though it's hard to assess fairly) but in any case I think the Palace staff are remarkably ill-advised to make it into a briefing contest with the media. If they merely said "The Sussexes are now pursuing their own course and we wish them every success" the story would die away quickly. It takes two to have a feud.
I don't think the Palace staff have initiating anything here. It's absurd to suggest they are. They have kept their lips sealed for a long time but, if they are going to be personally criticised in public, are ready to point out just how badly she treated some of them in response. There is particular resentment at the insidious accusation they might be institutionally racist - where the Royal Household has an exemplary diversity policy and appointed Nana Kofi, the Queen's equerry, as her mentor - and bent over backwards to be inclusive.
I think she struggled with the pecking order and hierarchy of monarchy as an institution - that is a feature, not a bug - and probably explains why so many republicans sympathize with her, but be in no doubt she behaved badly and ungratefully, and was entirely self-centred.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
More than 120,000 people have died from the coronavirus in the UK, twice the death toll of the blitz, and government advisers are on the record saying that some of those fatalities were avoidable. The government has got a thoroughly deserved name for incompetence and its leader an absolutely merited reputation for slow and bad decision-making in handling several critical aspects of the crisis.
In the past few days, various things have happened that wouldn’t normally endear any government to the electorate. The chancellor has produced a budget which, when stripped of all the marketing, is the harbinger of both a spending squeeze and higher taxes across the board. Health workers are insulted and infuriated that ministers want to give them a miserly 1% increase – a cut after inflation – to their salaries. Taxpayers are forking out £340,000 plus legal costs to avoid a public airing at an employment tribunal of the accusations of bullying against Priti Patel.
The aroma of cronyism and pork-barrelling radiated by this government grows more pungent.
Then there’s the baleful economic consequences of Brexit and the destabilisation it is causing to the brittle politics of Northern Ireland. How does a government become more popular in these circumstances? Pollsters report that the only topic really animating their focus groups is the vaccination programme and how impressive it has been.
The vaccine programme arrived just in time to rescue Mr Johnson from an increasingly alienated public and mutinous Tory party. It has gifted him the opportunity to refresh his story and construct a triumph-out-of-adversity narrative. There is evidently an audience for it.
There's some truth to that, but the tone of the conclusion is just a hair's breath too close to 'how can the public be this dumb?' for my liking.
"The public are shallow suckers". This is the ultimate taboo statement in political discourse. No form of Political Correctness, either old style or Woke, is so powerful as the one which forbids the expression of this sentiment. You say it, you get cancelled.
And I'm not saying it btw. I'm simply meta commenting.
This pol and the other one yesterday offer a great opportunity for Unionist parties to fight effectively agsinst the SNP. However, I doubt whether either the LDs or Labour have it in them to play their part of the bargain and vote Tory where they are the challengers. In failing they could well bring the Union down.
Works both ways of course, in many places.
That is my point - the Tories have shown willing at both party and voter level. Not so the other two.
Of course. You have misunderstood the situation. We have it on the authority of HY no less, that the top priority for Conservatives is to defeat the SNP. It follows that Conservatives will vote for Lib Dem or Labour candidates if they have a good chance of defeating an SNP candidate.
On the other hand, most normal Labour and Lib Dem voters strongly dislike the Tories, and even more so under the leadership of the present shower. There is nothing I want to see as much as Conservative candidates defeated. I could even be persuaded to consider voting SNP (were the conditions right), so much do I detest and despise the present government.
Golly. How thick are you? Bye bye Union.
Regardless of whether or not he thinks the Union is any use, he might as well do as he sees fit. Unionist tactical voting is pointless, because the absolute floor of support for the SNP is now 45%, or somewhere very close to it (some of that will bleed away to the Greens on the list vote in May, but only because they are also very pro-independence and can be relied upon never in a million years to prop up the Tories.)
Scotland will elect an endless series of Nationalist Governments until independence occurs. The direction of travel is set. It's just a matter of how long it takes to get there.
At the 2017 GE SNP support fell to 37%. That can happen again.
That was a temporary fall, caused by independence supporters not turning out to vote because the SNP downplayed independence. Exactly the same think may happen in May.
I posted it last night - my Girlfriend's ex next door neighbour knows a lot of staff at Buck House, and he more or less told her the content of that article about two and a half years ago. She told me at the time but I forgot
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
I posted it last night - my Girlfriend's ex next door neighbour knows a lot of staff at Buck House, and he more or less told her the content of that article about two and a half years ago. She told me at the time but I forgot
Who's the author of the piece, and what was their position?
Worth remembering that there is a big difference between "Royal Household" staff (attached to the institution), and "Royal Family Member" personal staff team. And also between "lifetime staff" and professional staff (eg Public Relations manager) working there for a few years.
Yes. Time for the Tories to wake up from their wet dream. 🙂
I think you will find the government won’t get any lasting credit for beating COVID, politicians are held in too low esteem for this to happen - like a reverse of the last financial crash, was it the banks responsibility (who should have been more risk adverse and diligent with customers deposits) or the the Labour Government? Extremely easy to stitch up politicians on watch for making calls and fail to give them credit because they are held in low esteem.
Which brings us neatly to what destroys this Tory government. One thing that is true, and not arguable really, austerity 2.0 doesn’t run the same course as the first, 2.0 picks up where 1.0 left off. From the start everyone knows, when it comes to pain under a Tory government we won’t all be in it together.
They have to do it, but no amount of leafleting or swish presentation will avoid blame for doing it.
What they have to do is to beat Labour. Nothing yet suggests that Labour will beat the Tories even if all this argument is true.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Isn't it said the same Prince Charles doesn't dress himself?
Yet that black woman is a prima donna? 🙄
His lifestyle would seem extravagant to Louis XIV: a team of four valets so that one is always available to lay out and pick up his clothes; a servant to squeeze his toothpaste on to his brush, and another who once held the specimen bottle while he gave a urine sample. Step into the world of the Prince of Wales, a lifestyle so pampered that even the Queen has complained that it is grotesque.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
Yes, if Diana, Princess of Wales, was alive today she'd back up your assertions that the royal family is never beastly.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Isn't it said the same Prince Charles doesn't dress himself?
Yet that black woman is a prima donna? 🙄
If the Prince is dressed by a valet and always has been, though we would find that alien, it isn't extraordinary or cruel to that valet - it's his job.
More than 120,000 people have died from the coronavirus in the UK, twice the death toll of the blitz, and government advisers are on the record saying that some of those fatalities were avoidable. The government has got a thoroughly deserved name for incompetence and its leader an absolutely merited reputation for slow and bad decision-making in handling several critical aspects of the crisis.
In the past few days, various things have happened that wouldn’t normally endear any government to the electorate. The chancellor has produced a budget which, when stripped of all the marketing, is the harbinger of both a spending squeeze and higher taxes across the board. Health workers are insulted and infuriated that ministers want to give them a miserly 1% increase – a cut after inflation – to their salaries. Taxpayers are forking out £340,000 plus legal costs to avoid a public airing at an employment tribunal of the accusations of bullying against Priti Patel.
The aroma of cronyism and pork-barrelling radiated by this government grows more pungent.
Then there’s the baleful economic consequences of Brexit and the destabilisation it is causing to the brittle politics of Northern Ireland. How does a government become more popular in these circumstances? Pollsters report that the only topic really animating their focus groups is the vaccination programme and how impressive it has been.
The vaccine programme arrived just in time to rescue Mr Johnson from an increasingly alienated public and mutinous Tory party. It has gifted him the opportunity to refresh his story and construct a triumph-out-of-adversity narrative. There is evidently an audience for it.
There's some truth to that, but the tone of the conclusion is just a hair's breath too close to 'how can the public be this dumb?' for my liking.
"The public are shallow suckers". This is the ultimate taboo statement in political discourse. No form of Political Correctness, either old style or Woke, is so powerful as the one which forbids the expression of this sentiment. You say it, you get cancelled.
And I'm not saying it btw. I'm simply meta commenting.
Well, obviously - you never met a meta-comment you didn't like.
But I'd never in a million years want to stop the opposition calling the public shallow suckers. It's one of the best recruiting sergeants we have...
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
That the press have been beastly to her is absolutely 100% true and undeniable.
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
So Megan is a whinny prima donna who would be a terrible boss.
That's not a surprise.
But she's not the first in the royal family.
There's been plenty of revelations about the weirdness and precise demands of Charles for example.
Have there been accusations of bullying and multiple resignations from his household in the space of a few months though, with some of the individuals concerned still in a fragile state years afterwards?
I find it hard to take Meghan's claims of victimhood seriously when she's worth tens of millions, and is still earning millions, and makes modestly paid royal servants who felt they had no choice but to quit their jobs the villians of the piece.
I think it's selfish, self-centred, supremely self-entitled, and utterly delusional. And to lazily accuse any of her critics or sceptics as racist in response frankly stinks.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Isn't it said the same Prince Charles doesn't dress himself?
Yet that black woman is a prima donna? 🙄
If the Prince is dressed by a valet and always has been, though we would find that alien, it isn't extraordinary or cruel to that valet - it's his job.
And those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Anyone in that position shouldn't be calling others prima donnas.
Lol - hands up who wants to pay another 16 billion in tax to give them the 12.5% rise they want?
£16 billion x 8 = a damn sight more than the current nurses' wages bill even if Carrie redecorates every operating theatre out of the same budget. You might have taken the entire NHS budget.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
I don't actually have a problem with that. PC has a personal valet / butler who looks after some aspects of his life - clothes, suits, ironing, perhaps planning the day, looking after laundry, towels and so on. Putting toothbrush out is just a part of that.
Diana used to have a "dresser" who was responsible for co-ordinating her wardrobe, jewellery and so on.
They are just outsourcing parts of their personal life, so they can fit more of the rest in.
Is that not just how people in wealthy lifestyles live? Are wealthy pop figures, industrialists, socialites or Heads of Government any different?
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Very gallant of you to ride to their defence, but these stories have been circulating privately almost since day one. There's a level of prima donna-ism that might be tolerated in Hollywood or the music business (Diana Ross, anyone?) that just doesn't get a free pass with the crowned heads of Europe...
More than 120,000 people have died from the coronavirus in the UK, twice the death toll of the blitz, and government advisers are on the record saying that some of those fatalities were avoidable. The government has got a thoroughly deserved name for incompetence and its leader an absolutely merited reputation for slow and bad decision-making in handling several critical aspects of the crisis.
In the past few days, various things have happened that wouldn’t normally endear any government to the electorate. The chancellor has produced a budget which, when stripped of all the marketing, is the harbinger of both a spending squeeze and higher taxes across the board. Health workers are insulted and infuriated that ministers want to give them a miserly 1% increase – a cut after inflation – to their salaries. Taxpayers are forking out £340,000 plus legal costs to avoid a public airing at an employment tribunal of the accusations of bullying against Priti Patel.
The aroma of cronyism and pork-barrelling radiated by this government grows more pungent.
Then there’s the baleful economic consequences of Brexit and the destabilisation it is causing to the brittle politics of Northern Ireland. How does a government become more popular in these circumstances? Pollsters report that the only topic really animating their focus groups is the vaccination programme and how impressive it has been.
The vaccine programme arrived just in time to rescue Mr Johnson from an increasingly alienated public and mutinous Tory party. It has gifted him the opportunity to refresh his story and construct a triumph-out-of-adversity narrative. There is evidently an audience for it.
There's some truth to that, but the tone of the conclusion is just a hair's breath too close to 'how can the public be this dumb?' for my liking.
"The public are shallow suckers". This is the ultimate taboo statement in political discourse. No form of Political Correctness, either old style or Woke, is so powerful as the one which forbids the expression of this sentiment. You say it, you get cancelled.
And I'm not saying it btw. I'm simply meta commenting.
Well, obviously - you never met a meta-comment you didn't like.
But I'd never in a million years want to stop the opposition calling the public shallow suckers. It's one of the best recruiting sergeants we have...
Which is why I'm not saying that. The public disappoint me sometimes but you have to work with what you have.
Lol - hands up who wants to pay another 16 billion in tax to give them the 12.5% rise they want?
£16 billion x 8 = a damn sight more than the current nurses' wages bill even if Carrie redecorates every operating theatre out of the same budget. You might have taken the entire NHS budget.
Anyone who thinks Meghan is the issue here is so bent out of shape that they don't realise how pathetic it looks to outsiders. Everything that is wrong with the Royals and their sycophants.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Isn't it said the same Prince Charles doesn't dress himself?
Yet that black woman is a prima donna? 🙄
If the Prince is dressed by a valet and always has been, though we would find that alien, it isn't extraordinary or cruel to that valet - it's his job.
And those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Anyone in that position shouldn't be calling others prima donnas.
I think the Prima Donna relates to how staff are treated, and whether they are respected or not.
There I think there may be a difference wrt people that are used to having personal staff, and people who are more like celebs.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Isn't it said the same Prince Charles doesn't dress himself?
Yet that black woman is a prima donna? 🙄
If the Prince is dressed by a valet and always has been, though we would find that alien, it isn't extraordinary or cruel to that valet - it's his job.
And those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Anyone in that position shouldn't be calling others prima donnas.
I was unaware that Prince Charles has called Markle a prima donna - it seems extremely indiscreet and rude. However the fact remains that enjoying Royal privileges with gusto (Charles) is not the same as entering the institution with the sole intention of moulding it to your will, or crying very foul if that doesn't work. If Charles' servants feel bullied into putting his toothpaste on the brush, let's hear it.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Isn't it said the same Prince Charles doesn't dress himself?
Yet that black woman is a prima donna? 🙄
If the Prince is dressed by a valet and always has been, though we would find that alien, it isn't extraordinary or cruel to that valet - it's his job.
And those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Anyone in that position shouldn't be calling others prima donnas.
I was unaware that Prince Charles has called Markle a prima donna - it seems extremely indiscreet and rude. However the fact remains that enjoying Royal privileges with gusto (Charles) is not the same as entering the institution with the sole intention of moulding it to your will, or crying very foul if that doesn't work. If Charles' servants feel bullied into putting his toothpaste on the brush, let's hear it.
He didn't, in fact Charles got on very well with Meghan, even better than with Kate according to some reports.
The Sussexes also still received an allowance from the Duchy of Cornwall long after they stopped doing royal duties
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Very gallant of you to ride to their defence, but these stories have been circulating privately almost since day one. There's a level of prima donna-ism that might be tolerated in Hollywood or the music business (Diana Ross, anyone?) that just doesn't get a free pass with the crowned heads of Europe...
The more one hears about this, the more one things that Meghan really did think her role was to wokify the Royal family.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Very gallant of you to ride to their defence, but these stories have been circulating privately almost since day one. There's a level of prima donna-ism that might be tolerated in Hollywood or the music business (Diana Ross, anyone?) that just doesn't get a free pass with the crowned heads of Europe...
You mean it's the wrong type of prima donna-ism. Not fitting in. Not bending the knee to the correct style of prima donna-ism.
Because the notion that there's no prima donnas in any of the Palaces is a claim so preposterous it would make John McDonnell look like George Osborne.
Has any vaccine, components of vaccine, or vials etc been exported from the UK? Would love to know the answer to that.
Assume you don't count British Overseas Territories like the Falklands/Ascension/St Helena? Gibraltar has had some jabs from us.
IIRC the shipment seized in Italy was there for putting into phials, not actually produced there.
The vaccine production system depends on a lot of chemicals and materials being produced and moved around. again IIRC some of what is required to produce Pfizer in Belgium actually comes from the UK.
This is why the Italian precedent is quite worrying. Not just the vaccines themselves, but what about chemicals, phials etc? Could rapidly snowball into a freeze up of production, since there are very few if any countries that have absolutely everything within their own borders.
Fox is a ghastly guy. He will be eviscerated but will be too thick skinned (or ACT too thick skinned) to care.
The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph are repositories of moaners, a British pastime. I was at a vaccination centre the other day and some lady was moaning away loudly in front of everyone about having to wait 15 minutes after she'd received her jab.
Some years ago I had a cataract operation. There were four or five of us in the waiting room, and after the operation we had to wait for a while; clerical and transport issues. After being 'done' most of us commented on how well we could now see, except one lady who moaned about the dreadful pain, and how she couldn't imaging during that again.
LOL. Proof reading interrupted again! 'imagine' of course.
I was just enjoying the idea of somebody not imaging an operation on their sight.
More to the point I’m not sure anyone needs cataract surgery more than twice (once in each eye) given how it is done.
Glad I'm contributing to the gaiety of nations, even if it's only a couple of them!
One doesn't, of course need more than one cataract operation per eye, AFAIK, but this woman, having had one on her right eye was, apparently, going to need one on her left in the not-too-distant. If I do get a problem in my right eye, the improvement in my left, the one I had done, would ensure I was back to the operating theatre PDQ!
To be fair even routine surgery has a complication rate. She may not be a whinger so much as the one who got the short straw.
It is indeed possible to need cataract-related surgery in one eye more than once. When I had my (dominant) left eye done, the natural lens broke and fell into the vitrea, and the surgeon in attempting to remove it damaged the suspensory ligaments on which the lens sits. This resulted in me needing to have a vitrectomy in that eye to remove the debris (eye pressure raised from a normal 15 to 65 - enough to make a grown man cry), and also to consider a second lens replacement operation in that eye as the inserted lens was not sitting properly on the suspensory ligaments.
I guess the second lens replacement operation (in the end not done because there was too much damage to the ligaments to ensure reasonable success of the second operation) could have been counted as a second cataract operation to the extent that it would have been a second lens replacement (but not of course removal of a cataract)
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Very gallant of you to ride to their defence, but these stories have been circulating privately almost since day one. There's a level of prima donna-ism that might be tolerated in Hollywood or the music business (Diana Ross, anyone?) that just doesn't get a free pass with the crowned heads of Europe...
The more one hears about this, the more one things that Meghan really did think her role was to wokify the Royal family.
On topic. I'm wondering how many Londoners do feel they are being "dominated into silence"? If it's a lot, and they believe Laurence Fox truly is the man to give voice to whatever it is they are wanting to say but can't because of being so frightened, then perhaps he'll do better in the Mayoral election than we think.
Fox is a ghastly guy. He will be eviscerated but will be too thick skinned (or ACT too thick skinned) to care.
The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph are repositories of moaners, a British pastime. I was at a vaccination centre the other day and some lady was moaning away loudly in front of everyone about having to wait 15 minutes after she'd received her jab.
Some years ago I had a cataract operation. There were four or five of us in the waiting room, and after the operation we had to wait for a while; clerical and transport issues. After being 'done' most of us commented on how well we could now see, except one lady who moaned about the dreadful pain, and how she couldn't imaging during that again.
LOL. Proof reading interrupted again! 'imagine' of course.
I was just enjoying the idea of somebody not imaging an operation on their sight.
More to the point I’m not sure anyone needs cataract surgery more than twice (once in each eye) given how it is done.
Glad I'm contributing to the gaiety of nations, even if it's only a couple of them!
One doesn't, of course need more than one cataract operation per eye, AFAIK, but this woman, having had one on her right eye was, apparently, going to need one on her left in the not-too-distant. If I do get a problem in my right eye, the improvement in my left, the one I had done, would ensure I was back to the operating theatre PDQ!
To be fair even routine surgery has a complication rate. She may not be a whinger so much as the one who got the short straw.
It is indeed possible to need cataract-related surgery in one eye more than once. When I had my (dominant) left eye done, the natural lens broke and fell into the vitrea, and the surgeon in attempting to remove it damaged the suspensory ligaments on which the lens sits. This resulted in me needing to have a vitrectomy in that eye to remove the debris (eye pressure raised from a normal 15 to 65 - enough to make a grown man cry), and also to consider a second lens replacement operation in that eye as the inserted lens was not sitting properly on the suspensory ligaments.
I guess the second lens replacement operation (in the end not done because there was too much damage to the ligaments to ensure reasonable success of the second operation) could have been counted as a second cataract operation to the extent that it would have been a second lens replacement (but not of course removal of a cataract)
PS And if the whinging lady involved had very elevated ocular pressure, I don't think it would be fair to call it whinging. One of the worst pains I have ever felt
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
That the press have been beastly to her is absolutely 100% true and undeniable.
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
Now you're just rewriting history. The coverage of their engagement, wedding and the early days following that was overwhelmingly positive. The negative press only started coming out once there was reason for it. In particular, there was rumours of a "feud" between her and Kate, which seems to have been grounded in some sort of fact. And a) there was only going to be one winner there (ie our future Queen) and b) all the evidence we have is that Meghan is not blameless.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
That the press have been beastly to her is absolutely 100% true and undeniable.
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
Now you're just rewriting history. The coverage of their engagement, wedding and the early days following that was overwhelmingly positive. The negative press only started coming out once there was reason for it. In particular, there was rumours of a "feud" between her and Kate, which seems to have been grounded in some sort of fact. And a) there was only going to be one winner there (ie our future Queen) and b) all the evidence we have is that Meghan is not blameless.
Yes tabloids have been smearing shit for years and the notion there should be a "winner" to that is a peculiar one.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Isn't it said the same Prince Charles doesn't dress himself?
Yet that black woman is a prima donna? 🙄
If the Prince is dressed by a valet and always has been, though we would find that alien, it isn't extraordinary or cruel to that valet - it's his job.
And those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Anyone in that position shouldn't be calling others prima donnas.
I was unaware that Prince Charles has called Markle a prima donna - it seems extremely indiscreet and rude. However the fact remains that enjoying Royal privileges with gusto (Charles) is not the same as entering the institution with the sole intention of moulding it to your will, or crying very foul if that doesn't work. If Charles' servants feel bullied into putting his toothpaste on the brush, let's hear it.
There can be dignity in service but that particular job - putting the toothpaste on Charles' brush - is not one I'd relish. Lots of downtime though. And the salary expressed in £ per hour must be astronomical.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Possibly apocryphal, but I think it was in the same round of stories that it was revealed that Charlie required his valet to extricate the royal member from its Turnbull & Asser hiding place for its morning micturation.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Possibly apocryphal, but I think it was in the same round of stories that it was revealed that Charlie required his valet to extricate the royal member from its Turnbull & Asser hiding place for its morning micturation.
'I shook the hand that shook the hand that...'
He may be a pampered adulterous knave but at least he's not a woke black woman. Or worse, an American.
Lol - hands up who wants to pay another 16 billion in tax to give them the 12.5% rise they want?
£16 billion x 8 = a damn sight more than the current nurses' wages bill even if Carrie redecorates every operating theatre out of the same budget. You might have taken the entire NHS budget.
Looks like we have our first volunteer!
I think I contributed the 16bn figure. That was a guestimate based on the poll that said nurses should get 64k.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
That the press have been beastly to her is absolutely 100% true and undeniable.
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
Now you're just rewriting history. The coverage of their engagement, wedding and the early days following that was overwhelmingly positive. The negative press only started coming out once there was reason for it. In particular, there was rumours of a "feud" between her and Kate, which seems to have been grounded in some sort of fact. And a) there was only going to be one winner there (ie our future Queen) and b) all the evidence we have is that Meghan is not blameless.
It's utterly pointless arguing with Philip once he's set his stall out - he never moves off it.
FWIW, I did. I started off as a Meghan fan, and defended her against criticism based on the fact she was an actress, American and of mixed background. I even pointed out she'd got confirmed in the CoE demonstrating her commitment to the institution, and the role she was looking to undertake in future in the Commonwealth.
It was her subsequent behaviour that changed my mind, and all the stories that came out about how she was at the time and how she'd acted since, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
Has any vaccine, components of vaccine, or vials etc been exported from the UK? Would love to know the answer to that.
Assume you don't count British Overseas Territories like the Falklands/Ascension/St Helena? Gibraltar has had some jabs from us.
IIRC the shipment seized in Italy was there for putting into phials, not actually produced there.
The vaccine production system depends on a lot of chemicals and materials being produced and moved around. again IIRC some of what is required to produce Pfizer in Belgium actually comes from the UK.
This is why the Italian precedent is quite worrying. Not just the vaccines themselves, but what about chemicals, phials etc? Could rapidly snowball into a freeze up of production, since there are very few if any countries that have absolutely everything within their own borders.
I'm just wondering if the claim "effective export ban" is true.
Still well ahead in deaths per millions (popln over 12m)
There must be some interesting definition issues around "Covid deaths". For instance, the USA has had 10 times the UK's confirmed cases of Covid - but only 5 times the deaths.
I suggest they will all come out in the wash in due course. Your sense of disappointment then will be palpable.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Possibly apocryphal, but I think it was in the same round of stories that it was revealed that Charlie required his valet to extricate the royal member from its Turnbull & Asser hiding place for its morning micturation.
'I shook the hand that shook the hand that...'
He may be a pampered adulterous knave but at least he's not a woke black woman. Or worse, an American.
I would like to think the Editors consider you have crossed the line with that post. Comedic, or otherwise.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Possibly apocryphal, but I think it was in the same round of stories that it was revealed that Charlie required his valet to extricate the royal member from its Turnbull & Asser hiding place for its morning micturation.
'I shook the hand that shook the hand that...'
Surely not - but it's one you want to believe.
A definitely true one is that somebody irons his morning paper.
Not sure what I think about that. OTOH, oh dear. BOTOH, not a bad idea at all. Why the devil not!
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
That the press have been beastly to her is absolutely 100% true and undeniable.
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
Now you're just rewriting history. The coverage of their engagement, wedding and the early days following that was overwhelmingly positive. The negative press only started coming out once there was reason for it. In particular, there was rumours of a "feud" between her and Kate, which seems to have been grounded in some sort of fact. And a) there was only going to be one winner there (ie our future Queen) and b) all the evidence we have is that Meghan is not blameless.
It's utterly pointless arguing with Philip once he's set his stall out - he never moves off it.
FWIW, I did. I started off as a Meghan fan, and defended her against criticism based on the fact she was an actress, American and of mixed background. I even pointed out she'd got confirmed in the CoE demonstrating her commitment to the institution, and the role she was looking to undertake in future in the Commonwealth.
It was her subsequent behaviour that changed my mind, and all the stories that came out about how she was at the time and how she'd acted since, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
More fool me.
That's not true. I have strong opinions but am open to persuasion with persuasive arguments just as much as the next person. Heck you personally helped convince me to change my vote in the referendum!
How many people here actually change their minds during a debate?
As far as I'm concerned the Royal family calls outsider a prima donna is not a persuasive argument. Can't you understand that viewpoint?
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
Yes, if Diana, Princess of Wales, was alive today she'd back up your assertions that the royal family is never beastly.
I didn't think her complaints had much substance to them either.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Possibly apocryphal, but I think it was in the same round of stories that it was revealed that Charlie required his valet to extricate the royal member from its Turnbull & Asser hiding place for its morning micturation.
'I shook the hand that shook the hand that...'
He may be a pampered adulterous knave but at least he's not a woke black woman. Or worse, an American.
I would like to think the Editors consider you have crossed the line with that post. Comedic, or otherwise.
Still well ahead in deaths per millions (popln over 12m)
There must be some interesting definition issues around "Covid deaths". For instance, the USA has had 10 times the UK's confirmed cases of Covid - but only 5 times the deaths.
I suggest they will all come out in the wash in due course. Your sense of disappointment then will be palpable.
Has any vaccine, components of vaccine, or vials etc been exported from the UK? Would love to know the answer to that.
Assume you don't count British Overseas Territories like the Falklands/Ascension/St Helena? Gibraltar has had some jabs from us.
IIRC the shipment seized in Italy was there for putting into phials, not actually produced there.
The vaccine production system depends on a lot of chemicals and materials being produced and moved around. again IIRC some of what is required to produce Pfizer in Belgium actually comes from the UK.
This is why the Italian precedent is quite worrying. Not just the vaccines themselves, but what about chemicals, phials etc? Could rapidly snowball into a freeze up of production, since there are very few if any countries that have absolutely everything within their own borders.
I'm just wondering if the claim "effective export ban" is true.
That's based on the UK government saying - "Anything you produce, we will buy", for finished vaccines.
We are definitely exporting materials for vaccine productions.
It is worth remembering that there have been massive shortfalls in production for all vaccines compared with best case. The difference is how it has been handled. UK would have had 10 of millions before January 1st if everything had been perfect...
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Possibly apocryphal, but I think it was in the same round of stories that it was revealed that Charlie required his valet to extricate the royal member from its Turnbull & Asser hiding place for its morning micturation.
'I shook the hand that shook the hand that...'
He may be a pampered adulterous knave but at least he's not a woke black woman. Or worse, an American.
It has nothing to do with that, Meghan was still a woke woman in 2018 and at that point more popular than Charles at almost +40% to his +10%.
The reason she has collapsed to a rating of -26% is that UK taxpayers did not appreciate paying for Harry and Meghan's royal wedding only to see them abandon their royal duties after less than 2 years for a life of luxury in California
In any case the division is not really Charles v Meghan, Charles has always got on well with her and still subsidised the Sussexes for the first few months after they left the UK.
No the division is Leavers and Tories and their mouthpiece the Mail against them, Meghan has a -65% rating with Tory voters and -62% with Leavers for example while Harry is on -37% with Tory voters and -31% with Leave voters
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
I don't actually have a problem with that. PC has a personal valet / butler who looks after some aspects of his life - clothes, suits, ironing, perhaps planning the day, looking after laundry, towels and so on. Putting toothbrush out is just a part of that.
Diana used to have a "dresser" who was responsible for co-ordinating her wardrobe, jewellery and so on.
They are just outsourcing parts of their personal life, so they can fit more of the rest in.
Is that not just how people in wealthy lifestyles live? Are wealthy pop figures, industrialists, socialites or Heads of Government any different?
How many popstars deal with their own flowers?
One would need to brush one's teeth many times per day in order for that logic to make much sense, though.
Has any vaccine, components of vaccine, or vials etc been exported from the UK? Would love to know the answer to that.
Assume you don't count British Overseas Territories like the Falklands/Ascension/St Helena? Gibraltar has had some jabs from us.
IIRC the shipment seized in Italy was there for putting into phials, not actually produced there.
The vaccine production system depends on a lot of chemicals and materials being produced and moved around. again IIRC some of what is required to produce Pfizer in Belgium actually comes from the UK.
This is why the Italian precedent is quite worrying. Not just the vaccines themselves, but what about chemicals, phials etc? Could rapidly snowball into a freeze up of production, since there are very few if any countries that have absolutely everything within their own borders.
I'm just wondering if the claim "effective export ban" is true.
As far as I understand no.
What is true is we paid for 100% of the vaccine output from AZ in the UK until we get our 100mn doses delivered from them. Months before anyone else paid for anything.
Being first in the queue and having paid first is not an export ban. It's just being the front of the queue.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Possibly apocryphal, but I think it was in the same round of stories that it was revealed that Charlie required his valet to extricate the royal member from its Turnbull & Asser hiding place for its morning micturation.
'I shook the hand that shook the hand that...'
Surely not - but it's one you want to believe.
A definitely true one is that somebody irons his morning paper.
Not sure what I think about that. OTOH, oh dear. BOTOH, not a bad idea at all. Why the devil not!
IIRC the original reason for ironing a newspaper was that in the Good Olde Days newsprint was really likely to come off the paper and make a mess. Ironing the paper through a cloth "fixed" the ink.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
That the press have been beastly to her is absolutely 100% true and undeniable.
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
Now you're just rewriting history. The coverage of their engagement, wedding and the early days following that was overwhelmingly positive. The negative press only started coming out once there was reason for it. In particular, there was rumours of a "feud" between her and Kate, which seems to have been grounded in some sort of fact. And a) there was only going to be one winner there (ie our future Queen) and b) all the evidence we have is that Meghan is not blameless.
It's utterly pointless arguing with Philip once he's set his stall out - he never moves off it.
FWIW, I did. I started off as a Meghan fan, and defended her against criticism based on the fact she was an actress, American and of mixed background. I even pointed out she'd got confirmed in the CoE demonstrating her commitment to the institution, and the role she was looking to undertake in future in the Commonwealth.
It was her subsequent behaviour that changed my mind, and all the stories that came out about how she was at the time and how she'd acted since, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
More fool me.
That's not true. I have strong opinions but am open to persuasion with persuasive arguments just as much as the next person. Heck you personally helped convince me to change my vote in the referendum!
How many people here actually change their minds during a debate?
As far as I'm concerned the Royal family calls outsider a prima donna is not a persuasive argument. Can't you understand that viewpoint?
Richard Tyndall, Casino Royale, and Michael Gove, I believe, are the trio that won you over to Leave.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
That the press have been beastly to her is absolutely 100% true and undeniable.
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
Now you're just rewriting history. The coverage of their engagement, wedding and the early days following that was overwhelmingly positive. The negative press only started coming out once there was reason for it. In particular, there was rumours of a "feud" between her and Kate, which seems to have been grounded in some sort of fact. And a) there was only going to be one winner there (ie our future Queen) and b) all the evidence we have is that Meghan is not blameless.
It's utterly pointless arguing with Philip once he's set his stall out - he never moves off it.
FWIW, I did. I started off as a Meghan fan, and defended her against criticism based on the fact she was an actress, American and of mixed background. I even pointed out she'd got confirmed in the CoE demonstrating her commitment to the institution, and the role she was looking to undertake in future in the Commonwealth.
It was her subsequent behaviour that changed my mind, and all the stories that came out about how she was at the time and how she'd acted since, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
More fool me.
That's not true. I have strong opinions but am open to persuasion with persuasive arguments just as much as the next person. Heck you personally helped convince me to change my vote in the referendum!
How many people here actually change their minds during a debate?
As far as I'm concerned the Royal family calls outsider a prima donna is not a persuasive argument. Can't you understand that viewpoint?
Well, I post evidence of bullying and resignations (that even her own team don't deny exist) but then you ignored it and just tried to turn my words back on me.
And you keep posting about people having a problem with her because she was black. No doubt there was a constituency for this in the country - which is deeply unpleasant - but the only people I've ever seen make a big deal about this were commentators and her advocates who were hoping it would be a big boon to modernising the royal family. I don't think I've ever heard anyone employ it as an argument against her, either unsourced in the press or publicly. I have heard criticisms based on the fact she's a Hollywood American actress but that's quite a separate thing.
Can you not accept that perhaps she might have been at fault at some level here too, somewhere?
Oh good. We're talking about Meghan and Harry again. Can we not have a good argument about Brexit instead?
I would suggest a discussion of the great pineapple on pizza issue, certainly more riveting, but less expensive than, the royal family. But, hypocrite that I am, I'd be curious to know their views.
I read once that Prince Charles has a servant who's job it is to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush.
Incredible.
Possibly apocryphal, but I think it was in the same round of stories that it was revealed that Charlie required his valet to extricate the royal member from its Turnbull & Asser hiding place for its morning micturation.
'I shook the hand that shook the hand that...'
He may be a pampered adulterous knave but at least he's not a woke black woman. Or worse, an American.
I would like to think the Editors consider you have crossed the line with that post. Comedic, or otherwise.
I think it's a silly argument but I don't think he's crossed the line, no.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
That the press have been beastly to her is absolutely 100% true and undeniable.
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
Now you're just rewriting history. The coverage of their engagement, wedding and the early days following that was overwhelmingly positive. The negative press only started coming out once there was reason for it. In particular, there was rumours of a "feud" between her and Kate, which seems to have been grounded in some sort of fact. And a) there was only going to be one winner there (ie our future Queen) and b) all the evidence we have is that Meghan is not blameless.
It's utterly pointless arguing with Philip once he's set his stall out - he never moves off it.
FWIW, I did. I started off as a Meghan fan, and defended her against criticism based on the fact she was an actress, American and of mixed background. I even pointed out she'd got confirmed in the CoE demonstrating her commitment to the institution, and the role she was looking to undertake in future in the Commonwealth.
It was her subsequent behaviour that changed my mind, and all the stories that came out about how she was at the time and how she'd acted since, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
More fool me.
Me as well. I thought for months the tabloids and gossip magazines were manufacturing drama for the sake of a story, and a lot of what she was doing in the first year or so seemed very positive. But, as you say, the evidence against her became overwhelming.
Still well ahead in deaths per millions (popln over 12m)
There must be some interesting definition issues around "Covid deaths". For instance, the USA has had 10 times the UK's confirmed cases of Covid - but only 5 times the deaths.
I suggest they will all come out in the wash in due course. Your sense of disappointment then will be palpable.
Little snippet from the Sunday Times for those who think Meghan was just a victim:
Funny how all these "sources" have so much to say when the Daily Mail and others have been running bitter attacks against her for years and years and years now. But this comes out after years of streams of abuse gets followed up with one (1) interview.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
Hmm. A bit of whataboutism and flustering there, Philip.
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
That the press have been beastly to her is absolutely 100% true and undeniable.
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
Now you're just rewriting history. The coverage of their engagement, wedding and the early days following that was overwhelmingly positive. The negative press only started coming out once there was reason for it. In particular, there was rumours of a "feud" between her and Kate, which seems to have been grounded in some sort of fact. And a) there was only going to be one winner there (ie our future Queen) and b) all the evidence we have is that Meghan is not blameless.
It's utterly pointless arguing with Philip once he's set his stall out - he never moves off it.
FWIW, I did. I started off as a Meghan fan, and defended her against criticism based on the fact she was an actress, American and of mixed background. I even pointed out she'd got confirmed in the CoE demonstrating her commitment to the institution, and the role she was looking to undertake in future in the Commonwealth.
It was her subsequent behaviour that changed my mind, and all the stories that came out about how she was at the time and how she'd acted since, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
More fool me.
That's not true. I have strong opinions but am open to persuasion with persuasive arguments just as much as the next person. Heck you personally helped convince me to change my vote in the referendum!
How many people here actually change their minds during a debate?
As far as I'm concerned the Royal family calls outsider a prima donna is not a persuasive argument. Can't you understand that viewpoint?
Well, I post evidence of bullying and resignations (that even her own team don't deny exist) but then you ignored it and just tried to turn my words back on me.
And you keep posting about people having a problem with her because she was black. No doubt there was a constituency for this in the country - which is deeply unpleasant - but the only people I've ever seen make a big deal about this were commentators and her advocates who were hoping it would be a big boon to modernising the royal family. I don't think I've ever heard anyone employ it as an argument against her, either unsourced in the press or publicly. I have heard criticisms based on the fact she's a Hollywood American actress but that's quite a separate thing.
Can you not accept that perhaps she might have been at fault at some level here too, somewhere?
Do I think there may be some level of fault from her? Yes, absolutely, 100%. She's human, everyone has flaws. Nobody is divine or perfect.
Do I think she's so flawed as to justify acres of press coverage for years now? No.
I think a mountain has been made from a molehill and she's justifiably fed up.
Comments
Even by Daily Mail standards it is a very strange article.
Whether I think Gavin wotsit is capable of delivering anything useful is a different question.
Continental day, more social things around schools, four or five terms, and more evenly distributed holidays seem to be good ideas to me.
If they also can back down from forcing Heads to behave like a petty-gestapo on school absence, that would be really excellent.
What are the current contact days rules for schools?
Very sensible stance.
Personally I think it is a good idea, along with the biggest levelling of the playing field, the post A-Level application to unis, which the government is pursuing. It should be tied into this reshuffle of the school year.
If they follow through on this, that is a different matter.
Or is it Zombie FC?
I think she struggled with the pecking order and hierarchy of monarchy as an institution - that is a feature, not a bug - and probably explains why so many republicans sympathize with her, but be in no doubt she behaved badly and ungratefully, and was entirely self-centred.
The evidence is overwhelming.
How many times has their been a negative attack on Meghan on the Daily Mail in recent years.
But what a coincidence that the team that have nothing to say about Prince Andrew have so much to say now on Meghan. It's pathetic.
Be an interesting question if anyone could see how many times something negative about Meghan had been front-page news in recent years. I can't be bothered to go through that trash though.
And I'm not saying it btw. I'm simply meta commenting.
I posted it last night - my Girlfriend's ex next door neighbour knows a lot of staff at Buck House, and he more or less told her the content of that article about two and a half years ago. She told me at the time but I forgot Who's the author of the piece, and what was their position?
Worth remembering that there is a big difference between "Royal Household" staff (attached to the institution), and "Royal Family Member" personal staff team. And also between "lifetime staff" and professional staff (eg Public Relations manager) working there for a few years.
That's not a surprise.
But she's not the first in the royal family.
There's been plenty of revelations about the weirdness and precise demands of Charles for example.
Incredible.
Yet that black woman is a prima donna? 🙄
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/16/monarchy.jamiewilson
I get you don't like the monarchy. I recognise that frames the picture for you. I understand.
But, that she was just a "victim" and the royal family was nothing but beastly to her?
Please. It's just not true.
Has any vaccine, components of vaccine, or vials etc been exported from the UK? Would love to know the answer to that.
But I'd never in a million years want to stop the opposition calling the public shallow suckers. It's one of the best recruiting sergeants we have...
The royals either did not or could not step in to prevent it or stop it.
I get you like the royal family and that frames the picture for you. I understand. But the idea she's in the wrong or beastly for taking part in just one interview after possibly hundreds of front page assaults on her have been printed in a few years is just ridiculous too.
I find it hard to take Meghan's claims of victimhood seriously when she's worth tens of millions, and is still earning millions, and makes modestly paid royal servants who felt they had no choice but to quit their jobs the villians of the piece.
I think it's selfish, self-centred,
supremely self-entitled, and utterly delusional. And to lazily accuse any of her critics or sceptics as racist in response frankly stinks.
Diana used to have a "dresser" who was responsible for co-ordinating her wardrobe, jewellery and so on.
They are just outsourcing parts of their personal life, so they can fit more of the rest in.
Is that not just how people in wealthy lifestyles live? Are wealthy pop figures, industrialists, socialites or Heads of Government any different?
How many popstars deal with their own flowers?
There I think there may be a difference wrt people that are used to having personal staff, and people who are more like celebs.
I thought the EU had seen sense on AZ now?
* now former head honcho.
The Sussexes also still received an allowance from the Duchy of Cornwall long after they stopped doing royal duties
Because the notion that there's no prima donnas in any of the Palaces is a claim so preposterous it would make John McDonnell look like George Osborne.
The vaccine production system depends on a lot of chemicals and materials being produced and moved around. again IIRC some of what is required to produce Pfizer in Belgium actually comes from the UK.
This is why the Italian precedent is quite worrying. Not just the vaccines themselves, but what about chemicals, phials etc? Could rapidly snowball into a freeze up of production, since there are very few if any countries that have absolutely everything within their own borders.
I guess the second lens replacement operation (in the end not done because there was too much damage to the ligaments to ensure reasonable success of the second operation) could have been counted as a second cataract operation to the extent that it would have been a second lens replacement (but not of course removal of a cataract)
Just like Diana, right?
'I shook the hand that shook the hand that...'
It was not based on the 12.5%.
https://twitter.com/Oldfirmfacts1/status/1368554194412728328?s=20
FWIW, I did. I started off as a Meghan fan, and defended her against criticism based on the fact she was an actress, American and of mixed background. I even pointed out she'd got confirmed in the CoE demonstrating her commitment to the institution, and the role she was looking to undertake in future in the Commonwealth.
It was her subsequent behaviour that changed my mind, and all the stories that came out about how she was at the time and how she'd acted since, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
More fool me.
I suggest they will all come out in the wash in due course. Your sense of disappointment then will be palpable.
A definitely true one is that somebody irons his morning paper.
Not sure what I think about that. OTOH, oh dear. BOTOH, not a bad idea at all. Why the devil not!
And Drakeford is still rubbish
How many people here actually change their minds during a debate?
As far as I'm concerned the Royal family calls outsider a prima donna is not a persuasive argument. Can't you understand that viewpoint?
We are definitely exporting materials for vaccine productions.
It is worth remembering that there have been massive shortfalls in production for all vaccines compared with best case. The difference is how it has been handled. UK would have had 10 of millions before January 1st if everything had been perfect...
The reason she has collapsed to a rating of -26% is that UK taxpayers did not appreciate paying for Harry and Meghan's royal wedding only to see them abandon their royal duties after less than 2 years for a life of luxury in California
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2020/10/28/royal-popularity-harry-and-meghan-drop
In any case the division is not really Charles v Meghan, Charles has always got on well with her and still subsidised the Sussexes for the first few months after they left the UK.
No the division is Leavers and Tories and their mouthpiece the Mail against them, Meghan has a -65% rating with Tory voters and -62% with Leavers for example while Harry is on -37% with Tory voters and -31% with Leave voters
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/u9ldznwln2/YouGov - Royal favourability tracker Oct 2020.pdf
Trumpites also can't stand them, see Megyn Kelly
https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1367879121041301507?s=20
What is true is we paid for 100% of the vaccine output from AZ in the UK until we get our 100mn doses delivered from them. Months before anyone else paid for anything.
Being first in the queue and having paid first is not an export ban. It's just being the front of the queue.
https://twitter.com/Johntheduncan/status/1368298804231995398?s=20
And you keep posting about people having a problem with her because she was black. No doubt there was a constituency for this in the country - which is deeply unpleasant - but the only people I've ever seen make a big deal about this were commentators and her advocates who were hoping it would be a big boon to modernising the royal family. I don't think I've ever heard anyone employ it as an argument against her, either unsourced in the press or publicly. I have heard criticisms based on the fact she's a Hollywood American actress but that's quite a separate thing.
Can you not accept that perhaps she might have been at fault at some level here too, somewhere?
Talks about Starmer, Radiohead, and why Yorkshire is more important than Scotland.
Edit - I say Starmer has the potential to be a 'worthy' successor to Hannibal.
Do I think she's so flawed as to justify acres of press coverage for years now? No.
I think a mountain has been made from a molehill and she's justifiably fed up.