Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[BKLFox]

3 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Pedo Andrew bad but touchy Harry much, much worse. Jesus wept get a grip. 

Keh, who’s said that?

[Dunge]

6 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Surely for an outspoken advocate of mental health awareness, it's a tad hypocritical of William to behave the way he did to his brothers requests? William sells himself as a modern prince who cares, but when its his own family it seems he doesn't care. And whilst you say the Royal family has always been institution over feeling, Harry's whole point was why does it have to carry on that way? You say they both lost their Mum, but when you requests for change to prevent similar happening again, the other isn't interested, what does that say? That the institution is more important than the lives and the health of those in it.

 

Should he have sold his story, well that's up to him, but previously he was subject to lies in the tabloids over why he walked away. The family might be happy with mistruths being stated about them, clearly Harry isn't.

I don’t think it necessarily equates that the family and the institution were doing nothing to prevent a Diana situation happen again - although even then it’s not like Diana committed suicide. It was an accident as she tried to escape the paparazzi. It’s entirely possible that what others thought were “best” for situation were different to what Harry and Meghan believed was best. Whether that was actually a good idea or working is another matter.

 

If Harry is entirely correct - and I say correct because he can be truthful but still incorrect - then there’s a situation where a blind eye has been turned to Meghan’s mental health in a potentially dangerous situation. It’s very hard to know without being on the inside exactly what the situation is there. Granted, the assumption would be to the words of the person themselves, so it’s only natural that people are asking the questions due to Meghan stating that she felt suicidal. The implication definitely seems to be that her sentiments were deliberately overlooked at the time. What we don’t then know is why. Is it because of dislike? Backwards thinking and lack of compassion? Or is it that she was seen as a drama queen with a propensity and reputation to make this stuff up?

 

Essentially, none of this proves anything. Is Harry correct and the family didn’t care about Meghan as they should? Possible. Alternatively, is he blinded by someone who’s actually ambitious and manipulative? Also possible. Or maybe a little from both columns. What I am convinced of is that Harry feels he’s being truthful and is finding all this somewhat therapeutic (for now), almost like talking to a shrink.

[worth_the_wait]

One of the things you tend to learn as you get older, is that there are usually two sides to a story.  That's why in a court of law, no matter how damaging the prosecution's accusations are, the defendants are allowed a defence to reject some or all of the accusations.
 
Now, some may say that Harry is just defending himself.  But as far as I'm aware, Charles and William have never publicly accused Harry of anything.  I think they are just sad and bitterly disappointed a valuable and loved member of the family has waltzed off into the sunset.   Charles has said numerous times that he loves his son Harry very much and has wished them well in their new life, but I think that's as far as it goes.   
 
It's been Harry letting off metaphorical hand grenades left, right and centre.   Now that, of course, is his prerogative and doesn't necessarily mean that what he is saying is untrue.  Just that he might have a different perspective on things, or possible a different agenda.  
 
Many of the claims made on the Oprah Winfrey interview were subsequently shown not to be true.  And accusations that the British media were being beastly were distorted by nearly half of the headline images shown being from foreign publications!   One headline was deliberately distorted by chopping off the first half of the sentence, which totally reversed it's meaning.  It was actually a supportive comment, that was portrayed as criticism.  Now that's not just a case of "recollections may vary"; that's a deliberate attempt to mislead and distort the truth.
 
Anyway, the bottom line is that unsubstantiated allegations, especially when there's a juicy few million £'s to be had, have to be treated with a pinch bucket of salt.

 

[grobyfox1990]

18 hours ago, StanSP said:

Is it at the family's expense? The Royal Family won't be disbanded or brought down on the back of this. They've suffered much worse I'd imagine.

 

I do find it incredible that some people genuinely have kicked up more of a fuss over Harry & Meghan uttering some supposed truths than there ever was over Prince Andrew and his dirty illegal shenanigans.

Not the same. The Hollywood couple have forced themselves in our faces for years on end, and will continue to do so forever as there’ll be no lack of commercial activity available to them. Basically everyone is forced to have an opinion on them to generate $$$$. Paedo guy has been hushed up and he’s done what I thought Hollywood were going to do, gone into hiding. I’ve met two people who don’t know who he is or that he’s a paedo. If both parties craved the same level of attention obvs there’d be more outrage towards the paedo 

[Silebyfox_89]

This thread has steered off into a royal family debate.

[StanSP]

Bizarre and totally unwarranted kind of abuse. 

 

 

I don't get it. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

Bizarre and totally unwarranted kind of abuse. 

 

 

I don't get it. 

The reality I imagine is that he doesn't give two shits about her, but pretends to do so in order to make inflammatory statements for money.

 

And here we are, getting dragged into this subject that is of no consequence or relevance, maintaining interest in it, keeping the conversation going, driving the ad and subscription revenues, never realising that it was us that were the c***s in this all along

[Wymsey]

You need to remember that Jeremy Clarkson gets a bit bitter about a lot of things, in particular when things don't go his way.

 

For example, ask the locals where he has had planning issues at his farm what they think of him..

Edited 18 December 2022 by Wymsey

[StanSP]

5 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

You need to remember that Jeremy Clarkson gets a bit bitter about a lot of things, in particular when things don't go his way.

That's probably something he needs to sort out in his own life then.

 

Not deflect to someone like Meghan Markle for their own shortcomings or insecurities. Fine not to like someone, but to publish something that obscene and OTT is ridiculous. 

 

I guess it's what a lot of the gammons of his age/generation think though. 

[Captain...]

4 hours ago, StanSP said:

Bizarre and totally unwarranted kind of abuse. 

 

 

I don't get it. 

But it's a symptom of the rent-a-gob media types paid to give their "opinion" what it actually means is we pay you to say something ridiculous, sell our paper, then you take all the flak until you can't do it any more, then we just find another one. To mention Rose West in the same conversation as MM is just vile. But if he just expressed a normal rational opinion nobody would care.

Edited 18 December 2022 by Captain...

[samlcfc]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

But it's a symptom of the rent-a-gob media types paid to give their "opinion" what it actually means is we pay you to say something ridiculous, sell our paper, then you take all the flak until you can't do it any more, then we just find another one. To mention Rose West in the same conversation as MM is just vile. But if he just expressed a normal rational opinion nobody would care.

They get to everyone as well I sometimes hate myself for being pulled in, but the utterly shameless pricks that manage to find themselves comfortable jobs just spreading hate and misinformation in the media is a nightmare.

 

I hate the way people of that ilk on TV/Radio, also do the thing where they highlight touchy subjects that could be discussed in a genuinely interesting and informative way, then invite some enthusiastic youngster on and just shout at them for a half hour or so.

 

They just rise to the top, cause damage to society imo, and never see a single consequence as they live out their days protected by wealth.

 

I only ever listen to the radio for a bit in the mornings now, and read some news from some half decent news outlets. Get most of my information surrounding complicated major issues from podcasts, but still have to see these knobs knocking about social media occasionally.

[Silebyfox_89]

Damien Bendall.

[st albans fox]

On 18/12/2022 at 09:51, StanSP said:

Bizarre and totally unwarranted kind of abuse. 

 

 

I don't get it. 

When I first saw it I thought it was satire - he was writing stuff that even sun readers wouldn’t think of to make the point about their irrational hatred. But then he didn’t use that as a defence so I’m lost. He can’t have meant it - he’s not that stupid. Is he ? 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

When I first saw it I thought it was satire - he was writing stuff that even sun readers wouldn’t think of to make the point about their irrational hatred. But then he didn’t use that as a defence so I’m lost. He can’t have meant it - he’s not that stupid. Is he ? 

I don't think he did, but in current times he can do stuff like this to dog-whistle to those who *do* mean it for the sake of clicks and revenue.

Edited 23 December 2022 by leicsmac

[st albans fox]

On 18/12/2022 at 14:41, Captain... said:

But it's a symptom of the rent-a-gob media types paid to give their "opinion" what it actually means is we pay you to say something ridiculous, sell our paper, then you take all the flak until you can't do it any more, then we just find another one. To mention Rose West in the same conversation as MM is just vile. But if he just expressed a normal rational opinion nobody would care.

But Nicola sturgeon and rose west is ok ? 
I think it’s just his crass humour - mostly it’s ok but when left unchecked, he can go nuclear. 

[LiberalFox]

I assumed Clarkson was just doing what he normally does - writing things that are deliberately offensive to make himself the centre of attention. 

 

Equating Nicola Sturgeon (a woman he disagrees with) and Rose West (a convicted criminal and a decent pick for 'worst woman I can think of') is supposed to make us get upset. 

 

Saying 'This is a different story' ... 'I hate her on a cellular level' is quite obviously and very deliberately saying he hates her more because of her race. 

 

But I think the motive is simply attention seeking. And it's worked. Whether you call it 'trolling' or 'negative supply', the motivation is to receive attention and to feel powerful that you can manipulate other people's emotions. 

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

But Nicola sturgeon and rose west is ok ? 
I think it’s just his crass humour - mostly it’s ok but when left unchecked, he can go nuclear. 

Well it's about Meghan, but yes putting Sturgeon and Rose West in the same bracket is also vile. If he'd just said he hates MM more than he hates Sturgeon then that's fair comparison if still a little weird for a grown man to be going round saying "I hate you, and I hate you, but I really really hate you!"

[Alf Bentley]

40 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I assumed Clarkson was just doing what he normally does - writing things that are deliberately offensive to make himself the centre of attention. 

 

Equating Nicola Sturgeon (a woman he disagrees with) and Rose West (a convicted criminal and a decent pick for 'worst woman I can think of') is supposed to make us get upset. 

 

Saying 'This is a different story' ... 'I hate her on a cellular level' is quite obviously and very deliberately saying he hates her more because of her race. 

 

But I think the motive is simply attention seeking. And it's worked. Whether you call it 'trolling' or 'negative supply', the motivation is to receive attention and to feel powerful that you can manipulate other people's emotions. 

 

There have been a few career controversialists deliberately promoting hatred and/or outrage for personal attention/advancement, haven't there?

 

Piers Morgan, Julie Burchill & Katie Hopkins come to mind, though I always got the impression that Hopkins' toxic hatred was more deep-seated and genuine than that of Clarkson, Morgan or Burchill.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

There have been a few career controversialists deliberately promoting hatred and/or outrage for personal attention/advancement, haven't there?

 

Piers Morgan, Julie Burchill & Katie Hopkins come to mind, though I always got the impression that Hopkins' toxic hatred was more deep-seated and genuine than that of Clarkson, Morgan or Burchill.

Richard Littlejohn, too.

[Corky]

It's just weird how middle aged men get so worked up by a Royal spouse.

[ALC Fox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Richard Littlejohn, too.

That guy is a top tier ****. What an absolute weapon.

[bovril]

Slightly off topic but I do find it weird that extremely innocuous political chat gets deleted but arguably more controversial stuff stays. Has any explanation ever been given for that other than the mods being touchy right wingers?

[Jattdogg]

35 minutes ago, bovril said:

Slightly off topic but I do find it weird that extremely innocuous political chat gets deleted but arguably more controversial stuff stays. Has any explanation ever been given for that other than the mods being touchy right wingers?

Right...you're out. Banned!

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Corky said:

It's just weird how middle aged men get so worked up by a Royal spouse.

There’s something desperately odd with anyone getting vexed about an independent woman just living her life. There again, it’s unsurprising given the number of other unsavoury opinions they appear to hold.

[SpacedX]

31 minutes ago, bovril said:

Slightly off topic but I do find it weird that extremely innocuous political chat gets deleted but arguably more controversial stuff stays. Has any explanation ever been given for that other than the mods being touchy right wingers?

It's very odd isn't it. Unfortunate in my timing, but I posted precisely as you describe some very 'innocuous' content in the Ukraine thread regarding Putin's miscalculated occupation of Ukraine based upon flawed intelligence and an underestimation of the stoicism and resistance of the Ukrainian people, in addition to the military and economic sanctions from the west. The post was deleted, I received a two day ban and 1 warning point for 'spamming' for "continuing to post about politics when it's been advised not to". I wasn't at any stage "advised not to". I simply glanced at the forum for five minutes one morning while I was working and made an apolitical observation on a different thread. This was at the time that a highly charged political debate was simultaneously raging in the 'Also in the News' thread. Case of wrong place, wrong time I guess. And when this happens the forum owner/mods don't have time to sift through so it can result in an indiscriminate ban - and I do appreciate why. It's ironic since I have vehemently tried to flag and challenge fake/alt news and occasionally links to populist disinformation websites such as BitChute and political extremism such as SouthFront. Oh well.