Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Leg End Reject

sebdavis wrote: »

I suppose racism isn't too bad when you have a paedophile knocking around the house....
I didn't see the same reaction when that came out?

I genuinely don't understand how Andrew was allowed to quietly fade into the background. I've said it before here, but that's the interview, and allegations, that should have harmed the RF.

sebdavis

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand how Andrew was allowed to quietly fade into the background. I've said it before here, but that's the interview, and allegations, that should have harmed the RF.

You have people on here posting non stop because its a coloured woman who came out against the Royal family. A man raping children didn't get the same reaction. Says a lot doesn't it.

walshb

sebdavis wrote: »

I suppose racism isn't too bad when you have a paedophile knocking around the house....
I didn't see the same reaction when that came out?

That’s quite a disgusting label to put on any person..

Have you evidence that Andrew is an actual paedphile?

And before you start: knowing a convicted sex offender doesn’t automatically make one a paedophile..

Unless Trump and Clinton and some others also fit your description of what a paedophile is.

Lillyfae

JoChervil wrote: »

Knowing that other party won't give their side of the story.

To be fair, that is their problem. The Royal Family is a dying institution and there is simply no point whatsoever, apart from lining their own pockets, to keep up this weird rumour mill between them and the press.

JoChervil wrote: »

I find it really mean when the best trait of someone, like for example dignity, is used against them.

Dignified? You think how Charles and Camilla, or Andrew for that matter, carried on is dignified? I know Sarah Ferguson isn't an official member of the family anymore but her escapades in the last year couldn't really be described as dignified either.

walshb

sebdavis wrote: »

You have people on here posting non stop because its a coloured woman who came out against the Royal family. A man raping children didn't get the same reaction. Says a lot doesn't it.

Wtf?

Raping children?

You need to take a chill pill...

Leg End Reject

sebdavis wrote: »

You have people on here posting non stop because its a coloured woman who came out against the Royal family. A man raping children didn't get the same reaction. Says a lot doesn't it.

It's not because of her skin colour.

JoChervil

Penn wrote: »

Ultimately Meghan had to make that point in order to challenge the media lie that Meghan made Kate cry.

If Meghan just said it was false and left it at that, you'd be b*tching at her for not giving further information and therefore she's lying.

If she didn't add the point about Kate being nice about it and sending flowers, you'd be b*tching at her for not pointing that out.

She literally can't win because you've completely swallowed the media hatred of her. Meghan might very well be a thunderc*nt for all I know. I don't particularly care if she is or not. But this parroting of biased media narratives, pure Daily Mail standard sh*te, is just nonsense.

No, she didn't have to.

What's more she is long enough in the media to know, that you can't win with the press and whatever you say will be twisted. So the best course of action is silence. All those celebrities, who did it won.

So she knew exactly what she was doing. She was doing it for just such reaction: poor Megan, she can't win, whatever she does. To milk this victim rhetorics.

sebdavis

walshb wrote: »

Wtf?

Raping children?

You need to take a chill pill...

What would you call it?

retro:electro

sebdavis wrote: »

I suppose racism isn't too bad when you have a paedophile knocking around the house....
I didn't see the same reaction when that came out?

I don’t understand when people say this? Absolutely everyone was outraged with what came out about Andrew and he was severely mocked over his disastrous interview. He was the laughing stock of the internet. The only difference there was that criticism for Andrew was universal, everyone was in agreement that he was a lying bull****ting creep. Whereas the divide in opinion with Meghan makes things feel louder. But overall, they need to sort Andrew out in there, I think everyone can agree on that.

But it also needs to stop being used as a stick to beat away any criticism of Meghan with. Criticise Meghan and it’s not long until the what about Andrews come about. Yes he is a rotten creep who needs to be sorted but that doesn’t mean people can’t criticise Meghan and Harry, particularly in the week where they dropped loaded bombs on the RF with the most famous talk show host in the world.

walshb

sebdavis wrote: »

What would you call it?

Not what you’re calling it

Seriously, read up and research before jumping in with OTT outlandish claims..

As far as I know he was alleged to have slept with a 17 year old female..

So, can you please explain how you have arrived at him raping children..?

sebdavis

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t understand when people say this? Absolutely everyone was outraged with what came out about Andrew and he was severely mocked over his disastrous interview. He was the laughing stock of the internet. The only difference there was that criticism for Andrew was universal, everyone was in agreement that he was a lying bull****ting creep. Whereas the divide in opinion with Meghan makes things feel louder. But overall, they need to sort Andrew out in there, I think everyone can agree on that.

But it also needs to stop being used as a stick to beat away any criticism of Meghan with. Criticise Meghan and it’s not long until the what about Andrews come about. Yes he is a rotten creep who needs to be sorted but that doesn’t mean people can’t criticise Meghan and Harry, particularly in the week where they dropped loaded bombs on the RF with the most famous talk show host in the world.

Check the history of some of the posters on here who have spent days going over the top about Megan. No posts about Andrew and in fact posts defending him.

Seems some people have no problem with paedophiles but an issue with Megan because she decided to get out with her family

retro:electro

sebdavis wrote: »

You have people on here posting non stop because its a coloured woman who came out against the Royal family. A man raping children didn't get the same reaction. Says a lot doesn't it.

Are you saying that everyone here criticising Meghan is racist? Because that’s quite a damaging thing to say. Is that what you’re saying?

JoChervil

sebdavis wrote: »

You have people on here posting non stop because its a coloured woman who came out against the Royal family. A man raping children didn't get the same reaction. Says a lot doesn't it.

No, they simply don't want to highjack the thread. Open a knew one...

Lillyfae

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t understand when people say this? Absolutely everyone was outraged with what came out about Andrew and he was severely mocked over his disastrous interview. He was the laughing stock of the internet. The only difference there was that criticism for Andrew was universal, everyone was in agreement that he was a lying bull****ting creep. Whereas the divide in opinion with Meghan makes things feel louder. But overall, they need to sort Andrew out in there, I think everyone can agree on that.

But it also needs to stop being used as a stick to beat away any criticism of Meghan with. Criticise Meghan and it’s not long until the what about Andrews come about. Yes he is a rotten creep who needs to be sorted but that doesn’t mean people can’t criticise Meghan and Harry, particularly in the week where they dropped loaded bombs on the RF with the most famous talk show host in the world.

A laughing stock should have been the least of it. If he can be protected from any repercussions when he is friends with a man who traffics underage teenage girls for sex and to have sex with, even being in their company himself then surely Meghan could have expected similar protection from b*tchy headlines, right?

Leg End Reject

sebdavis wrote: »

Please explain to me what you would call it?
Are you saying a 17 year old isn't a child now? she was fair game?

17 is the legal age of consent.

That's not to imply there wasn't a power imbalance or evidence of willing consent.

JoChervil

Lillyfae wrote: »

To be fair, that is their problem. The Royal Family is a dying institution and there is simply no point whatsoever, apart from lining their own pockets, to keep up this weird rumour mill between them and the press.



Dignified? You think how Charles and Camilla, or Andrew for that matter, carried on is dignified? I know Sarah Ferguson isn't an official member of the family anymore but her escapades in the last year couldn't really be described as dignified either.

I was discussing Kate, why do you bring other people into it?

Lillyfae

JoChervil wrote: »

I was discussing Kate, why do you bring other people into it?

Do you think she would even eat a yoghurt without asking if it was within the rules first? You can be sure she's not the one with the tabloids on speed dial, especially given how they've treated her in the past.

sebdavis

Leg End Reject wrote: »

17 is the legal age of consent.

That's not to imply there wasn't a power imbalance or evidence of willing consent.

It's nice to see people come out and defend Andrew.

walshb

sebdavis wrote: »

Check the history of some of the posters on here who have spent days going over the top about Megan. No posts about Andrew and in fact posts defending him.

Seems some people have no problem with paedophiles but an issue with Megan because she decided to get out with her family

This is absurd

Who is defending Andrew.

You called him a child rapist and a paedophile, and because some aren’t ready to agree with you here, you have gone salty and accused people of defending him

Grow up for chrissake..

Leg End Reject

sebdavis wrote: »

It's nice to see people come out and defend Andrew.

Nice? It must be fantastic to be able to see things that don't exist.

Tyrone212

Check in here after a couple of days and still see the same people still defending Andrew. Birds of a feather.

Jeffrey epstein was convicted of child prostitution and Andrew still stayed over at his and remained firm friends. Andrew was pictured with a groomed minor in Epsteins property. Who alleges Andrew slept with her 3 times including on Epsteins pedo private island. Andrews denial of this included he can't sweat.

You're gullible as hell if you think he isn't a dirty pedo and that girl is the only one. Or maybe you think its acceptable to stay over in a house with a man convicted of child prostitution and who's residence was littered with underage groomed girls and yet nothing ever happened. He also refuses to be questioned by the FBI even though he's a person of interest.

Not even worth corresponding with yous as you turn my stomach. Absolutely VILE

sebdavis

walshb wrote: »

This is absurd

Who is defending Andrew.

You called him a chins rapist and a paedophile, and because some aren’t ready to agree with you here, you have gone salty and accused people of defending him

Grow up for chrissake..

Read your posts. You are doing a fantastic impression of defending him.

walshb

Would people also label the likes of Mick Jagger a child rapist and paedophile

He had had sexual relations with 17 year old?

JoChervil

Lillyfae wrote: »

Do you think she would even eat a yoghurt without asking if it was within the rules first? You can be sure she's not the one with the tabloids on speed dial, especially given how they've treated her in the past.

It's not the answer to my question

walshb

sebdavis wrote: »

Read your posts. You are doing a fantastic impression of defending him.

Look, we disagree. I called you out on outlandish labels without any actual proof

You didn’t like it, and your reaction was to get salty and cry that I am defending Andrew..

Nonsense!

retro:electro

Anyway. I wonder what’s next for them. Personally I think the only real draw to Meghan is due to whatever tea she can spill on the Royal Family. I’d have no interest in her podcasts or Netflix specials and I don’t particularly care about her opinions on anything. I think she’s about to learn that the interest in her is very one dimensional and only due to how much tea she can possibly spill.

sebdavis

walshb wrote: »

Look, we disagree. I called you out in outlandish labels without any actual proof

You didn’t like it, and your reaction was to get salty and cry that I am defending Andrew..

Nonsense!

You have spent days posting lots about Megan & Harry without any proof.

Mention Andrew and you jump to his defence and accuse people of not having any actual proof, apart from all the interviews with the girls, the people working in Epsteins house who pointed him out in the pool with young girls etc etc. Of course the lovely interview he done himself really showed he was innocent.

walshb

sebdavis wrote: »

You have spent days posting lots about Megan & Harry without any proof.

Mention Andrew and you jump to his defence and accuse people of not having any actual proof, apart from all the interviews with the girls, the people working in Epsteins house who pointed him out in the pool with young girls.

Posting about Megan and Harry without proof?

No idea what this is supposed to mean..

Andrew absolutely has questions to answer. I get this

Your matter of fact labeling him a paedophile and child rapist when the man had not been charged with a single crime is where I have an issue.

He is a man. A person. A human....deserves his day in court if it’s due..

Labeling anyone what you have without even a crime having been established:charged is wrong.

Lillyfae

JoChervil wrote: »

It's not the answer to my question

If Kate said tomorrow, ya that's a true/ false story- what would the outcome be? Nothing whatsoever, besides the Queen maybe being a little bit cross- so she's either a horrible person who let a false, reputation ruining story run wild, or she's thoroughly institutionalized, terrified of what "The Firm" will do to her. Or it's a bare faced lie.

kowloonkev

retro:electro wrote: »

Anyway. I wonder what’s next for them. Personally I think the only real draw to Meghan is due to whatever tea she can spill on the Royal Family. I’d have no interest in her podcasts or Netflix specials and I don’t particularly care about her opinions on anything. I think she’s about to learn that the interest in her is very one dimensional and only due to how much tea she can possibly spill.

I would envisage she'll get bored of Harry in a few years and she'll be back on Opera in a few years while he will have nowhere to turn. Harry really is thick.