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

beakerjoe

anewme wrote: »

I think the comments are a bit too much.

One thing having an opinion and not agreeing with Harry or Meghan, but there's going overboard in the use of language describing her.

Nothing to do with being a woman

I see what the poster is talking about.

I may be wrong but i believe the poster would be as critical of a man as they would of a woman from previous threads Ive seen them post in.

If he believes Meghan to be a horrible human, then thats fair IMO. The poster doesnt appear to be thinking less of her because shes female.

walshb

anewme wrote: »

I think the comments are a bit too much.

One thing having an opinion and not agreeing with Harry or Meghan, but there's going overboard in the use of language describing her.

Nothing to do with being a woman

I see what the poster is talking about.

If I used offensive language to describe her, the person, I would apologize and take it back.....

I believe that I was more describing their behaviors here

I found it contemptible and nasty and vile....

I personally find her fake, insincere and pretentious. That is the vibe I have always gotten off her. And has a huge sense of self importance and entitlement

And now, quite vindictive. She never struck me as a real genuine, decent and nice person.

anewme

walshb wrote: »

If I used offensive language to describe her, the person, I would apologize and take it back.....

I believe that I was more describing their behaviors here

I found it contemptible and nasty and vile....

I personally find her fake, insincere and pretentious. That is the vibe I have always gotten off her. And has a huge sense of self importance and entitlement

And now, quite vindictive. She never struck me as a real genuine, decent and nice person.

Did you call her a vile cretin?

extra gravy

Augeo wrote: »

Oh no I spelt a word incorrectly .......... you left a space out between cretins and etc btw :rolleyes:

What? You didn't spell it wrong. You said I was alleging criticism, I pointed out that I don't have to allege it, it's there in plenty of posts.

beakerjoe

walshb wrote: »

If I used offensive language to describe her, the person, I would apologize and take it back.....

I believe that I was more describing their behaviors here

I found it contemptible and nasty and vile....

I personally find her fake, insincere and pretentious. That is the vibe I have always gotten off her. And has a huge sense of self importance and entitlement

And now, quite vindictive. She never struck me as a real genuine, decent and nice person.

While I havent come to the same conculsions as you, I dont mind your opinion. Your opinion appears to be based on what you believe to be her character and not down to her gender or race.

If he thinks shes a liar and her actions are vile, thats fair.

I think Piers Morgan is vile and I happily will call him abusive names. Its not down to my hatred of men, its down to my opinion of his character and actions.

walshb

anewme wrote: »

Did you call her a vile cretin?

I may have called her behavior that...

I don't believe I called her it...

Anyway, cretin is not really the apt word

And, I have already said, IF I personally abused her with names about her, I take that back.

Neyite

anewme wrote: »

Not sure where I stand on the security tbh.

1. Like you say, they did their own thing and resigned so should pay their own security. Tax payers ultimately have to foot the bill for RF.

2. They are Royals by birth (Harry and Archie anyway) so will always be at risk of the likes of kidnapping etc. Stepping away does not change that risk. As it's a risk by RF, is it a RF bill?

Should have been ironed out when they were discussing their exit anyway. Could have reached agreement, sort payment for a phased out period etc.

Apologies for the Daily Mail link but this explains royal security - it's not linked to titles, it's based on ongoing risk assessments, intelligence sources and the duties performed.

The RF have zero say in the protocol, or how the security is performed. A committee called RAVEC make all the decisions. When abroad on official state visits, or vacations it's coordinated with local police authorities and obviously the cost goes up. So for example, Edward only gets it on official duties but if he was doing a state visit on behalf of the Queen to, say, Northern Ireland, the risk assessment would be likely to change and the security detail would reflect that.

It's worth remembering that they moved to Canada before Christmas with their Royal protection. It was March when Megxit happened, so that was 3-4 months of overseas cover RAVEC provided for them. So if they told Oprah it was yanked without warning, how was it not discussed in the year that they say the discussions to leave the RF were happening? That's another contradiction.

This part especially, shows how damned if they do, damned if they don't the UK police were up against in California:

But in reality the couple, who now live in Montecito, California, had moved to a country where their royal protection officers would have been legally unable to carry out their duties and therefore their lives could have been put at risk as British officers cannot carry guns under US laws or access intelligence about potential threats.

And if an officer harmed someone in the course of protecting the Sussexes, they could have found themselves facing an expensive lawsuit or even criminal charges as they had no legal basis to operate in a foreign country.

So local, legal private security would be safer for them.

anewme wrote: »

Do the Royal Family pay for Andrew's Security?

Not any more. After he got ditched from royal duty he lost his. Quite rightly.

Princess Calla

bubblypop wrote: »

Sweet Jaysis!
Posters are now.suggesting that the queen dictates how the police do their duty.
That is not how it works. The queen also appoints a lot more people to their jobs, do you believe she can dictate how people do their jobs.

It doesn't matter what the Royal family think it want, the police do their job, close protection of the Royal family is given to the police, the experts, to do the job.
Police do risk assessments and produce protection details based on their information and intelligence.
It is not the queens decision.
If Harry needs security, then he needs to pay for it himself and if he doesn't know that at nearly 40 then he is extremely naive, to say the least.

I never said I thought the Queen dictates how the police do their jobs...I stated she appointed the head of police so ultimately is their boss.

I would have thought as a courtesy at least the discussion would have been held.

As head of state I would have thought she could over rule decisions...or strongly advise etc.

That's just my lay person's view on it...I don't work for scotland yard or AGS so I've no idea of the inner workings of these organisations.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

Did you call her a vile cretin?

Did you call out the poster who described Piers Morgan as "A vile, wretched excuse of a man."?

If not, is that because you don't like Piers?

anewme

beakerjoe wrote: »

The poster doesnt appear to be thinking less of her because shes female.

I said that above.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Did you call out the poster who described Piers Morgan as "A vile, wretched excuse of a man."?

If not, is that because you don't like Piers?

I dont like Piers Morgan or his behaviour.

He can give it but he can't take it.

I find the comments the other poster a bit too personal. Reading like rants often take from the point you are trying to make. Second rate actress...blah blah blah...no need.

Princess Calla

Augeo wrote: »

Speeding driver after a few drinks was a huge contributor too iirc. Also unfortunately it was reported Princess Diana wasn't wearing a seatbelt.......

https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/tv-movies/a29874597/princess-diana-death/

"Though the posted speed limit was 30 mph, the driver, Henri Paul, reportedly approached the entrance of a road tunnel at Paris's Pont de l'Alma driving at approximately 70 mph. According to reports, Paul lost control of the car and collided into a pillar in the middle of the highway."

"Shepherd believes Diana's death could have been prevented by one small change: A seatbelt. "Had she been restrained, she would probably have appeared in public two days later with a black eye, perhaps a bit breathless from the fractured ribs and with a broken arm in a sling," Shepherd wrote.

The only survivor of the crash was Diana’s British bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones. He had been wearing a seatbelt."

"What caused Henri Paul, the acting head of security at the Ritz Hotel and a licensed driver, to so drastically lose control of the car? According to a statement from French authorities given the Monday after the crash, Paul's blood exceeded the legal blood-alcohol limit. He had reportedly been drinking and driving recklessly."

Of course there was the paparazzi element also
"According to eyewitnesses, there was another element involved in the crash. Their black Mercedes was being pursued by paparazzi in cars and on motorcycles, hoping to snatch a photo of the Princess and Fayed."


But back to Harry and being thrown to the wolves, Diana wasn't kidnapped because she's no RF security.

I find it a tad maggoty for Harry to be alluding to his Mum's death as reason why he should have RF security tbh, he's not short of a bob himself.

All true, but they were fleeing....if you were being chased you may take a few risks you wouldn't normally take.

If the paparazzi weren't following them they may never had got in the car...they may have drove at a normal speed....she may have put her seatbelt on.

Lots of ifs and ands but ultimately if the paparazzi weren't there it wouldn't have happened.

beakerjoe

anewme wrote: »

I said that above.

I assumed the emoji you used suggested sarcasm and/or puzzlement. It appears I misunderstood you.

beakerjoe

anewme wrote: »

I dont like Piers Morgan or his behaviour.

He can give it but he can't take it.

I find the comments the other poster a bit too personal. Reading like rants often take from the point you are trying to make. Second rate actress...blah blah blah...no need.

I think the comment came from their believe that Meghan was acting or lying in her interview, rather than her career previous to her relationship with Harry.

Its a fair opinion if thats what the poster intended. (I may be wrong here)

retro:electro

anewme wrote: »

I dont like Piers Morgan or his behaviour.

He can give it but he can't take it.

I find the comments the other poster a bit too personal. Reading like rants often take from the point you are trying to make. Second rate actress...blah blah blah...no need.

Report his comments then if you find them offensive and let the mods deal with it. The pettiness has been going on for days now and is derailing the thread. If the mods don’t action it then it’s something you’re just going to have to get over.

JimmyVik

beakerjoe wrote: »

I am of similar thinking in terms of finding either side hard to believe.

Is she suicidal ? I dont know and probably will never know. Just because someone says they are suicidal doesn't mean they genuinely are. We will never truly know for sure.

It could be genuine and my heart goes out to he rif so, its very believable. But its also possible she is claiming this untruthfully to gain support and sympathy.

I dont agree with the "prove it or it didnt happen" angle though. Just because there is a lack of proof doesn't mean it didnt happen.

But why would you believe anything out of someones mouth, who you dont know, on a tv show about someone she doesnt get on with?
At least in real life, you actually know the people involved so can take a side with a more informed take on all parties involved.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

I dont like Piers Morgan or his behaviour.

He can give it but he can't take it.

I find the comments the other poster a bit too personal. Reading like rants often take from the point you are trying to make. Second rate actress...blah blah blah...no need.

There's awful comments about Piers Morgan in that thread, but you don't challenge them because you agree with them.

You are pro-Meghan so challenge negative comments here and describe them as personal abuse.

Quite the dichotomy.

walshb

anewme wrote: »

I find the comments the other poster a bit too personal. Reading like rants often take from the point you are trying to make. Second rate actress...blah blah blah...no need.

I agree with you here

They do read a little personal, but isn't that life.....it's all personal

We constantly pass judgment on people every day....more so on people in the public eye

She was a B/C/D or whatever else type actress.....nobody knew Meghan until she got with Harry....

Yes, pointing this out is done to portray her negatively, I know this....but it is not at all hate/vitriol.

I have often commented on other famous people as not being near as good in their failed ad others think...that's just a personal opinion of them and their work.

Nobody should be hating complete strangers, unless they have done something universally detestable..

And although I found her and Harry's recent behavior to be very poor, it's not near to where I would be hating them for it.

I would save hate for serious things like child abuse, rape/murder etc....

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Do the Royal Family pay for Andrew's Security?

The Royal family do not pay for their own security.

anewme

retro:electro wrote: »

Report his comments then if you find them offensive and let the mods deal with it. The pettiness has been going on for days now and is derailing the thread. If the mods don’t action it then it’s something you’re just going to have to get over.

Whoa, whoa there.

Other posters were turning on the poster who challenged those views. My stance is that I see where that poster was coming from and that some of the comments went a bit too far.

That's my opinion and its allowed. Or are only views bashing them allowed?

beakerjoe

JimmyVik wrote: »

But why would you believe anything out of someones mouth, who you dont know, on a tv show about someone she doesnt get on with?
At least in real life, you actually know the people involved so can take a side with a more informed take on all parties involved.

But thats it, I dont know who I believe. It may be true though, that my point.

A lack of proof doesn't mean it didnt happen. She could be very honest for all I know.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

He is not subject to the same level of disparaging comments though, its he and I'm particularly referring to the poster referred to.

I pointed out earlier that he had referred to William, Kate and Harry, but Meghan was referred to as Markle.

Another poster said that her surname was used as a matter of reverence to her. Well if the language used by that poster is to denote reverence, I'd be hiding out when he decided to be irreverant!

This thread has nothing to do with "wannabe feminists", shows where your angle is?

You're on a crusade......... looking for problems and angles of attack everywhere.

MM was on for the entire show and Harry said less than her so of course she's going to get more comments.
Lots of folk reckon she's false, scheming and full of sh1t .......... we are voicing that opinion in here.

Princess Calla

Princess Calla wrote: »

I never said I thought the Queen dictates how the police do their jobs...I stated she appointed the head of police so ultimately is their boss.

I would have thought as a courtesy at least the discussion would have been held.

As head of state I would have thought she could over rule decisions...or strongly advise etc.

That's just my lay person's view on it...I don't work for scotland yard or AGS so I've no idea of the inner workings of these organisations.

No.
The Queen is not their boss and no, she can't dictate to them how to do their job

anewme

walshb wrote: »

I agree wit you here

They do read a little personal, but isn't that life.....it's all personal

We constantly pass judgment on people every day....more so on people in the public eye

She was a B/C/D or whatever else type actress.....nobody knew Meghan until she got with Harry....

Yes, pointing this out is done to portray her negatively, I know this....but it is not at all hate/vitriol.

I have often commented on other famous people as not being near as good in their failed ad others think...that's just a personal opinion of them and their work.

Nobody should be hating complete strangers, unless they have done something universally detestable..

And although I found her and Harry's recent behavior to be very poor, it's not near to where I would be hating them for it.

I would save hate for serious things like child abuse, rape/murder etc....

Ok, I just feel a couple of your posts crossed the line.

I was in a Court Case once, where there was bad feelings between both parties and both had valid points, but one went off on a complete rant.

The judge turned and said, so, is there anything you do like about this person?

JimmyVik

beakerjoe wrote: »

But thats it, I dont know who I believe. It may be true though, that my point.

A lack of proof doesn't mean it didnt happen. She could be very honest for all I know.

Tell that to a judge

anewme

Augeo wrote: »

You're on a crusade......... looking for problems and angles of attack everywhere.

Explain what you mean crusade and attack please?

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Explain what you mean crusade and attack please?

It should be obvious from the bolded pieces and from my comments.
If it's not I'm not offering any further guidance except to say you seem to like finding issue with what people say, and anything against Markel seem to really annoy you and spark you into defending her.. 67 posts since the interview either defending her or taking issue with what folk say against her.

beakerjoe

JimmyVik wrote: »

Tell that to a judge

Well yes, I couldnt convict someone based on hear say. Its a harsh reality.

So if this was a court case, and only the available facts were present, I couldnt with certainty say either sides version of events were true.

They could be, but I will never know.

dogbert27

anewme wrote: »

I dont like Piers Morgan or his behaviour.

He can give it but he can't take it.

I find the comments the other poster a bit too personal. Reading like rants often take from the point you are trying to make. Second rate actress...blah blah blah...no need.

But she is a second rate actress. He was just calling it as he sees it. This is a discussion forum where he's entitled to his opinion.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

There's awful comments about Piers Morgan in that thread, but you don't challenge them because you agree with them.

You are pro-Meghan so challenge negative comments here and describe them as personal abuse.

Quite the dichotomy.

I'm actually not pro-Meghan at all.

I do believe the media carried out a deliberately contrived hatchet job on her, orchestrated by Piers Morgan due to personal reasons and the Royal Family left her sink. Even down to the silly row over flowers. I also believe wheeling out her Dad to support the Royal Family, who he has never met, is a low blow and reflects on him as a parent, so I don't get all the....ahhh her poor Dad. T

So in that area, I'm 100% with her.

I also don't agree that anyone has the right to say that someone saying openly that they suffer from mental health challenges should be called a liar, as in "I have had suicidal thoughts - No, you are a liar". That's outside of anyone's remit and extremely dangerous.

So, I'm with her there.

As regards whether Harry and Meghan are entitled or believe their own hype, could see why people would say that.

And also, I'm holding my own views on the palace staff who left their employment.