• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Harry & Meghan stepping down"

Collapse

  • scooterscot
    replied
    He has a point...


    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by Whorty View Post
    the gammon loving press
    These papers have to be appealing to and audience way beyond the "gammons". It's amazing how many people slag the papers considering how many must be buying and reading them.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohntheBike
    replied
    Originally posted by unixman View Post
    The way they announced it seems like a deliberate insult to the Queen. Or if not an insult, at least publicly disrespectful. Why would they do that? Barmy. Or deluded.

    Some newspapers are saying it has all been plotted for ages, was Meghan's plan all along, and reading far too much into it. Daft. We can't know what is going on inside a relationship or what passes in the minds of others. Just take events at face value.

    Happy to pay for their ongoing security, but little else. And the titles will have to go. Lastly, as someone pointed out above, a "transatlantic lifestyle" = environmental homicide.
    The way they announced it seems like a deliberate insult to the Queen. Or if not an insult, at least publicly disrespectful. Why would they do that?
    there is a suggestion in another thread that they have tried to discuss the issues previously, but have not had much success in achieving their wishes.

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    I would prefer to stop this waste and let Tony B'liar take his chances...

    Tony Blair's police protection costs taxpayers millions, report claims | Politics | The Guardian
    FFS

    If someone bumped off the war criminal I doubt anyone would really care.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
    Hmm...

    I'm not so keen on paying for their security. If they don't want to be part of the royal family then they shouldn't get any of the services that the tax payer funds. Who is going to pay for their Canadian lifestyle? The Brits certainly shouldn't but I also don't think it's fair to lump it on the Canadians either.

    I would prefer to stop this waste and let Tony B'liar take his chances...

    Tony Blair's police protection costs taxpayers millions, report claims | Politics | The Guardian

    Blair requires as many as 12 police protection officers following his role as prime minister and his advocacy of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a Daily Telegraph investigation published on Friday claims.Documents seen by the Telegraph allegedly show that Blair sometimes visits as many as five countries a week, at a potential cost of between £14,000 and £16,000 to the public purse. The paper reports that each protection officer was likely to be earning at least £56,000, but could earn more than £70,000 given the overtime they accumulate on foreign trips.

    In 2010 the Mail on Sunday reported that the cost of Blair’s diplomatic protection was £250,000 a year, double the cost for Gordon Brown.

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Originally posted by unixman View Post
    The way they announced it seems like a deliberate insult to the Queen. Or if not an insult, at least publicly disrespectful. Why would they do that? Barmy. Or deluded.

    Some newspapers are saying it has all been plotted for ages, was Meghan's plan all along, and reading far too much into it. Daft. We can't know what is going on inside a relationship or what passes in the minds of others. Just take events at face value.

    Happy to pay for their ongoing security, but little else. And the titles will have to go. Lastly, as someone pointed out above, a "transatlantic lifestyle" = environmental homicide.
    Hmm...

    I'm not so keen on paying for their security. If they don't want to be part of the royal family then they shouldn't get any of the services that the tax payer funds. Who is going to pay for their Canadian lifestyle? The Brits certainly shouldn't but I also don't think it's fair to lump it on the Canadians either.

    Leave a comment:


  • unixman
    replied
    The way they announced it seems like a deliberate insult to the Queen. Or if not an insult, at least publicly disrespectful. Why would they do that? Barmy. Or deluded.

    Some newspapers are saying it has all been plotted for ages, was Meghan's plan all along, and reading far too much into it. Daft. We can't know what is going on inside a relationship or what passes in the minds of others. Just take events at face value.

    Happy to pay for their ongoing security, but little else. And the titles will have to go. Lastly, as someone pointed out above, a "transatlantic lifestyle" = environmental homicide.

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    For me this is just another example of why a Royal should only marry another royal
    Good idea, It didn't do the Habsburgs any harm!

    Leave a comment:


  • technobabble
    replied
    Sadly..

    For me this is just another example of why a Royal should only marry another royal. Meghan just wants to be a celebrity and make as much out of the situation as she can.

    It is almost certain to end up hurting Harry and with a divorce and a lot of damage to the institution of the Monarchy.

    The only way to preserve a Monarchy is for those in line to be dedicated to public duties and to avoid any personal interests.

    Sadly they both need to loose their titles and be pushed out, in the interest of the overall preservation of there even being a Royal family.

    I am strongly a Monarchist though I lived overseas for 12 years even that was in one of our remaining territories.

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    Yeh, the amount of coverage in some papers regarding this boring issue is quite ridiculous.

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    Originally posted by Whorty View Post
    8 pages? Really? Dedicated to 2 young people who are presumably in love but aren't doing what the gammon loving press want them to do.

    Hilarious ..... the red tops have hounded them out of the country, and are now p'd off that their (the red tops) little money spinner is buggering off to the US to make their own money.

    Gammons. Don'tcha just love 'em
    It's quite interesting to see that these, really rather crap media outlets such as the Daily Mail which had over 30 stories about it on their front web page whereas only a couple dedicated to the shooting down of a civilian airliner by Iran which could have severe repercussions for the whole world. It really goes to show what is important to their readership and why this world is so ****ed up now....

    Leave a comment:


  • Whorty
    replied
    8 pages? Really? Dedicated to 2 young people who are presumably in love but aren't doing what the gammon loving press want them to do.

    Hilarious ..... the red tops have hounded them out of the country, and are now p'd off that their (the red tops) little money spinner is buggering off to the US to make their own money.

    Gammons. Don'tcha just love 'em

    Leave a comment:


  • Mordac
    replied
    Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
    A troll once said to me:
    It’s remarkable why there is so much resentment towards the likes of Ms Markle, David Lammy, Diane Abbott, Sam Gyimah and Chuka Umunna - I can’t think of a logical reason as to why this might be happening!
    A bunch of hypocrites attracting resentment? Who'd have thunk it...?

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    A troll once said to me:

    Rather sad what has become of our once great country in the past 4 years.Nationalism and xenophobia have swung praise and advantage towards people like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson who seek to divide our country, and instead turned resentment and contempt towards the efforts of people like Meghan Markle.
    It’s remarkable why there is so much resentment towards the likes of Ms Markle, David Lammy, Diane Abbott, Sam Gyimah and Chuka Umunna - I can’t think of a logical reason as to why this might be happening!

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by Hobosapien View Post
    MODS, we need a new sub-forum for all the royalists v roundheads wanting to cross piss streams at dawn.
    Megxit sub forum?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X