Fancy seeing you heir! Gazza plants a kiss on Prince William's cheek

[Crimson Dynamo]

Fancy seeing you heir! Gazza plants a kiss on Prince William's cheek after pair
bump into each other at Pret A Manger in Bournemouth during royal's visit to
end homelessness


William's tireless work for the homeless
man of the people
takes the train like the rest of us



Prince William had a surprise visitor at a Pret A Manger in Bournemouth
today when England football legend Paul Gascoigne turned up - and they
gave each other a kiss.

The extraordinary meeting happened while the Prince of Wales was chatting
with staff and bosses at the Pret café as part of his major campaign to end homelessness.


William and Gascoigne were filmed greeting each other among an excited
crowd inside the outlet, with Gascoigne saying that he lived in nearby
Sandbanks and was feeling 'a lot better, getting there' after his long battle
with alcohol addiction.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/07/13/75165885-12491199-image-a-94_1694089737283.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/07/13/75166157-12491199-image-a-123_1694090272006.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/07/13/75166161-12491199-image-a-124_1694090287128.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/07/13/75166181-12491199-image-a-122_1694090258497.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/07/13/75166155-12491199-image-a-129_1694090329334.jpg
how lovely

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12491199/Prince-William-visits-Pret-Manger-caf-Bournemouth.html#newcomment

[The Slim Reaper]

The heart warming, feel good story of a debauched man who cheated on his wife...and his meeting with Paul Gascoigne :smug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Always happy and smiling unlike his scowling brother

[The Slim Reaper]

Carl always looks pretty happy to me.

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1739971.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Paul%20Gascoigne%20with%20Jimmy%20Gardner.jpg

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-6SZC3WEAMBM-2.jpg

[Jordan.]

royal's visit to
end homelessness

Very woke

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1699760300566716509?s=20

[rusticgal]

Fantastic....

[bots]

Paul has a nose for free bevvy. The kiss was him imbibing Will's aftershave

[rusticgal]

Very woke


Not really....Diana highlighted the Homeless to William and Harry at a very young age...and William is walking in her shoes. She would be so proud.

[rusticgal]

Did anyone watch Paul Gascoigne in Scared of the Dark?....I found him truly humbling.

[Glenn.]

It’s like they don’t have a mass of real estate that could house them all.

[Jordan.]

Not really....Diana highlighted the Homeless to William and Harry at a very young age...and William is walking in her shoes. She would be so proud.

Yes Diana was woke too :love:

[Crimson Dynamo]

It’s like they don’t have a mass of real estate that could house them all.

how many live with you?


the answer rhymes with Robert Di Niro


:joker:

[Glenn.]

how many live with you?


the answer rhymes with Robert Di Niro


:joker:

I don’t have the room for them :conf:

What kind of gotcha is that :joker:

[Beso]

I don’t have the room for them :conf:

What kind of gotcha is that :joker:


Do you contribute to any charities to home them?

[Glenn.]

Do you contribute to any charities to home them?

Yes thank you. There’s quite a few in my area.

I also donate to food banks. Is that alright with you?

I assume you don’t

[Beso]

Yes thank you. There’s quite a few in my area.

I also donate to food banks. Is that alright with you?

I assume you don’t

Quite a few what?

[Glenn.]

Quite a few what?

Are you that drunk that you forgot what you asked me or?

[Beso]

Are you that drunk that you forgot what you asked me or?

So I will assume quite a few people who have housed immigrants around your area have you knocking on their door donating money to them? Or is it an immigrant charity you believe you donate to?

If so, which one do you donate to?

[Glenn.]

So I will assume quite a few people who have housed immigrants around your area have you knocking on their door donating money to them? Or is it an immigrant charity you believe you donate to?

If so, which one do you donate to?

Why are you talking about immigrants? William aint even talking about them :joker:

[Beso]

Why are you talking about immigrants? William aint even talking about them :joker:

So you donate to charities that house the homeless?

Monthly?

Or just red nose day?

[Glenn.]

So you donate to charities that house the homeless?

Monthly?

Or just red nose day?

£40 a month to four different ones around me

[Crimson Dynamo]

I don’t have the room for them :conf:

What kind of gotcha is that :joker:

:joker:

https://www.tiktok.com/@broken_britain/video/7215310632533478662?lang=en

[Glenn.]

Again I think people need to learn how to read. Prince William isn’t on a little tour for the immigrants :joker:

Maybe actually read the article.

[Glenn.]

How embarrassing for you :joker:

[Beso]

£40 a month to four different ones around me

That could go on a mortgage repayment for a bigger house so you could do your bit and house one in a larger home.:shrug:


Cause right now, none of them are being housed..not the ones you see begging on the street with their blankets anyway.

They've been forgotten..and those are the ones I always give money to when I pass. Rather generously as well if I may add.
We both probably ain't 100 percent sure whether or not that cash went on a helpful project, but at least I get rewarded with a smile. So I urge you to just give some random homeless person that 40 quid, rather than some dubious local charity who's money is probably propping up foreigners rather than British homeless people.

[Crimson Dynamo]

£40 a month to four different ones around me

:joker:

total lies

[Glenn.]

I’m not a liar

[Crimson Dynamo]

I’m not a liar

that is exactly what a liar would say :hee:

[Glenn.]

It’s cute you think I need your clarification

[Crimson Dynamo]

It’s cute you think I need your clarification

more adorable that cute

https://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/emoticons/413397957_mentalasanything.gif

[Beso]

more adorable that cute

https://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/emoticons/413397957_mentalasanything.gif

Good one..:hehe:

[Glenn.]

So embarrassing :joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Good one..:hehe:

pwned:joker:

[Glenn.]

Cringing so bad

[Beso]

You didn't get the topical joke glenn.

Now that's cute.:hehe:

[Crimson Dynamo]

You didn't get the topical joke glenn.

Now that's cute.:hehe:

adorable :laugh:

[Beso]

adorable :laugh:

Oh stop it.:laugh:

[Mystic Mock]

Again I think people need to learn how to read. Prince William isn’t on a little tour for the immigrants :joker:

Maybe actually read the article.

Reading articles was so 2012.

Seriously though how has this thread turned into an Immigration discussion?:laugh:

[jet]

The heart warming, feel good story of a debauched man who cheated on his wife...and his meeting with Paul Gascoigne :smug:

This is just a much repeated rumour beloved of H&M fans, which you state as a fact. As I have never been able to find a shred of evidence that it is true, could you post a link to your info?

[jet]

New Idea
So who exactly is Rose the woman at the centre of these unsubstantiated royal cheating claims?

Several years ago, rumours of a big fallout between Kate and her former best friend, Rose, started circulating, thanks to a report published by The Sun.
At the time an insider alleged to the publication "It is well known that Kate and Rose have had a terrible falling out. They used to be close but that is not the case any more,".
Rumours started swirling that Kate was adamant on phasing Rose out of her social circle, while William was attempting to "play peacemaker" due to the two women sharing many mutual friends.

In April 2021, royal expert Andrew Morton assured New Idea that the "toxic story" was "false" and, although William and Kate "consider(ed) taking legal action", they ultimately "decided to ignore the chatter".
“William and Kate came out stronger than ever, the couple realising if any proof were needed, that this was the price of a life spent in the public eye." Morton told us.

If there was any 'falling out' it didn't last long. Rose was at the thanksgiving service for the Duke of Edinburgh, attended the Queen’s funeral and the Coronation of King Charles.
Her son, Oliver, was one of the Four Pages of Honour at the Coronation, and was seen on the balcony beside Prince George.

…..and….Kate’s sister, Pippa, called her new baby daughter Rose. Pretty awful thing to do to her sister if Wills had been really having it off with the aforementioned Rose, eh?

[jet]

Did anyone watch Paul Gascoigne in Scared of the Dark?....I found him truly humbling.

Yes I did and I agree. :wavey:
A lovely man who has been through a lot.

[jet]

So to wrap up on the silly William stories….let’s address the ‘pegging’. :hee:

This came from a BLIND item on Deuxmoi, an Instagram account that skewers the media and Hollywood with salacious pieces of reader-submitted celebrity gossip.
Deuxmoi makes it clear that: It’s important to remember that gossip on this Instagram account offers unverified stories, so take what you are about to read with a grain of salt.
(Covering their backs.)

In this instance, the unnamed was a Royal having an affair because he liked ‘pegging’ but his wife was too ‘old fashioned and stuffy’ to oblige.

Must be true, a anon reader says so! Must be Prince William!
The rumour monger didn’t even have originality. The story was likely handed down from years ago; back then the suspected pegging partners were Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, then it switched to Prince Edward, who they believed was gay, and his new wife, Sophie, who was his ‘beard’.
Load of silly nonsense of course.

[Cherie]

It’s like they don’t have a mass of real estate that could house them all.

such an ill thought out simplistic view, its not as simple as saying here is a home, now get on with it, these people have troubled pasts, addiction, they dont have a job, some choose homelessness, they need wrap around care to get them back into society again, , its not a one size fits all and heres a roof over your head now you are sorted mate fix :joker:

[The Slim Reaper]

This is just a much repeated rumour beloved of H&M fans, which you state as a fact. As I have never been able to find a shred of evidence that it is true, could you post a link to your info?

Got it. Rumours are ok when they're only one way, but heaven forbid any kind of mirror should be held up..

I wish you'd meet your own evidentiary standards, because articles of whispers in trashy media, isn't evidence of anything either. You're so close to actually getting it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Got it. Rumours are ok when they're only one way, but heaven forbid any kind of mirror should be held up..

I wish you'd meet your own evidentiary standards, because articles of whispers in trashy media, isn't evidence of anything either. You're so close to actually getting it.

and pretending to not understand sources vary and there are good, doubtful and tragic pish sources

what is that?

[Glenn.]

The Harry and Meghan haters thrive on rumours

[The Slim Reaper]

and pretending to not understand sources vary and there are good, doubtful and tragic pish sources

what is that?

Rumours are rumours, no? No evidence = just a trashy rumour.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Oh and lets not forget the "Near catastrophic car chase"

their words

their utter lies

[The Slim Reaper]

Oh and lets not forget the "Near catastrophic car chase"

their words

their utter lies

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8f/ab/78/8fab78dbd50330a03363c7d86a0c74ac.jpg

[jet]

Got it. Rumours are ok when they're only one way, but heaven forbid any kind of mirror should be held up..

I wish you'd meet your own evidentiary standards, because articles of whispers in trashy media, isn't evidence of anything either. You're so close to actually getting it.

I don’t post BLIND nonsense from anonymous readers on gossip sites (though I certainly could) where any sad idiot can make up anything.

I post:
1.News items and articles already in the mainstream media by named reporters, 90% of the time with a LINK. Anyone is free to look up their previous work and decide for themselves the named reporter's reliability.
2.H&M’s own words and actions which anyone can hear and see for themselves.
3. My own opinion.

You, on the other hand, post as FACT stories from any old anonymous Tom, Dick or Harry, which is laughable and who LT rightly described as ‘tragic pish sources’.

[The Slim Reaper]

I don’t post BLIND nonsense from anonymous readers on gossip sites (though I certainly could) where any sad idiot can make up anything.

I post:
1.News items and articles already in the mainstream media by named reporters, 90% of the time with a LINK. Anyone is free to look up their previous work and decide for themselves the named reporter's reliability.
2.H&M’s own words and actions which anyone can hear and see for themselves.
3. My own opinion.

You, on the other hand, post as FACT stories from any old anonymous Tom, Dick or Harry, which is laughable and who LT rightly described as ‘tragic pish sources’.

1) Posting articles of other peoples opinions and rumourmongering, isn't the win you perceive it to be.

2) their own words...with a twist of preconceived outcome.

3) Exactly, posting rumours then opining on said rumours, doesn't make it any more valid.

Is there any possible reason you could think of, as to why our true blue, royalty loving media wouldn't pick up on negative stories surrounding William, and treats Andrew better than the brown girl who hasn't paid anyone off for sex crimes?

[jet]

Is there any possible reason you could think of, as to why our true blue, royalty loving media wouldn't pick up on negative stories surrounding William, and treats Andrew better than the brown girl who hasn't paid anyone off for sex crimes?

Yes I can.
Negative stories about William are thin on the ground because he is a very private person and he concentrates on his duties and family, not feeding the media (see Harry and Meghan later).... The media I am familiar with (The Mail, the Telegraph, The Times), and most other mainstream media don’t repeat anonymous stories from some fantasist on gossip sites unless they have investigated it and they believe it has legs.

They haven’t picked up on blind ones which are meant to point to Harry/Meghan either, and I can say there is a particularly damaging one that has been doing the rounds for some time supposedly about Harry, which sounds like it could fit and be true (for that is how they reel the gullible in). Quite rightly, not a whisper in the mainstream media because they will have concluded, like the one about William, THAT IT IS MADE UP. Otherwise, they would all be on it like a fly on sh**.

When it comes to Andrew, did you READ any papers at the time all that was going on? …and after that interview he did etc? They ROASTED him. As little is seen or heard from him in ages, there is precious little to report, whereas Meghan (and Harry) say ‘here you are LOOK AT US’ to the press with their never - ending attention seeking of interviews, books, podcasts, netflix series, televised personal therapy sessions, car chases. Full of lies and victimhood and hypocrisy.
There you go.

[jet]

1) Posting articles of other peoples opinions and rumourmongering, isn't the win you perceive it to be.

2) their own words...with a twist of preconceived outcome.

3) Exactly, posting rumours then opining on said rumours, doesn't make it any more valid.


You actually think that an anonymous reader on a gossip site has equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?
And do you actually believe, as you seem to, that all news stories and articles by journalists are always ONLY rumour mongering? That just isn’t possible or realistic. They mainstream media publications can't just make up utter nonsense or they would be sued to hell and back, not just occasionally. There will be varying degrees of reporting, true, but they are a far cry from your fantasist on the gossip site (which makes sure they stress the tales are 'unverified').

[Beso]

You actually think that an anonymous reader on a gossip site has equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?
And do you actually believe, as you seem to, that all news stories and articles by journalists are always ONLY rumour mongering? That just isn’t possible or realistic. They mainstream media publications can't just make up utter nonsense or they would be sued to hell and back, not just occasionally. There will be varying degrees of reporting, true, but they are a far cry from your fantasist on the gossip site (which makes sure they stress the tales are 'unverified').

Here you go Jet, your mic, you just dropped it.:dance:

[The Slim Reaper]

You actually think that an anonymous reader on a gossip site has equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?
And do you actually believe, as you seem to, that all news stories and articles by journalists are always ONLY rumour mongering? That just isn’t possible or realistic. They mainstream media publications can't just make up utter nonsense or they would be sued to hell and back, not just occasionally. There will be varying degrees of reporting, true, but they are a far cry from your fantasist on the gossip site (which makes sure they stress the tales are 'unverified').

You'd better pick that mic back up, because the press is a disgusting institution that never ever quite reaches the bottom of the barrel. Using black peoples pictures for honky articles.

https://www.newsweek.com/ghostwritten-column-meghan-markle-race-outrage-daily-mail-1824311

A column on Meghan Markle arguing that her conflict with the royals was not about racism was ghostwritten on behalf of a Black commentator in a move labeled "appalling" by a social media analyst.

Dominque Samuels, a U.K. commentator and media personality, was bylined on a column in the Daily Mail with the headline: "This clash of the Royals was about culture... NOT colour" that was published two days after Meghan and Prince Harry's Oprah Winfrey interview.

[Cherie]

I understand people can be anti Monarchy, what I cant wrap my head around is how the anti monarchists are pro Meghan and Harry, they are still part of the monarchy just stepped back from duties, they trade on their titles, they gave their kids titles (from that awful institution) and btw Meghan is a black woman according to herself, I have never heard her refer to herself as brown although in my opinion she is much a white woman as a black one
,

[Swan]

I understand people can be anti Monarchy, what I cant wrap my head around is how the anti monarchists are pro Meghan and Harry, they are still part of the monarchy just stepped back from duties, they trade on their titles, they gave their kids titles (from that awful institution) and btw Meghan is a black woman according to herself, I have never heard her refer to herself as brown although in my opinion she is much a white woman as a black one
,

Really good post. Im anti monarchy and that's pretty much my stance down to a tee. As far as race, it's a tricky one, as her mother is black, and father white, so i guess she can identify as black, or white, or brown (which is what her skin colour is). Although race doesn't play a part in any of it for me, they're just very unlikeable, whiny and entitled people who want to have their cake and eat it too. They are smart enough to know they're nothing without their royal titles though, so from a staying relevant/being in any way marketable point of view, keeping their titles makes good business sense.

[Cherie]

Really good post. Im anti monarchy and that's pretty much my stance down to a tee. As far as race, it's a tricky one, as her mother is black, and father white, so i guess she can identify as black, or white, or brown (which is what her skin colour is). Although race doesn't play a part in any of it for me, they're just very unlikeable, whiny and entitled people who want to have their cake and eat it too. They are smart enough to know they're nothing without their royal titles though, so from a staying relevant/being in any way marketable point of view, keeping their titles makes good business sense.

If you go back to the beginning what they wanted was to be half in/half out so in no way did they want to leave all the advantages being in the monarchy had, so how bad could it have been for them given they didnt want fully out, remember when they had to change their Sussex page when Liz put her foot down, it was really only after that it all went sour as they realised they were being cut free which isnt what they wholly wanted

[jet]

You'd better pick that mic back up, because the press is a disgusting institution that never ever quite reaches the bottom of the barrel. Using black peoples pictures for honky articles.

https://www.newsweek.com/ghostwritten-column-meghan-markle-race-outrage-daily-mail-1824311

A column on Meghan Markle arguing that her conflict with the royals was not about racism was ghostwritten on behalf of a Black commentator in a move labeled "appalling" by a social media analyst.

Dominque Samuels, a U.K. commentator and media personality, was bylined on a column in the Daily Mail with the headline: "This clash of the Royals was about culture... NOT colour" that was published two days after Meghan and Prince Harry's Oprah Winfrey interview.


I have no idea what this post is supposed to prove...
That every paper, every journalist, every article (hundreds over the last 4 years on H&M) are ALL rumour mongering/ghostwritten and have no more validity than your Mr. or Mrs.Anonymous on a gossip site, whose silly gossip you took as fact?
That is just pure nuts.
Over the years, I have come to know which named journalists (because of their proven track record of reliability and accuracy) to have trust in. I’ll stick to them, thank you, and you stick to your preference for anonymous fiction writers who you believe have equal validity. Each to their own. Deal?

[The Slim Reaper]

Has nothing to do with being pro or anti-monarchy, but it's more about the constant weird obsessions every time they breath in and breath out. Most of it is just so unhinged that it's about fairness more than anything.

[The Slim Reaper]

I have no idea what this post is supposed to prove...
That every paper, every journalist, every article (hundreds over the last 4 years on H&M) are ALL rumour mongering and have no more validity than your Mr. or Mrs.Anonymous on a gossip site, whose silly gossip you took as fact?
That is just pure nuts.
Over the years, I have come to know which named journalists (because of their proven track record of reliability and accuracy) to have trust in. I’ll stick to them, thank you, and you stick to your preference for anonymous fiction writers who you believe have equal validity. Each to their own. Deal?

I posted about what the daily mail have been up to.

"equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?"

I've just given you the prime example of the daily mail (one of your trusted sources) using a black persons name and picture to push an agenda.

You keep talking as though I give a sh1t about any of the rumours about William being true, it's just fun to see you wind yourself up into oblivion about it all :laugh:

Again, you have no idea who is reliable, you just enjoy that they are feeding you what you want to hear/read.

[thesheriff443]

You can’t get a more reliable source than what has come out of Meghan and Harry’s own mouths and what they have said has been proven to be clear lies

Meghan was caught out lying in the high court and had to apologise for her, er er memory loss

The only people that have destroyed Meghan and Harry’s reputation is themselves

[jet]

I posted about what the daily mail have been up to.

"equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?"

I've just given you the prime example of the daily mail (one of your trusted sources) using a black persons name and picture to push an agenda.

You keep talking as though I give a sh1t about any of the rumours about William being true, it's just fun to see you wind yourself up into oblivion about it all :laugh:

Again, you have no idea who is reliable, you just enjoy that they are feeding you what you want to hear/read.

Coming from you and your 'sources', that is hilarious. :joker:

.....and sorry, but your one example means sh** all in a very wide subject matter.

[jet]

You can’t get a more reliable source than what has come out of Meghan and Harry’s own mouths and what they have said has been proven to be clear lies

Meghan was caught out lying in the high court and had to apologise for her, er er memory loss

The only people that have destroyed Meghan and Harry’s reputation is themselves

Great post sheriff.

But…but…the press made everything that came out of their mouths all up…it’s just nasty rumour mongering - .according to Slim. :laugh:

[Glenn.]

I posted about what the daily mail have been up to.

"equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?"

I've just given you the prime example of the daily mail (one of your trusted sources) using a black persons name and picture to push an agenda.

You keep talking as though I give a sh1t about any of the rumours about William being true, it's just fun to see you wind yourself up into oblivion about it all :laugh:

Again, you have no idea who is reliable, you just enjoy that they are feeding you what you want to hear/read.

You can’t talk to them Slim.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Great post sheriff.

But…but…the press made everything that came out of their mouths all up…it’s just nasty rumour mongering - .according to Slim. :laugh:

:joker:

[jet]

I've just given you the prime example of the daily mail (one of your trusted sources)

Try and read posts properly. I have never said the Mail is one of my trusted sources. I have said there are certain journalists who I have, over the years, found to be reliable from the Mail (because some are not) - also the Telegraph and the Times. Big difference.

[The Slim Reaper]

Coming from you and your 'sources', that is hilarious. :joker:

.....and sorry, but your one example means sh** all in a very wide subject matter.

Who are my sources? You keep saying this, but this whole conversation started because of a joke I made, nothing involving any sources.

I know why that story about the daily mail doesn't interest you, it's because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. It's really simple. Oh well, yes of course the daily mail does catfishing articles, but not the ones I like, they're good and honourable. It's fcuking weird.

[The Slim Reaper]

You can’t talk to them Slim.

It's entertainment on a Sunday evening though :laugh:

[The Slim Reaper]

Try and read posts properly. I have never said the Mail is one of my trusted sources. I have said there are certain journalists who I have, over the years, found to be reliable from the Mail (because some are not) - also the Telegraph and the Times. Big difference.

So you only post mail articles from certain sources? And you stick to that rigidly?

[jet]

Who are my sources? You keep saying this, but this whole conversation started because of a joke I made, nothing involving any sources.

I know why that story about the daily mail doesn't interest you, it's because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. It's really simple. Oh well, yes of course the daily mail does catfishing articles, but not the ones I like, they're good and honourable. It's fcuking weird.

Not as fcuking weird as your sh** mate.

I'll give you a chance to mind - read someone else, badly. I'm off to watch a new documentary about the Royal grandchildren. :dance:

[Glenn.]

It's entertainment on a Sunday evening though :laugh:

You be careful, they’re very fragile.

[The Slim Reaper]

Not as fcuking weird as your sh** mate.

I'll give you a chance to mind - read someone else, badly. I'm off to watch a new documentary about the Royal grandchildren. :dance:

My sh1t was a joke that your little sensitive soul couldn't take (on behalf of poor William), so you started a 2 page discussion about sources, and now you're pretending that it was all me because you don't want to commit to what you've just said about trusted sources :joker:

Enjoy watching a programme about young children, and enjoy your evening, my dude :smug:

[Glenn.]

Might get some popcorn actually

[The Slim Reaper]

I'm going out in 10 mins, so just get a small bag :smug:

[jet]

My sh1t was a joke that your little sensitive soul couldn't take (on behalf of poor William), so you started a 2 page discussion about sources, and now you're pretending that it was all me because you don't want to commit to what you've just said about trusted sources :joker:

Enjoy watching a programme about young children, and enjoy your evening, my dude :smug:

Oh silly me, I didn’t say ‘watch a docu about Royal grandchildren with my family’ just in case you hinted at something unsavoury the way you did before (much more strongly) when I posted pics of Prince Louis.
I have to wonder why your mind directly goes there, its sick....:worry:


This is your idea of a joke?

(The heart warming, feel good story of a debauched man who cheated on his wife...and his meeting with Paul Gascoigne) The Slim Reaper

Actually, it proves my point that I dislike really personal and damaging unverified rumours about anyone that I have never posted the blind gossip item which obviously was intended to point the finger at Harry (and ones about Meghan too). I wonder what your reaction would have been if I HAD posted them, from an anon on a blind item gossip site, when your sensitive soul can’t even take articles critical of their own words and actions from named sources.

[jet]

So you only post mail articles from certain sources? And you stick to that rigidly?

At a guess, 85 - 90% of the time, which is a pretty good percentage I’d say.
Sometimes a named journalist is unfamiliar to me, but you can watch what they produce subsequently and learn as you go.
I’m no more perfect than the next person.

[The Slim Reaper]

Oh silly me, I didn’t say ‘watch a docu about Royal grandchildren with my family’ just in case you hinted at something unsavoury the way you did before (much more strongly) when I posted pics of Prince Louis.
I have to wonder why your mind directly goes there, its sick....:worry:


This is your idea of a joke?

(The heart warming, feel good story of a debauched man who cheated on his wife...and his meeting with Paul Gascoigne) The Slim Reaper

Actually, it proves my point that I dislike really personal and damaging unverified rumours about anyone that I have never posted the blind gossip item which obviously was intended to point the finger at Harry (and ones about Meghan too). I wonder what your reaction would have been if I HAD posted them, from an anon on a blind item gossip site, when your sensitive soul can’t even take articles critical of their own words and actions from named sources.

Someone breaths

Jet: well actually that proves my point.

Jet, I'm not arsed what you post. Honestly, it's the same drivel on a continuous loop. I'm pretty sure you'd have been met with pats on the back and thumbs up smileys if you had posted them, and then you'd get a few joker smileys thrown in at the end; it's not that serious, William and Kate don't know you, and nor do M&H, so I'm sure you white knighting Kate and Peggy warms your own soul, but it's pure comedy to me.

You should post whatever makes you happy and contented, because I'm not the posting police. I didn't quote you or post anything about you or in your direction. I made a joke, and you're still crying about it now :laugh:

It's sick...:worry: :laugh:

[The Slim Reaper]

At a guess, 85 - 90% of the time, which is a pretty good percentage I’d say.
Sometimes a named journalist is unfamiliar to me, but you can watch what they produce subsequently and learn as you go.
I’m no more perfect than the next person.

Don't talk yourself down like that; a man as committed as you are, to protecting the most privileged family on earth, is certainly up there in the perfection stakes.

Can you tell me who you trust then, so I can hold you to it moving forward?

https://media.tenor.com/z3viSdr_ChYAAAAC/im-watching-watch-you.gif

[jet]

Someone breaths

Jet: well actually that proves my point.

Jet, I'm not arsed what you post. Honestly, it's the same drivel on a continuous loop. I'm pretty sure you'd have been met with pats on the back and thumbs up smileys if you had posted them, and then you'd get a few joker smileys thrown in at the end; it's not that serious, William and Kate don't know you, and nor do M&H, so I'm sure you white knighting Kate and Peggy warms your own soul, but it's pure comedy to me.

You should post whatever makes you happy and contented, because I'm not the posting police. I didn't quote you or post anything about you or in your direction. I made a joke, and you're still crying about it now :laugh:

It's sick...:worry: :laugh:


If you go back to post 41, you’ll find I simply asked you for a link to your um….’joke’. You didn’t respond.
I then didn’t refer to you directly at all, but posted where the rumours originated.
That was all and where it could have ended.
Then began your endless drivel to me starting with my ‘evidentiary standards’ and ‘how close I was to getting it’. I replied, you replied, and on and on and on.
But you weren't 'arsed'.

You are now dismissed. Jog on.

[Jordan.]

You are now dismissed. Jog on.

https://c8.alamy.com/compfr/2pybhf6/londres-royaume-uni-3rd-mai-2023-patrick-oneill-ne-peut-pas-camper-et-rejoint-ses-amis-sur-une-base-quotidienne-ils-sont-deja-sur-le-mall-depuis-6-jours-londres-se-prepare-pour-le-couronnement-du-roi-charles-iii-sur-6-mai-credit-guy-bell-alay-live-news-2pybhf6.jpg

[Swan]

You are now dismissed. Jog on.

https://c8.alamy.com/compfr/2pybhf6/londres-royaume-uni-3rd-mai-2023-patrick-oneill-ne-peut-pas-camper-et-rejoint-ses-amis-sur-une-base-quotidienne-ils-sont-deja-sur-le-mall-depuis-6-jours-londres-se-prepare-pour-le-couronnement-du-roi-charles-iii-sur-6-mai-credit-guy-bell-alay-live-news-2pybhf6.jpg

Is that you Jordan supporting the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

[arista]

Swan
Jordan's anti Royal

[The Slim Reaper]

If you go back to post 41, you’ll find I simply asked you for a link to your um….’joke’. You didn’t respond.
I then didn’t refer to you directly at all, but posted where the rumours originated.
That was all and where it could have ended.
Then began your endless drivel to me starting with my ‘evidentiary standards’ and ‘how close I was to getting it’. I replied, you replied, and on and on and on.
But you weren't 'arsed'.

You are now dismissed. Jog on.

After I posted that um..."joke" you spent 2 pages being an annoying knat about the rumours. Of course you weren't replying directly to me, despite yaknow, replying directly to me.

Imagine being so much of a prefect, that even someone having a joke about the rumours, causes you to go into full on panic, white knight mode.

All you had to do was think "jesus christ the amazing misdirection that slim posted about paul gascoigne and our lord and saviour, william, was so good, it even went over my head".

But no, you couldn't do that, you had to turn into the repetitive uber-bore you frequently are. You don't have to like my joke or even understand it, but I beg of thee, please partake in some self reflection on white knighting for 2 pages being a bit tedious, even by your world class ability in the discipline of tedium.

[jet]

After I posted that um..."joke" you spent 2 pages being an annoying knat about the rumours. Of course you weren't replying directly to me, despite yaknow, replying directly to me.

Imagine being so much of a prefect, that even someone having a joke about the rumours, causes you to go into full on panic, white knight mode.

All you had to do was think "jesus christ the amazing misdirection that slim posted about paul gascoigne and our lord and saviour, william, was so good, it even went over my head".

But no, you couldn't do that, you had to turn into the repetitive uber-bore you frequently are. You don't have to like my joke or even understand it, but I beg of thee, please partake in some self reflection on white knighting for 2 pages being a bit tedious, even by your world class ability in the discipline of tedium.

Yet, here you are again, oddly carrying on the tedium, (which it undoubtedly was for others) and which was 50% yours.
I've already dismissed you. I'm not biting. You can have the last word or this will never end. Bye.

[Cherie]

Swan
Jordan's anti Royal

He cant be, he supports the Duke and Duchess of Sussex along with their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet

[arista]

He cant be, he supports the Duke and Duchess of Sussex along with their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet


OK

Just Andrew then

[Cherie]

OK

Just Andrew then

same as the rest of us :smug:

[rusticgal]

Yet, here you are again, oddly carrying on the tedium, (which it undoubtedly was for others) and which was 50% yours.
I've already dismissed you. I'm not biting. You can have the last word or this will never end. Bye.

:love:

[The Slim Reaper]

Yet, here you are again, oddly carrying on the tedium, (which it undoubtedly was for others) and which was 50% yours.
I've already dismissed you. I'm not biting. You can have the last word or this will never end. Bye.

I'll take the last word, thanks. You don't get to crash your car into mine, then claim it's 50% my responsibility. I know "jog on" might sound impressive to prefects who talk about characters in soap operas as though they're real people, but to anyone with a personality not based around protecting Kate and Peggy at all costs, it doesn't really do much.

As this is definitely the last word and you definitely won't reply to this, I'll just wish you good fortunes for the week ahead :smug:

Bye :laugh:

[Jordan.]

He cant be, he supports the Duke and Duchess of Sussex along with their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet

oh are H&M royalty again? most days we're being told they're nothing more than hollywood celebs (on the breadline no less) :hehe:

[jet]

oh are H&M royalty again? most days we're being told they're nothing more than hollywood celebs (on the breadline no less) :hehe:

They want to still be Royals and treated like Royals by always using their titles and insisting their chidren have titles.
But they act like trashy celebs.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He cant be, he supports the Duke and Duchess of Sussex along with their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet

:joker:

[Jordan.]

They want to still be Royals and treated like Royals by always using their titles and insisting their chidren have titles.
But they act like trashy celebs.

Whilst there's people like you who give any of these meaningless titles weight they will continue playing you like a fiddle. They laugh to the bank at your expense not mine :hehe:

[jet]

Whilst there's people like you who give any of these meaningless titles weight they will continue playing you like a fiddle. They laugh to the bank at your expense not mine :hehe:

I’m not talking about money (though it remains to be seen how that will go, doesn’t it?).
I’m talking about respect, real status, admiration.
They aren’t liked or respected in any way by a large majority. The Spotify bigwig calling them grifters and untalented….Southpark taking the piss. Not getting invited anywhere by the A listers. The bottom of the polls in the UK AND America now.
Why? Because they have not acted like the Royals they still want to be, but as trashy celebs. You’ve supported them all this time, and they have let you down, badly.

[Glenn.]

The only people that seem to care are the haters :joker: