[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

No, its a newspaper.
When I'm referencing a royal correspondent, I'll say so (as I usually do) just so you'll know the difference.

A newspaper isn’t a credible source for information. It’s sensationalism. Something that’s helped fuel the unnecessary hatred directed at them.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

A newspaper isn’t a credible source for information. It’s sensationalism. Something that’s helped fuel the unnecessary hatred directed at them.

Of course the DM often uses sensationalism, usually in their headlines to sell the paper, that doesn’t make what they say automatically untrue. There is nothing in that DM quote I posted which is a lie, the info referred to comes directly from the Sussexes own website. Any newspaper quote I post I always make sure it’s not just rubbish.
If you believe the quote isn’t credible, then give your evidence to refute it. You never do, all you use is hollow words with no substance.

I don’t think you have a clue as to the multiple reasons why many people have gone off Meghan and Harry. You even thought she was Canadian, and called people who correctly said she was American stupid! Lol
If you don’t know something as basic as where she is from, well, that says it all really. Unless you can refute anything that is being said as nonsense your responses, while you are free to make them, have no value whatsoever.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

Of course the DM often uses sensationalism, usually in their headlines to sell the paper, that doesn’t make what they say automatically untrue. There is nothing in that DM quote I posted which is a lie, any newspaper quote I post I always make sure it’s not just rubbish.
If you believe the quote isn’t credible, then give your evidence to refute it. You never do, all you use is hollow words with no substance.

I don’t think you have a clue as to the multiple reasons why many people have gone off Meghan and Harry. You even thought she was Canadian, and called people who correctly said she was American stupid! Lol
If you don’t know something as basic as where she is from, well, that says it all really. Unless you can refute anything that is being said as nonsense your responses, while you are free to make them, have no value whatsoever.

Just a handful of headlines from the Mail. A handful of headlines on page one of 179
The majority of today’s newspapers do not report accurate news, many do not have credible sources and of course appeal to the demographic they want to sell too. The obsession with pulling Harry and Meghan is unreal. Swallowed by gullible people like you. You ask me why I defend them yet you have failed to give me any concrete reasoning for your childish disdain for them apart from providing news reports from the Mail? The level of hatred you have for them and everything they do is not natural. Considering you don’t know them and only have the ‘news reports’ to rely on then I am going to question you on why you hate them so much.

You say there are a ‘handful of reasons’ people don’t like her, so if that’s the case by all means please share them.

I’ll give you that I mistakenly thought Meghan was Canadian. I genuinely thought she was so I’ll take that comment back. That being said there are far more ignorant and moronic people who were commenting on that article so I don’t take back the stupid people comment completely.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

There is nothing in that DM quote I posted which is a lie

Erm...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

A newspaper isn’t a credible source for information. It’s sensationalism. Something that’s helped fuel the unnecessary hatred directed at them.

Really what is then?

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Really what is then?

That’s just it isn’t is, there isn’t anything else really. Which makes it worse when the tabloids do what they do.

[jet]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...road-dk207s9qg

Readers’ poll: should taxpayers fund Harry and Meghan’s security if they live abroad?

Based on 20,835 results.

Yes 11%

No 89%

[Marsh.]

You don't say so very often so that makes most of your research tabloid fodder tbh.

[Twosugars]

We pay for security of all former prime ministers.
We paid for security outside Thatchers room at the Ritz while she was sat inside with her trotters up for years.
Harry is a senior royal, any attack on him abroad would be an embarrassment for the country. We should pay.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

We pay for security of all former prime ministers.
We paid for security outside Thatchers room at the Ritz while she was sat inside with her trotters up for years.
Harry is a senior royal, any attack on him abroad would be an embarrassment for the country. We should pay.

Exactly wasn't Thatcher's funeral also paid by the public tax payers as well??

[Beso]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Exactly wasn't Thatcher's funeral also paid by the public tax payers as well??

She earned it..

[jet]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

We pay for security of all former prime ministers.
We paid for security outside Thatchers room at the Ritz while she was sat inside with her trotters up for years.
Harry is a senior royal, any attack on him abroad would be an embarrassment for the country. We should pay.

Of course they should have security. The point is, their security costs have rocketed since they decided to leave the Royal family, so they should contribute to the costs.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by jet

Of course they should have security. The point is, their security costs have rocketed since they decided to leave the Royal family, so they should contribute to the costs.

No.they should pay all the costs.

[jet]

Originally Posted by parmnion

No.they should pay all the costs.

When they continue to get paid mega bucks for speaking at big bank conferences and attending gala's I would agree the time has come to stop sponging off a country they aren't living in or working for.
They are rich enough NOW to pay for their own instead of taking money off people struggling here in the UK, but I'm being generous - for now.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

When they continue to get paid mega bucks for speaking at big bank conferences and attending gala's I would agree the time has come to stop sponging off a country they aren't living in or working for.
They are rich enough NOW to pay for their own instead of taking money off people struggling here in the UK, but I'm being generous - for now.

You really don't understand how the Royal expenses work.

They're not taking money from any struggling people. Stop taking clickbait headlines as fact.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Of course they should have security. The point is, their security costs have rocketed since they decided to leave the Royal family, so they should contribute to the costs.

Don't believe everything you read.

[Ammi]

...the artist formerly known as prince...

[bots]

if he was a man of the people he would have asked to be called Arry