FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
15-01-2020, 08:31 PM | #101 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
For once, the band madness and the song embarrassment, would be true.
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 08:31 PM | #102 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
Quote:
If this was anybody else's father but Meghan's, I don't believe for a second you would defend them. |
||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 08:37 PM | #103 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Then his other daughter sets it up that they get a few pics of him in a more controlled and flattering light and BOOM, Meghan and Harry come down on him like a ton of bricks and Harry apparently read him the riot act. That was when it all started to go wrong. He should have been shown the respect of being introduced to Harry and given protection from the press. He was given no advice or direction at all. He refused payment for any other interviews, the papers and media involved made a point of saying so. Last edited by jet; 15-01-2020 at 08:53 PM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 08:54 PM | #104 | ||
|
|||
Stiff Member
|
Quote:
And dont start with "respected royal correspondents" bc they can't mind read either. Btw do you know those correspondents are widely disliked by all members of the royal family? For being nosey and presumptuous hacks. |
||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 08:55 PM | #105 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Official.... |
|||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 08:59 PM | #106 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
Did you read that in the tabloids? Or are you talking about the one that Prince Charles didn't like? I guess thats why they get inside info and all.
|
||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 09:04 PM | #107 | ||
|
|||
Stiff Member
|
Quote:
Neither can be considered objective source unless backed up by evidence and corroborated by independent sources. When Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate scandal they sought 3 independent sources of every scrap of info they dared to publish. That's journalism not hack job for clicks or money |
||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 09:05 PM | #108 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 09:10 PM | #109 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 09:14 PM | #110 | |||
|
||||
This Witch doesn't burn
|
Obviously they are called Royal correspondents for a reason Tom Bradbury in particular seems to be very well informed
__________________
'put a bit of lippy on and run a brush through your hair, we are alcoholics, not savages' |
|||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 09:16 PM | #111 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
|
||
Reply With Quote |
15-01-2020, 09:16 PM | #112 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Official royal correspondents
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
16-01-2020, 07:28 AM | #113 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
...apparently according to the lawyers for The Mail On Sunday and Mail Online ...Meghan must have been fully aware that the letter would be published because her handwriting was so neat...I guess it’s a parent’s back in the day advice, like always wear clean underwear etc...’just in case your letters are published by the national media, make sure we can all read them, my love...neat, neat, neat at all times...’...
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/neat-handw...142751298.html Last edited by Ammi; 16-01-2020 at 07:29 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
16-01-2020, 07:39 AM | #114 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
The Mail will Win in Court
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
16-01-2020, 07:50 AM | #115 | |||
|
||||
self-oscillating
|
Meghan is on sticky ground because unless the newspaper obtained the information illegally, privacy does not apply. If her father gave them a copy, they are perfectly entitled to publish it. They are also under no obligation to either print the whole letter or provide context to the parts they did publish
Seems to me her gripe is really with her father and that is extremely unfortunate if it gets aired in court |
|||
Reply With Quote |
16-01-2020, 08:17 AM | #116 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Wether her father gave them the letter or not, I think there are guidelines and laws in place involving the manipulation of communications to skew the original meaning for a false narrative that the media have to adhere to.
I personally feel that it’s about time for another inquiry, our media, the majority of it run by only 4 people, has turned into such utter trash, in a time of political upheaval and divisiveness, media outlets should not be allowed to put out such biased, corrupt coverage as they have done for the past couple of years.
__________________
Last edited by Liam-; 16-01-2020 at 08:19 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
16-01-2020, 08:38 AM | #117 | |||
|
||||
self-oscillating
|
The whole point of a free press is that there are very few restrictions on what they can print. Meddling with that will only be for the worse
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
16-01-2020, 08:51 AM | #118 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Free press yes, that’s the right to report on any story they want to, but they’re not allowed to purposely deceive and misconstrue something to achieve a false story
__________________
Last edited by Liam-; 16-01-2020 at 08:55 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
16-01-2020, 09:50 AM | #119 | |||
|
||||
שטח זה להשכרה
|
They should have slipped away quietly. No one would have noticed... instead we have another Meghan Media Circus. Far from taking them out of the limelight, the press are even more frantic to get to them now. Boring. Enough already.
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
16-01-2020, 10:48 AM | #120 | |||
|
||||
Zumi Zimi Zami
|
not the OP, and those thread title changes
__________________
Taking part in Strictly Jake's Tibb does Strictly Game. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
17-01-2020, 11:04 AM | #121 | |||
|
||||
self-oscillating
|
shouldnt this thread be called cOURT?
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
17-01-2020, 04:04 PM | #122 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
"High court megan markle "
Can admin correct the title please |
|||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
|
|