[Crimson Dynamo]

and all 3 have have known the royals for many years

its not in doubt.

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and all 3 have have known the royals for many years

its not in doubt.

There’s no doubt they have known the royals, but they have thrown away any credibility they had with this interview imo, how can they be trusted when they’re so willing to lie.

[rusticgal]

Who are the two blokes asking the questions?

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Who are the two blokes asking the questions?

Two YouTubers, they’ve previously done videos on Katie Hopkins, Carole Baskin and others.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Mitchell

Two YouTubers, they’ve previously done videos on Katie Hopkins, Carole Baskin and others.

So, maybe Im not getting this....but when these two You Tubers asks questions about their comments on William and Meghans love of Animals...have they just made that up?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

So, maybe Im not getting this....but when these two You Tubers asks questions about their comments on William and Meghans love of Animals...have they just made that up?

Have you watched the video? They asked them if they had seen the interview, they said no. They asked them to comment on the interview anyway and fed them bits that they said meghan mentioned in the interview. The two lads have not seen the interview either, but the respected journalists lied to make it look like they had. Thus proving that they will spin anything to suit the narrative they want to push it (as any journalist does).

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Have you watched the video? They asked them if they had seen the interview, they said no. They asked them to comment on the interview anyway and fed them bits that they said meghan mentioned in the interview. The two lads have not seen the interview either, but the respected journalists lied to make it look like they had. Thus proving that they will spin anything to suit the narrative they want to push it (as any journalist does).

They are not "respected journalists"

One is a niche magazine editor and the others are television and radio commentators

[jet]

Hmmm, very odd and well, I agree, very unprofessional indeed if they haven't had previews of the interview. I don’t know who Richard Fitzwilliams is or Victoria whoever either.

The one I’m surprised at is Ingrid Seward, the editor of Majesty magazine . Dickie Arbiter was press secretary to the Queen years ago.
On the other hand, it doesn't mean that the opinions of those 2 I know of, past or future, are not worth listening to. Because they can still have informed opinions. But they are not, and never have been, royal commentators or reporters.

I’d be much more surprised if those who have links and access to royal sources, like Jennie Bond or Richard Kay, for instance, did this.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Mitchell

There’s no doubt they have known the royals, but they have thrown away any credibility they had with this interview imo, how can they be trusted when they’re so willing to lie.

to be fair to them

they are talking to 2 unknown wee youtube laddies who they think are mug punter enough to pay them


would they have done this for the BBC/Times/ITV?

no

Does that mean they are not knobs

no

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

to be fair to them

they are talking to 2 unknown wee youtube laddies who they think are mug punter enough to pay them


would they have done this for the BBC/Times/ITV?

no

Does that mean they are not knobs

no

They were told it was being produced for a national broadcaster, so as far as they knew, it was for TV.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Mitchell

They were told it was being produced for a national broadcaster, so as far as they knew, it was for TV.

i doubt they bought that from 2 wee boys tbh, a national would do it themselves as its nowt more than a piece to camera