[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

LT promoted it by posting their videos on the site, then feigned that he could see no issue with their website nor the list of videos on their YouTube channel. Several people then pretended that their was either no issue with Turning Point, or that it didn’t matter that the video came from Turning Point.

I don't see anything like that. I just listened to the views of the fella and didn't go into what the site was about, probably like most people. There were comments about the opinions of the guy about Meghan in the video being valid irrespective of his political leanings, and I agree with that.

I'll never get why peoples opinions about Meghan Markle are assumed to coincide with their political beliefs. Left/far left= she can do no wrong! Right/far right = the haters!
Imagine it being assumed you like or dislike someone because of your political leanings and not for their character and actions. Crazy!

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by jet

I just listened to the views of the fella and didn't go into what the site was about, probably like most people.

Well ain’t that the truth in a nutshell.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well ain’t that the truth in a nutshell.

Do you investigate the background ethics of every video posted? I don't, maybe I should.
Nevertheless, the guys opinions were very much the same as a lot of people here, that doesn't mean any of us must therefore agree with the content of the site, so not sure what point you've been pushing with this?

[thesheriff443]

Giving a world exclusive to millions that you got married in private only for the truth to come out a few weeks later means they lost credibility

And people will rightly question the other revelations they revealed.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by jet

Do you investigate the background ethics of every video posted? I don't, maybe I should.
Nevertheless, the guys opinions were very much the same as a lot of people here, that doesn't mean any of us must therefore agree with the content of the site, so not sure what point you've been pushing with this?

If I found myself agreeing with the content of a site like that, it would make me stop and have a good think about my logic. That’s my only point - each to their own I guess.

And yes I cast a glance at who posted a video, article, etc. and think about what their political angle might have been before I decide my overall thoughts about that content. It’s really a vitally important part of critical thinking but again, each to their own.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Giving a world exclusive to millions that you got married in private only for the truth to come out a few weeks later means they lost credibility

And people will rightly question the other revelations they revealed.

That said they had a private ceremony before the main event, how had that been disproven? Because they signed the document on the “big” day? You realise that the personal part of a wedding has bugger all to do with the legal process of getting married, right? They may not have been legally married after their private ceremony but they weren’t legally married after the big flashy show in the church with the news cameras and choirs either ... they got legally married when they signed the piece of paper. Which ceremony they consider to be their real wedding is entirely up to them. The marriage certificate isn’t a “gotcha haha what liars!” moment, it’s just another slice of confirmation bias. Granted, it will help convince some of the thicker people who were on the fence.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If I found myself agreeing with the content of a site like that, it would make me stop and have a good think about my logic. That’s my only point - each to their own I guess.

And yes I cast a glance at who posted a video, article, etc. and think about what their political angle might have been before I decide my overall thoughts about that content. It’s really a vitally important part of critical thinking but again, each to their own.

Who was though? Nobody said they agreed with it, not that I can see.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

https://tpointuk.co.uk/category/blog/

Just give it a scroll.

Why am I not surprised, I knew that 'source' was utter bs

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by jet

Do you investigate the background ethics of every video posted? I don't, maybe I should.
Nevertheless, the guys opinions were very much the same as a lot of people here, that doesn't mean any of us must therefore agree with the content of the site, so not sure what point you've been pushing with this?

Actually yes , if I post videos I try to look into the background and association. In the past I've agreed with some people on YouTube videos but if they have ridiculous views then I'm unlikely to post. e.g there's some who have insane theories of dead celebrities still being alive .

[jet]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Actually yes , if I post videos I try to look into the background and association. In the past I've agreed with some people on YouTube videos but if they have ridiculous views then I'm unlikely to post. e.g there's some who have insane theories of dead celebrities still being alive .

If I was posting a video myself I'd look into the background - but I think I've posted only one or two on here.
Talking about insane ones - there was one of Amy Winehouse being alive and living as an au pair in Australia.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That said they had a private ceremony before the main event, how had that been disproven? Because they signed the document on the “big” day? You realise that the personal part of a wedding has bugger all to do with the legal process of getting married, right? They may not have been legally married after their private ceremony but they weren’t legally married after the big flashy show in the church with the news cameras and choirs either ... they got legally married when they signed the piece of paper. Which ceremony they consider to be their real wedding is entirely up to them. The marriage certificate isn’t a “gotcha haha what liars!” moment, it’s just another slice of confirmation bias. Granted, it will help convince some of the thicker people who were on the fence.

That's some spin right there....

"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that."

But its not Meghan's fault - is it ever with you - that she was lying or misleading people with no further explanation; its thick peoples confirmation bias at work.

[joeysteele]

She likely meant they had a private ceremony of marriage between them before the wedding.

That's their vows made no matter how much others spin it to present her as a devil.

No it wasn't a full legal marriage but it was to them, their total committing done privately to each other.

To spin it as she's lying and using it to character assassinate her is in the very least unfair.

As far as she was concerned, that was the first point her and Harry commited in marriage to each other.

Even if it had been a fib and they hadn't had any wedding service before the marriage, it's still nowhere near being the crime of the century.

I actually find it quite worrying that adults continue to press on and on with this issue of their service before the official wedding as being lies that would deem a Woman and presenting it as her then being totally untrustworthy.
Nowhere in the interview, did Prince Harry contradict what Meghan Markle had said re that service either.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by jet

That's some spin right there....

"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that."

But its not Meghan's fault - is it ever with you - that she was lying or misleading people with no further explanation; its thick peoples confirmation bias at work.

Just as she ‘misled’ us with many things. It’s all been exposed...how anyone can still believe a word that comes out of her mouth is beyond me.
I do question why Harry wasn’t there for the duration of the ‘interview’...he could have corrected her on these things including the fact she said ‘several’ conversations were had on the ‘colour of Archies skin’ when Harry stipulated only ONE conversation was had etc etc etc....It was a bit odd to say the least that he wasn’t at her side whilst she poured her heart out on her mental anguish and suicidal feelings...

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

She likely meant they had a private ceremony of marriage between them before the wedding.

That's their vows made no matter how much others spin it to present her as a devil.

No it wasn't a full legal marriage but it was to them, their total committing done privately to each other.

To spin it as she's lying and using it to character assassinate her is in the very least unfair.

As far as she was concerned, that was the first point her and Harry commited in marriage to each other.

Even if it had been a fib and they hadn't had any wedding service before the marriage, it's still nowhere near being the crime of the century.

I actually find it quite worrying that adults continue to press on and on with this issue of their service before the official wedding as being lies that would deem a Woman and presenting it as her then being totally untrustworthy.
Nowhere in the interview, did Prince Harry contradict what Meghan Markle had said re that service either.

It's like when people have a blessing aswell as a full wedding ceremony, I don't understand why that's being doubted now .

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

But its not Meghan's fault

What "fault"?

The fact you're picking at what each ceremony was, when it was and at which point the wedding certificate was signed literally says it all.

The desperation to attack her for.... anything.... is very sad.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That said they had a private ceremony before the main event, how had that been disproven? Because they signed the document on the “big” day? You realise that the personal part of a wedding has bugger all to do with the legal process of getting married, right? They may not have been legally married after their private ceremony but they weren’t legally married after the big flashy show in the church with the news cameras and choirs either ... they got legally married when they signed the piece of paper. Which ceremony they consider to be their real wedding is entirely up to them. The marriage certificate isn’t a “gotcha haha what liars!” moment, it’s just another slice of confirmation bias. Granted, it will help convince some of the thicker people who were on the fence.

Dear god, she could of said three days before we had a private ceremony and exchanged our vows but that wouldn’t of had the same exclusive wow moment as no one knows we go to married three days before.

So much of what she said has already been proven as lies or stretching the truth

It’s like taking actual events and turning them in to a Hollywood film

Let’s spice it up a bit, with lines like I was held hostage

[Marsh.]

Says the guy taking everything this woman does and acting like she's killed The Queen.

[Cherie]

No idea why such a big deal is being made out of that vid, I took it at face value, why not refute the things he is saying? I had forgotton that they did knock back a Title for Archie when he was born as they wanted him to have a 'normal' upbringing, so trying to link the lack of title to his skin colour is another fail on their behalf

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Says the guy taking everything this woman does and acting like she's killed The Queen.

Keep trying to make it about the poster when it’s about Meghan and her version of the truth that’s been proved to be headlining grabbing bullsh1t

I call a turd a turd some choose to call it organic material but we all know it’s a turd at the end of the day.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Keep trying to make it about the poster

I draw your attention to your own posts about Glenn.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

so trying to link the lack of title to his skin colour is another fail on their behalf

They didn't link it. You did.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

They didn't link it. You did.

Sure

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I draw your attention to your own posts about Glenn.

Preach it

[jet]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...with-a-listers

Will Harry and Meghan learn the A-list art of saying nothing at all?
Barbara Ellen

........Anyone who’s ever fleetingly ventured into such elite orbits will tell you that they’re a discreet breed, living in micro-managed worlds, operating a strict privacy-first code. Getting close to them is like pushing through plasma. If they give out personal information, it’s in a tightly disciplined way. These people are unlikely to feel true kinship with people who give explosive gut-spilling interviews, never mind leak private family conversations to showbiz journalists.
In such rarefied circles, the Sussexes simply don’t fit in. Whatever supportive platitudes are spouted, in private, eyebrows may be being raised at the oversharing.

I wish the couple only well, because – chrissakes! – why not? However, they may have catastrophically miscalculated reverting to Meghan’s Suits-level fame strategy (Push. Publicise. Repeat.). When (oh, the irony!) the royal family’s oft-maligned, tightly buttoned “never explain, never complain” reserve would have far better endeared them to the elite circles they wish to join. They say you should dress for the job you want, and perhaps, exposure-wise, the Sussexes should have maintained self-control for the social position they want. It’s a bit late now.

[Marsh.]

It's their freedom of speech to say what they like.

Maybe Barbara should pipe down.