[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

He could have defended his right to cause offence, but instead has given all the wrong people a chance to crawl onto the moral high ground



Jeremy Clarkson has never been the most subtle of writers, but his latest column has managed to exceed even his own outrage-expectations. In my view, if you want to call out the former royal couple for their excruciating and hypocritical behaviour, it pays to be everything they are not: reasonable, reserved and respectful. Fantasising about Meghan being paraded through the streets having lumps of excrement thrown at her is the very sort of thing which fuels the couple’s grievance machine, which allows them to say: see what we mean about racist Britain hating Meghan?

In truth, Netflix producers failed so miserably to demonstrate that Harry and Meghan were victims of an orchestrated hate campaign by the British tabloids that they were reduced to flashing up headlines from American publications. But Clarkson’s column will certainly be taking pride of place in the couple’s next film.

Today, however, that is not the main issue – for the debate has extended into one of free speech and Clarkson's right to cause offence. The answer is easy: of course he has that right. And having written what he did, Clarkson made an error by appearing to apologise. That is exactly what Harry and Meghan and their supporters want: for the British press, and potentially its regulators, to be so fearful of causing offence that they grovel before them.

Clarkson should have followed one of two examples. The first, like the best comedians, is to unashamedly defend his right to write what he did. The second would be to maintain a dignified silence: say nothing, or, at the very most insist that “interpretations of my column may vary”.

It isn’t just Harry and Meghan whose interests Jeremy Clarkson has helped serve by means of his apology: it is the entire liberal-Left establishment and its demented campaign against what it calls the “Right-wing press”. Is there anything more ridiculous than watching Sir Philip Pullman, for instance, mounting his high horse over Clarkson’s column? This is a man who tweeted, following the Brexit vote, “When I hear the name Boris Johnson for some reason the words ‘rope’ and ‘nearest lamp post’ come to mind as well.”

Were the liberal-Left to apply consistent standards, it would have demanded that Sir Philip’s books be removed from bookshop and library shelves, and films based on his books to be banned from television. But of course, different rules apply to “enlightened” liberal commentators, who are allowed to employ violent imagery in their arguments and brush aside complaints that they didn’t mean it literally (neither, funny enough, did Clarkson when he called for Meghan to be paraded naked through the streets).

There is nothing to be gained from paddling around in this swamp. Harry and Meghan’s campaign against Britain and its royal family can be better taken apart through forensic analysis of their claims and the hypocrisy they reveal minute by minute in their Netflix series (let’s not fall into the trap of calling it a documentary). Yes, this couple really did boast of the air miles they had run up during their relationship – while lecturing the rest of us on climate change.

Give Harry and Meghan the slightest chance to crawl onto the moral high ground and all this gets suppressed. Clarkson has handed them a PR victory by refusing to stand

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ke-capitulate/

I'm normally someone that normally supports free speech, even on topics that a lot of people would strongly disagree with me on, and think of me as prejudiced for holding those opinions.

However talking about having someone stripped naked and have **** thrown at her (knowing that she has a strong hate base) is potentially causing incitement, therefore it shouldn't be allowed imo.

This isn't a right or left thing for me, no grown adult should be in public talking about wanting to publicly humiliate someone, and compare them to a sadistic serial killer when talking about how much they hate said person.

Some of the more mentally ill people that have read Clarkson's column might try to take things into their own hands.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by jet

NOT from their supporters on here....and I didn't say 'but', I said I can think of worse things, which is perfectly true, wouldn't you agree?
The distress and sadness they brought to the Queen is not 'questionable things', it was downright cruelty of a dying woman. Horrendous. Unforgivable.
Her Lady in Waiting and others were devastated at the effect it had on her Majesty.
I have already condenmed Clarkson here for his stupid comment, unfortunately it doesn't work both ways.

I think what's unfortunate is that Harry & William in particular couldn't put their differences aside for Queen Elizabeth's last year or so.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

That is a fair point.

How on earth did it pass by the Editor?

like i said earlier. Traditional newspapers are not what they were 5 years ago let alone 10 or 20. They are staffed by kids fresh out of college because they are cheap and looking for a start.

The whole newspaper thing has been completely dumbed down to click bait. I thought it was obvious.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by SantaslettertoMeghan

like i said earlier. Traditional newspapers are not what they were 5 years ago let alone 10 or 20. They are staffed by kids fresh out of college because they are cheap and looking for a start.

The whole newspaper thing has been completely dumbed down to click bait. I thought it was obvious.

It does make sense I suppose.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to the people that run these Newspapers, make sure to check what's being written by your workers.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

It does make sense I suppose.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to the people that run these Newspapers, make sure to check what's being written by your workers.

We don't have genuine NEWS papers Mock in my view.
We have publications only peddling their own agendas.
Distorting news and facts rather than printing real news.

I can't bear any of them.
I never buy any or read any.
I only see the headlines etc; posted on here and they're bad enough without reading the rest of their more like garbage.

Why people waste hundreds of pounds a year at least on them is astonishing to say the least.
That people believe their content is even more concerning.

This is the Sun after all which along with the Mail is one of the really sick and misleading gutter trash publication it's possible to be.

Clarkson with his divisive, sick and vile opinions is well suited to the Sun.
It's no surprise they'd eagerly put it into print in THEIR paper.
Supporting his vile agenda platform they have given him.

Your other post before this one.
Where you mention free speech I also agree fully with that.
The content of the comments he made are a disgrace and indefensible in any area of any decency.

Why people like him get any media outlets to spout out their vile bigotry and bile is sickening, to me anyhow.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I think what's unfortunate is that Harry & William in particular couldn't put their differences aside for Queen Elizabeth's last year or so.

It was specifically the actions and words of Harry and Meghan that the Lady in Waiting referred to as causing distress to the Queen and having a detrimental effect on her health. She didn’t mention the brothers' relationship, though obviously William and others were adversely affected by their actions as well.

[Nicky91]

i never liked creepo Clarkson

[Crimson Dynamo]

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

We don't have genuine NEWS papers Mock in my view.
We have publications only peddling their own agendas.
Distorting news and facts rather than printing real news.

I can't bear any of them.
I never buy any or read any.
I only see the headlines etc; posted on here and they're bad enough without reading the rest of their more like garbage.

Why people waste hundreds of pounds a year at least on them is astonishing to say the least.
That people believe their content is even more concerning.

The Daily Mail and The Times are the 2 papers that over the years, relating to Royal news in particular, have proved very accurate in their reporting and analysis of situations. I should know, I’ve been reading them for over 20 years and more often than not, they have turned out to be correct in their reporting.

You can’t possibly say otherwise if you never read them and gauge their accuracy over time??
Headlines are often exaggerated to catch the attention - as they say, you can’t judge a book by its cover.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jet

The Daily Mail and The Times are the 2 papers that over the years, relating to Royal news in particular, have proved very accurate in their reporting and analysis of situations. I should know, I’ve been reading them for over 20 years and more often than not, they have turned out to be correct in their reporting.

You can’t possibly say otherwise if you never read them and gauge their accuracy over time??
Headlines are often exaggerated to catch the attention - as they say, you can’t judge a book by its cover.

Nonsense I'm sorry to say to that.

My own Father bought the Mail right up to 2011.
Even he got sick of its slide into the gutter.
So cancelled his order for it.

I'm aware it's one of your sources possibly and one you may admire.
For myself it's a long list of gutter trash reporting and I wouldn't spend a pence on a paper nor believe the majority ANY of them say now.

They should ALL for me be on fiction stands not news stands.
Local press are better in my view.
Also that free one the Metro.

The others.
For me.the sooner their sales dwindle further that they go out of print the better.

Oh and I can say whatever I like, just as you do jet.

[thesheriff443]

We have witnessed the lies first hand as they fell out of Meghan’s mouth on camera and have been proven to be lies

People that take the moral high ground need while supporting a proven liar need a check up from the head up

[Glenn.]

Anyone that condones a grown man saying he dreams of watching a woman paraded through the streets naked whilst the public throw **** at her needs help.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Anyone that condones a grown man saying he dreams of watching a woman paraded through the streets naked whilst the public throw **** at her needs help.

Id say the person who cannot separate a fictitious comic exaggeration from reality would need more help....

[Glenn.]

Imagine dying on that hill. Sad man

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Nonsense I'm sorry to say to that.

My own Father bought the Mail right up to 2011.
Even he got sick of its slide into the gutter.
So cancelled his order for it.

I'm aware it's one of your sources possibly and one you may admire.
For myself it's a long list of gutter trash reporting and I wouldn't spend a pence on a paper nor believe the majority ANY of them say now.

They should ALL for me be on fiction stands not news stands.
Local press are better in my view.
Also that free one the Metro.

The others.
For me.the sooner their sales dwindle further that they go out of print the better.

Oh and I can say whatever I like, just as you do jet.

You don’t know if you don’t read the papers I referred to. That’s like saying you hate all novels by a particular author even though you’ve never read any of them. Pure bias.

I’m afraid your father giving up reading the Mail has got nothing whatsoever to do with me Royal watching for many years and finding that the Mail and the Times were proved consistently accurate in their reporting of them over the years. How rude to call my conclusions ‘nonsense’ when you have no way of refuting them.
I will say that I can’t vouch for the accuracy over time of other subjects the Mail or the Times may have reported on.

[jet]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

We have witnessed the lies first hand as they fell out of Meghan’s mouth on camera and have been proven to be lies

People that take the moral high ground need while supporting a proven liar need a check up from the head up

Many don’t care that she’s a liar, or a destroyer of families, or a narcissist, or an opportunist, as long as she is pretending to care about subjects to make her fortune that fit in with their own mindsets, it's all good. Morals be damned.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by jet

Many don’t care that she’s a liar, or a destroyer of families, or a narcissist, or an opportunist, as long as she is pretending to care about subjects to make her fortune that fit in with their own mindsets, it's all good. Morals be damned.

At least two of those things could also be pointed at the King, he lied about his affair and destroyed his family. Some people have never forgiven him for his actions then. I've also read a number of articles where he has been described as narcissistic but he also has done a world of good with his Princes' Trust etc etc

It all comes down to whether you fundamentally "like" a person whether you can overlook certain things.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

At least two of those things could also be pointed at the King, he lied about his affair and destroyed his family. Some people have never forgiven him for his actions then. I've also read a number of articles where he has been described as narcissistic but he also has done a world of good with his Princes' Trust etc etc

It all comes down to whether you fundamentally "like" a person whether you can overlook certain things.

I don’t even like reading about him or seeing images of him after the way he behaved towards Princess Di .

He talks to his plants … that’s all you really need to know about Charlie boy . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jet

You don’t know if you don’t read the papers I referred to. That’s like saying you hate all novels by a particular author even though you’ve never read any of them. Pure bias.

I’m afraid your father giving up reading the Mail has got nothing whatsoever to do with me Royal watching for many years and finding that the Mail and the Times were proved consistently accurate in their reporting of them over the years. How rude to call my conclusions ‘nonsense’ when you have no way of refuting them.
I will say that I can’t vouch for the accuracy over time of other subjects the Mail or the Times may have reported on.

Yes just get on with it jet.
Yes I'm rude I guess in your eyes, that's your view.

I made a big error even bothering to respond to you.
I will not again.

I have my view on papers you have yours.
I don't believe any of them present news as it should be.
You disagree.

No point in pursuing anything further.

The nonsense I referred to was papers are reliable and truthful sources.
I don't think they are .
You clearly think they are.

So there it is.
I'll follow MY late Father's lead on the Mail not yours.
Plus from being at Uni until 2013 too.
I formed my own view of papers.

Where I became more infuriated daily at their distortion of facts, what people said, and their own agenda presented as news rather than facts.
I think our media is now more likely to misrepresent and misinterpret the real news rather than give the service of just printing it.

I wouldn't waste any money on any of the UKs papers media.
Certainly never the trash that is the Mail.
Top of the list for me to avoid is that one.

That's my position, it's not yours you think they tell the truth.
That's fair enough.

[jet]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

At least two of those things could also be pointed at the King, he lied about his affair and destroyed his family. Some people have never forgiven him for his actions then. I've also read a number of articles where he has been described as narcissistic but he also has done a world of good with his Princes' Trust etc etc

It all comes down to whether you fundamentally "like" a person whether you can overlook certain things.

Charles’ marriage was an unfortunate mismatch of a marriage - he didn’t ‘destroy’ his family deliberately, no more than Diana destroyed Julia Carling’s marriage deliberately.
I’ve never heard of Charles being called a narcissist, by many accounts he is described as a sensitive and deeply caring man.

Meghan is a proven destructive and spiteful woman, who has done nothing of note that hasn’t lined her own pockets and who continues to hypocritically cling on to the titles of a ‘colonial’ institution she criticises at every turn. She's a fake if ever I saw a fake.

Why would anyone like her enough to not care about many things she does? No one has ever attempted to explain.
Which leads me to believe they don’t care about her morality because what she says and does fits in with their own agendas - for example, anti - monarchy, race baiting, or, wait for it - they think her character in Suits is what she is really like.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by jet

Charles’ marriage was an unfortunate mismatch of a marriage - he didn’t ‘destroy’ his family deliberately, no more than Diana destroyed Julia Carling’s marriage deliberately.
I’ve never heard of Charles being called a narcissist, by many accounts he is described as a sensitive and deeply caring man.

Meghan is a proven destructive and spiteful woman, who has done nothing of note that hasn’t lined her own pockets and who continues to hypocritically cling on to the titles of a ‘colonial’ institution she criticises at every turn. She's a fake if ever I saw a fake.

Why would anyone like her enough to not care about many things she does? No one has ever attempted to explain.
Which leads me to believe they don’t care about her morality because what she says and does fits in with their own agendas - for example, anti - monarchy, race baiting, or, wait for it - they think her character in Suits is what she is really like.

I can link to articles but sure you'll find them if you look.

I can't speak for why someone likes or dislikes her. She is being blamed for all the problems but Harry is equally to blame in my opinion. However, its a little insulting to insinuate people think she is actually Rachel Zane.....

Anyway....its Christmas and I've had enough of the Royal Family and Meghan Markle for this year.....have a lovely Christmas with your family Jet

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Yes just get on with it jet.
Yes I'm rude I guess in your eyes, that's your view.

I made a big error even bothering to respond to you.
I will not again.

I have my view on papers you have yours.
I don't believe any of them present news as it should be.
You disagree.

No point in pursuing anything further.

The nonsense I referred to was papers are reliable and truthful sources.
I don't think they are .
You clearly think they are.

So there it is.
I'll follow MY late Father's lead on the Mail not yours.
Plus from being at Uni until 2013 too.
I formed my own view of papers.

Where I became more infuriated daily at their distortion of facts, what people said, and their own agenda presented as news rather than facts.
I think our media is now more likely to misteoreseht and misinterpret the real news rather than give the service of just printing it.

I wouldn't waste any money on any of the UKs papers media.
Certainly never the trash that is the Mail.
Top of the list for me to avoud is that one.

That's my position, it's not yours you think they tell the truth.
That's fair enough.

Stop twisting my words. I did not imply ALL papers are truthful, indeed I have no idea how truthful the ones I referred to, The Mail and The Times are on other matters.

I'll repeat their reporting of ROYAL news over the years have turned out in the passage of time to be mainly accurate and as I have been reading the ROYAL news in those two papers for over 20 years, I am in a position to give that opinion and it is rude to continually brush aside my own experiences and insist you know better.

You don't seem to have read my posts properly because you go off on a tangent and refer to things I didn't even say.

[jet]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I can link to articles but sure you'll find them if you look.

I can't speak for why someone likes or dislikes her. She is being blamed for all the problems but Harry is equally to blame in my opinion. However, its a little insulting to insinuate people think she is actually Rachel Zane.....

Anyway....its Christmas and I've had enough of the Royal Family and Meghan Markle for this year.....have a lovely Christmas with your family Jet

We were discussing Meghan though...and I have actually read comments (not here!) where people say she got the part of Rachel on Suits because she was so like her (and many love! her because they fancied her on Suits).

You didn't go there with why you liked her, ( I was hoping) but it's Christmas and I totally get why you have had enough. Be gone H&M!

You have a lovely Christmas with your family too Annie. Enjoy!

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jet

Stop twisting my words. I did not imply ALL papers are truthful, indeed I have no idea how truthful the ones I referred to, The Mail and The Times are on other matters.

I'll repeat their reporting of ROYAL news over the years have turned out in the passage of time to be mainly accurate and as I have been reading the ROYAL news in those two papers for over 20 years, I am in a position to give that opinion and it is rude to continually brush aside my own experiences and insist you know better.

You don't seem to have read my posts properly because you go off on a tangent and refer to things I didn't even say.

.... However it's not rude of you to tell me because I don't buy papers or read them that I should virtually have no valid opinion on them.

I won't even entertain the twisting of words.
I don't have the energy to waste on that..

WHERE did I say I KNOW better.
All I've given is my opinion of the papers.

Anyhow, like Annie.
I've preparations to do for Christmas.
I also don't care enough about the DYSFUNCTIONAL WHOLE Royal family to continue.

So I say too have a good Christmas jet.

[Glenn.]