[Marsh.]

Making digs at the Queen.

Funny how the "tax payers dosh" is only an issue when it comes to anything relating to Meghan.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

Well, if they stopped being hypocrites; stopped making digs at the queen and treated her with the respect she deserves; stopped expecting the tax payers to fund their massive security bills without contributing themselves; stopped wanting their cake and eating it and stopped playing the victims, then we would gladly leave them to it.

Or maybe just leave them to it. The entitlement is hilarious.

[jet]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rity-bill.html

'THEY should pay!' British taxpayers' fury as £20m bill for Prince Harry and Megan Markle's security bill falls entirely on UK after Canada refuses to pay it after Megxit.

As recently as last Friday, when they updated their personal website, the Sussexes were adamant they are legally entitled to year-round police protection.

'There are two options now for them and us: that the Met will carry on guarding them and footing the bill, which is unacceptable to many, or they agree a system where they make a contribution to the costs personally.

'But their statement doesn't seem to suggest they would wish to do that. With budgets straining at the moment, this is a huge problem that the Met will have to get a grip on and quickly.'

How can they expect British taxpayers to fund them when they are no longer working for the Royal family, want to be 'finanically independent' and don't even live in the country? The self entitlement this pair keep displaying is never - ending.
It seems they are going to be forced to contribute - I expect a statement soon from them that they will, hopefully without the usual thinly veiled dig attached...
The only Royals who get full time taxpayers police protecton are senior Royals who carry out duties on behalf of the Queen.
For example, Beatrice and Eugenie have full time jobs and have their own charities which they work for and support. Their security is paid for by their father, supplemented infrequently when needed by the Palace purse.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Making digs at the Queen.

Funny how the "tax payers dosh" is only an issue when it comes to anything relating to Meghan.

Well she is foreign.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rity-bill.html

'THEY should pay!' British taxpayers' fury as £20m bill for Prince Harry and Megan Markle's security bill falls entirely on UK after Canada refuses to pay it after Megxit.



How can they expect British taxpayers to fund them when they are no longer working for the Royal family, want to be 'finanically independent' and don't even live in the country? The self entitlement this pair keep displaying is never - ending.
It seems they are going to be forced to contribute - I expect a statement soon from them that they will, hopefully without the usual thinly veiled dig attached...
The only Royals who get full time taxpayers police protecton are senior Royals who carry out duties on behalf of the Queen.
For example, Beatrice and Eugenie have full time jobs and have their own charities which they work for and support. Their security is paid for by their father, supplemented infrequently when needed by the Palace purse.

Careful with those straws. They're close to snapping.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Well she is foreign.

I agree Parm, her being foreign is a part of what's caused her backlash. True.

[Glenn.]

The daily mail now a royal correspondent?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

The daily mail now a royal correspondent?

"Respected" Royal correspondent I'll have you know.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

The daily mail now a royal correspondent?

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.

[Marsh.]

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

[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.

[LeatherTrumpet]

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 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.

[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.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

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

the FT, the Telegraph and the Times are not tabloids. why not read a decent paper?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

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

Erm...

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

the FT, the Telegraph and the Times are not tabloids. why not read a decent paper?

I don’t read newspapers

[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.]

Originally Posted by 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%

The poll would be similar, if not more heavily in the No had the question been "Should taxpayers fund ANYTHING for ANY members of the Royal Family?"

Most people's reactions to a clickbait headline and question.

[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??

[parmnion]

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.

[parmnion]

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.