|
Post by bodger on Jan 22, 2020 17:24:31 GMT
The sad irony of it is that by removing themselves from the right royal family and attempting to hide they will get exactly what they don't want. More media intrusion. Not less. Good. They should be exposed for the virtue-signalling hypocrites they are. Will they be looking for honest jobs (what are their qualifications??!!) or sucking the UK-taxpayer teat as per usual? Meghan doesn't like people taking pictures of her in a public park. It's a public place, and you have made yourself into a celebrity-magnet, Megs, you have only yourself to blame. "HEY – Meghan, what part of “it’s a public park and anyone is allowed to take photographs IN A PUBLIC PARK”! are you having trouble understanding? Did the filthy oiks get in the way of your “relaxing in the park just like someone mortal and ordinary” photoshoot with Hello/Goodbye/Diamondfroth magazine?" so if a dozen paparazzi followed you and your family the next time you went for a walk in the park, firing off their cameras at 19 to the dozen, you would be quite relaxed and just ignore them? wotever you may think they are NOT public property and should be afforded the same degree of respect and privacy as anyone else. twat.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 22, 2020 18:00:51 GMT
Good. They should be exposed for the virtue-signalling hypocrites they are. Will they be looking for honest jobs (what are their qualifications??!!) or sucking the UK-taxpayer teat as per usual? Meghan doesn't like people taking pictures of her in a public park. It's a public place, and you have made yourself into a celebrity-magnet, Megs, you have only yourself to blame. "HEY – Meghan, what part of “it’s a public park and anyone is allowed to take photographs IN A PUBLIC PARK”! are you having trouble understanding? Did the filthy oiks get in the way of your “relaxing in the park just like someone mortal and ordinary” photoshoot with Hello/Goodbye/Diamondfroth magazine?" so if a dozen paparazzi followed you and your family the next time you went for a walk in the park, firing off their cameras at 19 to the dozen, you would be quite relaxed and just ignore them? wotever you may think they are NOT public property and should be afforded the same degree of respect and privacy as anyone else. twat. They should also be afforded the same ZERO AMOUNT of money I get for NOT being a 'Royal'. Want the money and fame? Get the newspapers following you. I don't think I should be bothered if photographers followed me around all day, I would just think it's a bit odd and who would possibly want to riffle through that lot of snaps? I did get my photo taken again, as it happens, out in public today, driving my bus. I thought it was the Fuzz with a speed-trap camera as there was a 60km/h sign coming up and they made me slow down. I saw the lad later and gave him a bollocking for making me slow down. Haven't seen the picture yet, will have to remind them to send it on via WhatsApp.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Jan 23, 2020 8:06:44 GMT
so if a dozen paparazzi followed you and your family the next time you went for a walk in the park, firing off their cameras at 19 to the dozen, you would be quite relaxed and just ignore them? wotever you may think they are NOT public property and should be afforded the same degree of respect and privacy as anyone else. twat. They should also be afforded the same ZERO AMOUNT of money I get for NOT being a 'Royal'. I don't think I should be bothered if photographers followed me around all day, kindly let us know how much public money they will receive. AFAIK it is a big fat ZERO. PS: you mum was not hounded to death by these nice friendly considerate non-intrusive camera-toting twats, was she?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 23, 2020 8:17:27 GMT
They should also be afforded the same ZERO AMOUNT of money I get for NOT being a 'Royal'. I don't think I should be bothered if photographers followed me around all day, kindly let us know how much public money they will receive. AFAIK it is a big fat ZERO. PS: you mum was not hounded to death by these nice friendly considerate non-intrusive camera-toting twats, was she? Kindly let us know who is paying for their security, and who paid to have their Frogmore Cottage done up at a cost of £2.5 million. My mum had her photo in the newspaper, as it happens, when she ran a 78rpm record service for old people who wanted to listen to 'Golden Oldies'. She actually gave something to the community, rather than just taking it out.
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Jan 23, 2020 8:43:07 GMT
kindly let us know how much public money they will receive. AFAIK it is a big fat ZERO. PS: you mum was not hounded to death by these nice friendly considerate non-intrusive camera-toting twats, was she? Kindly let us know who is paying for their security, and who paid to have their Frogmore Cottage done up at a cost of £2.5 million. My mum had her photo in the newspaper, as it happens, when she ran a 78rpm record service for old people who wanted to listen to 'Golden Oldies'. She actually gave something to the community, rather than just taking it out. My mum had her picture in a newspaper as well. Mr Dodd had misplaced his tickling stick, my mum lent him hers. I like to think that my family is part responsible for Mr Dodds career.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 23, 2020 8:49:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Jan 23, 2020 10:18:05 GMT
kindly let us know how much public money they will receive. AFAIK it is a big fat ZERO. PS: you mum was not hounded to death by these nice friendly considerate non-intrusive camera-toting twats, was she? Kindly let us know who is paying for their security, and who paid to have their Frogmore Cottage done up at a cost of £2.5 million. My mum had her photo in the newspaper, as it happens, when she ran a 78rpm record service for old people who wanted to listen to 'Golden Oldies'. She actually gave something to the community, rather than just taking it out. keep up at the back there. the agreement made with Buck House includes repaying the cost of Frogmore House. Any public figure who is considered at risk gets security paid for by the state, whether they are working or not. Maggie Thatcher for example, until her demise. It ain't Harry's fault that he was born into the royal family. PS: you chose to live in Santa's FairyLand, why don't you mind your own business and butt out of UK affairs?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 23, 2020 12:20:37 GMT
It's a 'Global Community' innit?
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Jan 23, 2020 12:56:11 GMT
The sad irony of it is that by removing themselves from the right royal family and attempting to hide they will get exactly what they don't want. More media intrusion. Not less. The paperazzholes killed the bloke's mother when he was a child. That's really quite nasty. No wonder he would like to get away from them but they will redouble their efforts now as pictures of the couple and the poor kid are going to be in high demand. Drones innit. Nice family picnic on the beach with 27 drones flying about. What a horrible life. Surely the real killer was the ever so slightly inebriated driver of her car not the paps. Phil
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Jan 23, 2020 13:04:09 GMT
I reckon Ma'am, secretly, will be glad to be rid of them. It's obvious that she didn't approve of the marriage in the first place, what, with her being a Paki. Worse, a Paki that had been knobbed by someone else. Such debauchery brings shame on the noble family, our dear Queen Mum must be turning in her grave.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Jan 23, 2020 13:54:55 GMT
The sad irony of it is that by removing themselves from the right royal family and attempting to hide they will get exactly what they don't want. More media intrusion. Not less. The paperazzholes killed the bloke's mother when he was a child. That's really quite nasty. No wonder he would like to get away from them but they will redouble their efforts now as pictures of the couple and the poor kid are going to be in high demand. Drones innit. Nice family picnic on the beach with 27 drones flying about. What a horrible life. Surely the real killer was the ever so slightly inebriated driver of her car not the paps. Phil nobody disputes that, but the situation arose and developed because they had to avoid using a regular chauffeur service or taxicab, and then had to move fast, to get away from the mob. .................. but of course you knew all that already and you are just being mischievous.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Jan 23, 2020 14:00:00 GMT
I reckon Ma'am, secretly, will be glad to be rid of them. It's obvious that she didn't approve of the marriage in the first place, what, with her being a Paki. Worse, a Paki that had been knobbed by someone else. Such debauchery brings shame on the noble family, our dear Queen Mum must be turning in her grave. are you using an-overgenerous definition of that rather nasty expression? her mum's a negro (or African American to use polite PC words). it seems that Ma'am is very fond of Meghan, but I don't dent that others in the 'establishment' may be glad if they are not omni-present.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 14:33:57 GMT
I think the term "wog" would have been better rather than Paki as it is more of a universal type of word and (?) less offensive.
As for parentage the old git in this story seems quite a dodgy character despite apparently being an Anglo Saxon.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 23, 2020 14:48:30 GMT
Kindly let us know who is paying for their security, and who paid to have their Frogmore Cottage done up at a cost of £2.5 million. My mum had her photo in the newspaper, as it happens, when she ran a 78rpm record service for old people who wanted to listen to 'Golden Oldies'. She actually gave something to the community, rather than just taking it out. PS: you chose to live in Santa's FairyLand, why don't you mind your own business and butt out of UK affairs? Have been thinking about this bit recently. I have been living in Finland almost as long as I lived in England. 30 years there minus all the times out of the country, 29.5 years here minus all the times out of the country. As 14 weeks/year for the past 5 years have been in England (since we got the boat), I'd say to give it another year or two before I have definitely lived in Finland longer than in England. I suppose I am a citizen of both countries, not particularly 'loyal' to either, not particularly 'disloyal'. Why would I support the corrupt politicians and all the other shitty people in either country? I don't mind dishing the dirt about both countries, but I am also happy to tell people of the good things that both Finland and the UK have. Sort of all-round neutral. As my ancestors are all from the UK (three-quarters being Scots), I, of course, am more inclined to say I'm 'British'. Off to Japan in April, I shall have to do my best not to offend any of them. Pearl Harbour? Never heard of it!!
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Jan 23, 2020 14:50:42 GMT
I think the term "wog" would have been better rather than Paki as it is more of a universal type of word and (?) less offensive. As for parentage the old git in this story seems quite a dodgy character despite apparently being an Anglo Saxon. Use a moderately offensive work rather than a highly offensive one; I like your style. Isn't it strange though how some words are considered offensive while others aren't, when the words were derived in the same way. Aussie is perfectly fine (for now?) while Chinky seems to now be moderately offensive for some reason, perhaps a similar standing to wog, while Paki is considered highly offensive. I'm not up to date with Itis and Spicks, perhaps those are offensive words nowadays?
|
|