Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[Kev B]

Offering nursing staff 1% is surely a miss-step by the Gov The voters won't like it, especially since Dominic Cummings got an extra 40%.

5% would seem like the minimum IMO.

Spot on there Tom. I don't know what they were thinking announcing 1% after the year the NHS has had.

Got the Tiger documentary in the planner ready to watch.

Kate, very pretty but could do with a few bowls of lobby in her.

Anyway got to go time for my jab.

[RED-DOG]

Meghan interview.

I know we're going to fall into different camps about this and that's fine, I love it when people put their view forward without it having to be an argument. (Well I know it is technically an argument but not a biting and gouging one)

These are the questions that occur to me.

If the Sussex's are so concerned about their privacy, why would they choose to air their dirty washing on a talk show?

If someone in the royal family asked how dark the baby's skin might be, why would she tell us that and then not name the person? That way she accuses everyone and robs everyone of the right to defend themselves at the same time. If she is such a committed black-rights activist, why leave this vile racist un-outed?

Has anyone considered the possibility that she might not be telling the truth?

[nirvana]

Meghan interview.

I know we're going to fall into different camps about this and that's fine, I love it when people put their view forward without it having to be an argument. (Well I know it is technically an argument but not a biting and gouging one)

These are the questions that occur to me.

If the Sussex's are so concerned about their privacy, why would they choose to air their dirty washing on a talk show?

If someone in the royal family asked how dark the baby's skin might be, why would she tell us that and then not name the person? That way she accuses everyone and robs everyone of the right to defend themselves at the same time. If she is such a committed black-rights activist, why leave this vile racist un-outed?

Has anyone considered the possibility that she might not be telling the truth?

Aah, what is truth. The ancient question

[Doobs]

Meghan interview.

I know we're going to fall into different camps about this and that's fine, I love it when people put their view forward without it having to be an argument. (Well I know it is technically an argument but not a biting and gouging one)

These are the questions that occur to me.

If the Sussex's are so concerned about their privacy, why would they choose to air their dirty washing on a talk show?

If someone in the royal family asked how dark the baby's skin might be, why would she tell us that and then not name the person? That way she accuses everyone and robs everyone of the right to defend themselves at the same time. If she is such a committed black-rights activist, why leave this vile racist un-outed?

Has anyone considered the possibility that she might not be telling the truth?

Surely they are degrees of racism, and this is just some casual racism and not worthy of really outing?  I think Piers accused them of calling the Royal Family White Supremacists or similar nonsense this morning.  They didn't at all.  Then again he keeps writing that they were talking whilst Prince Philip is in hospital when he knows it was pre recorded, so guess the truth isn't his main concern. 

Interesting that you and Piers are still having a go at just Meghan, when Harry was the witness and I read he verified it was true later in the interview.  I'd be pretty surprised if the two of them hadn't agreed on the line on this one knowing that Meghan would mention it.  Surely the responsibility for the revelation, and the perceived lie, is at least on both of them?   I am not expecting you and Piers to have agreed a line on this.

The privacy thing is a delicate balance, just because we all are willing to speak in public doesn't mean we are happy with the press using long lenses to capture pictures of us in our undercracks for the front page.   Nor does it give the press the right to flat out just make things up about our thoughts and intentions.

[RED-DOG]

Meghan interview.

I know we're going to fall into different camps about this and that's fine, I love it when people put their view forward without it having to be an argument. (Well I know it is technically an argument but not a biting and gouging one)

These are the questions that occur to me.

If the Sussex's are so concerned about their privacy, why would they choose to air their dirty washing on a talk show?

If someone in the royal family asked how dark the baby's skin might be, why would she tell us that and then not name the person? That way she accuses everyone and robs everyone of the right to defend themselves at the same time. If she is such a committed black-rights activist, why leave this vile racist un-outed?

Has anyone considered the possibility that she might not be telling the truth?

Surely they are degrees of racism, and this is just some casual racism and not worthy of really outing?  I think Piers accused them of calling the Royal Family White Supremacists or similar nonsense this morning.  They didn't at all.  Then again he keeps writing that they were talking whilst Prince Philip is in hospital when he knows it was pre recorded, so guess the truth isn't his main concern. 

Interesting that you and Piers are still having a go at just Meghan, when Harry was the witness and I read he verified it was true later in the interview.  I'd be pretty surprised if the two of them hadn't agreed on the line on this one knowing that Meghan would mention it.  Surely the responsibility for the revelation, and the perceived lie, is at least on both of them?   I am not expecting you and Piers to have agreed a line on this.

The privacy thing is a delicate balance, just because we all are willing to speak in public doesn't mean we are happy with the press using long lenses to capture pictures of us in our undercracks for the front page.   Nor does it give the press the right to flat out just make things up about our thoughts and intentions.

I hate the phrase, "You and Piers. Lol.

I think she is a scheming narcissist and Harry is mentally damaged and easily led. I think he is totally in the wrong too, but not as culpable as her because he's not that bright.

She was obsessed with Princess Di, so I'm not believing she didn't know what she was getting her self into.

[Rod Paradise]

Meghan interview.

I know we're going to fall into different camps about this and that's fine, I love it when people put their view forward without it having to be an argument. (Well I know it is technically an argument but not a biting and gouging one)

These are the questions that occur to me.

If the Sussex's are so concerned about their privacy, why would they choose to air their dirty washing on a talk show?

If someone in the royal family asked how dark the baby's skin might be, why would she tell us that and then not name the person? That way she accuses everyone and robs everyone of the right to defend themselves at the same time. If she is such a committed black-rights activist, why leave this vile racist un-outed?

Has anyone considered the possibility that she might not be telling the truth?

Surely they are degrees of racism, and this is just some casual racism and not worthy of really outing?  I think Piers accused them of calling the Royal Family White Supremacists or similar nonsense this morning.  They didn't at all.  Then again he keeps writing that they were talking whilst Prince Philip is in hospital when he knows it was pre recorded, so guess the truth isn't his main concern. 

Interesting that you and Piers are still having a go at just Meghan, when Harry was the witness and I read he verified it was true later in the interview.  I'd be pretty surprised if the two of them hadn't agreed on the line on this one knowing that Meghan would mention it.  Surely the responsibility for the revelation, and the perceived lie, is at least on both of them?   I am not expecting you and Piers to have agreed a line on this.

The privacy thing is a delicate balance, just because we all are willing to speak in public doesn't mean we are happy with the press using long lenses to capture pictures of us in our undercracks for the front page.   Nor does it give the press the right to flat out just make things up about our thoughts and intentions.

I hate the phrase, "You and Piers. Lol.

I think she is a scheming narcissist and Harry is mentally damaged and easily led. I think he is totally in the wrong too, but not as culpable as her because he's not that bright.

She was obsessed with Princess Di, so I'm not believing she didn't know what she was getting her self into.

Very harsh Red. Don't get me wrong, I'd abolish the whole institution and try to ignore them where I can, but it's pretty clear the press haven't left them alone since they left. At some point you've got to try and get your side out. Diana tried but had very little backing Harry's had the sense to find a different establishment to go to since he's decided to take a stand against this one. 

The whole "bullying allegations" suddenly being investigated, the public 'sacking' etc shows they're in a fight now. They have a choice, step back and hope it blows over (which it's never looked like doing) or fight back.

Personally for me the bigger story is that the Queen was alleged to have lobbied to block laws that would make her revel the extent of her shareholdings. A sudden 'war' with Harry and Megan fairly helps take focus away from her interfering in the governance of the country. Laws were passed to stop Charles' interference being found through freedom of information requests as well.

[RED-DOG]

So shouldn't their beef be with the press?

[Rod Paradise]

The Royals have got years of experience of controlling the press, they could have pushed back but seemed to leave them to the wolves.

Anyway, for something completely different - a long complicated article, but a very interesting one on artificial hearts....

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/08/how-to-build-an-artificial-heart?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

[RED-DOG]

The Royals have got years of experience of controlling the press, they could have pushed back but seemed to leave them to the wolves.

Anyway, for something completely different - a long complicated article, but a very interesting one on artificial hearts....

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/08/how-to-build-an-artificial-heart?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Do I have to create an account to read that Rod?


If we're lucky, out own blonde artificial heart expert might chip in.

[Rod Paradise]

No account needed, just close the window that opens asking you to.

[RED-DOG]

No account needed, just close the window that opens asking you to.

I don't have the option to close it Rod.

Click to see full-size image.

[doubleup]

try to disable javascript for the site - that sometimes stops the popup

Meghan is a Actor, so likely to be a bit weird on the interpersonal level.  The tabloid press were obviously going to write about her every time they got the opportunity, so the only option was really to bugger off imo.

[Rod Paradise]

Log in with Username:
    kong@yahoo.com
Password:
    Kong@1

www.bugmenot.com is a handy resource to try and find logins.

[nirvana]

The Royals have got years of experience of controlling the press, they could have pushed back but seemed to leave them to the wolves.

Anyway, for something completely different - a long complicated article, but a very interesting one on artificial hearts....

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/08/how-to-build-an-artificial-heart?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Do I have to create an account to read that Rod?


If we're lucky, out own blonde artificial heart expert might chip in.

Wow, that's a long article, about 3/4s the way thru they mention what I have - a Heartmate II -  although sometimes referred to as an artificial heart the type I have just support the left heart (about 90% of the heart's function) and the right heart keeps doing it's work without aid. 10th Anniversary of having it fitted on April 21st - getting edgy now because you can't find much literature on people living with it this long.

My fervent wish is that I survive beyond the date when politicians tell me whether to stay in or go out for the good of my health.

[RED-DOG]

The Royals have got years of experience of controlling the press, they could have pushed back but seemed to leave them to the wolves.

Anyway, for something completely different - a long complicated article, but a very interesting one on artificial hearts....

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/08/how-to-build-an-artificial-heart?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Do I have to create an account to read that Rod?


If we're lucky, out own blonde artificial heart expert might chip in.

Wow, that's a long article, about 3/4s the way thru they mention what I have - a Heartmate II -  although sometimes referred to as an artificial heart the type I have just support the left heart (about 90% of the heart's function) and the right heart keeps doing it's work without aid. 10th Anniversary of having it fitted on April 21st - getting edgy now because you can't find much literature on people living with it this long.

My fervent wish is that I survive beyond the date when politicians tell me whether to stay in or go out for the good of my health.

It's a great article, worth all the palaver of trying to view it.

Glen. It is my fervent wish that you remain in post as blonde's most useless troll for many years to come.

It's not that you don't have the wit, you're just hamstrung by an over developed sense of decency.