JonnyF

It's a great achievement. But it's not top level sport like the Olympics. Go check out the winning Olympic race times for men and women in 100, 200, 800, 1500, 5000 metre races. Marathons. The distance jumped in long and high jump by men and women. The weights lifted in weightlifting. Then tell me how they can compete. They wouldn't win a medal. Your argument is farcical.

So you recognize the rights of the unborn child. I am relieved. Progress. Now we only have to agree on the number of weeks before it receives those rights.

Take it up with Chomper.

Equality in sports is women and men receiving equal prize money and recognition. Not competing against each other.

It's not a giveway at all. You choose to call it a fetus because you wish to downplay the rights that are afforded it in most civilized countries around the world. It appears the only thing we might disagree on, is the number of weeks from conception before the rights of the unborn child are recognized. This is actually one of the issues I am torn on. I'm not talking medical issues of the mother or unborn child. I'm talking about a mother who decides to terminate an 8 month old unborn child because she has 100% rights over "her body". If you can't answer the question (or are ashamed to admit yoiur viewpoint) then just admit it. Don't change the question to something you CAN answer.

I'm talking top level sport. Not local novelty races. The fastest man to ever run a marathon is 13 minutes faster than the fastest woman. If they competed together, the top woman would probably finish 50th. No more medals for women. But I guess you're fine with that.

Since I am still undecided on many issues surrounding the subject, it would be very difficult for you to know where I stand. ???? Would you support removing a foetus/unborn child a couple of days before labour started and killing it? To protect the rights of the mother?

It isn't common place at all. Would you support opening up every sport to men and women? Boxing, MMA, basketball, football, rugby etc? Great way to destroy women's sport and the careers of female athletes. No wonder women's rights are eroding...

I'm not sure if you are trying to be facetious, but it's not really the topic for jokes. Pretty much every country in the world acknowledges the rights of an unborn child. The only area of contention is at what stage of pregnancy those rights come into force.

I doubt Lebron James is too concerned about women in basketball. I doubt Tyson Fury is too worried about the next female heavyweight. I doubt Ed Kemper was worried about being raped by a trans male. So yes, it's a bigger problem for women than males. I would have thought that was obvious. That's why some men dismiss the issues as "such a tiny problem". A callous attitude towards the rights of women.

Only if one disregards the rights of an unborn child.

The exception that proves the rule.

When the leader of the opposition cannot even define a woman, yes it affects the vast majority of women. When they are labelled "people with vaginas" it affects them. As it does for any woman competing in sport, any woman who wants the right to change their clothes or go to the toilet without men around, to serve a sentence without male rapists around, to have their young daughters play sport ina fair and safe environment. Stop minimizing misogyny.

Since you are being somewhat ambiguous, I will assume you are referring to abortion rights and not the rights of teenage girls to remove their own body parts. Playing devil's advocate (since I am still somewhat torn on some of these abortion issues), one could argue that in 50% of cases they are protecting the rights of unborn women.

I'm not sure who these people on the extreme right are, but it was really interesting to hear that women are a small % of the population. Who knew?

Women's rights are eroding at an incredible pace. The trans movement is seeing to that. Many politicians like Starmer refuse to even acknowledge or define what a woman is. Some groups refer to them as "people with vaginas" or similar distateful terminology . Sturgeon supports putting biologically male rapists into women's prisons, further eroding their right to safety while in detention. Soon, we may even see biological men legally beating up biological women in boxing rings. They are already taking their medals in events like swimming. All in the name of being "kind" and "progressive". Just as these so called "progressives" have set race relations back decades, they are now in the process of setting back women's rights decades.

I wonder if they'll consider changing the song they walk out to? That Roses song isn't bad, but maybe something more appropriate might be better? ????

Maybe you're feeling a bit stressed out?

Not quite. "Senior" royals? Yes. If you are a senior member of the British Royal family and you love your country, yes you should live there. With all that incredible privilige, comes a bit of duty. Sure, you can still take luxury tours around the world a few times per year, be chauffered to attend Hiso parties, sporting events, meet famous people etc. But you have to do a few days work in return. Most of us would consider it quite a good deal. Of course, for us plebs the rules are a bit different. No privilige, hence no duty to remain in our country of birth. The problem with Harry and Harry's wife, they wanted the privilige part without the duty part. They wanted the money and the stately homes, the security, the servants. They just didn't want to do any of the work. Well, as he's finding out, it doesn't really work like that. Hence the monetization of screwing over his family. Because that's all he's got. No skills, no talent. Just some famous relatives and a lack of loyalty/moral compass. Imagine slagging off your own brother and father for a living. What a way to live.

In fairness to Lefties, it's not all of them. In my experience it tends to be American, White, (mainly but not exclusively Non-Hetero) Liberals who are so quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as fascists, Nazis etc. It's all a bit overly dramatic and best ignored, although ignoring it is becoming increasingly difficult since they love to focus on what makes them so "special" rather than what we all have in common. Michael Knowles in wrong in this case. It should not be eradicated, but it would be helpful to all concerned if people focused on more important things and we all just got on with our lives.

I doubt many of the Asian based expats would be granted the free large stately homes, the chauffuers, the fleet of luxury vehicles, the palace grounds, the servants, the security, the executive boxes at major sporting events, the invitations to high society functions, the ability to have all of this while not even having to hold down a real job. Just be driven to a few charity events here and there, cut some ribbon, shake some hands, exchange pleasantries. Do some actual good in the world, instead of just talking about it. Harry gets all of that when in the UK, and none of it (for free) when in the US. Asian based expats like myself get a far better quality of life here than I would have in the UK. I am still very fond of it there though, and don't feel the need to constantly deride it. Of course the UK isn't perfect, where is? Not Thailand. And certainly not the US. Harry hates the UK because he is an entitled spoiled brat. I'd imagine being stuck away from his friends and family, doing drugs, juggling and feeding chickens in that house in Montecito he's already realizing how good he had it in the UK. Alas, his ego (and his wife) won't allow him to acknowledge the huge mistake he's made. In the words of Ice-T, you played yourself Harry. Ain't nobody else's fault, you played yourself.

I quite like it there. Phala beach, Phayun beach, the strip of bars (maybe seen better days) etc. It always seemed like a place that was better to visit for a weekend than to actually live there though.

Please provide evidence that she wasn't accepted. All the evidence I see (the fantastic cottage, the multi million pound wedding, the glowing words) indicate that she was absolutely accepted by the family. She just preferred California so she manufactured the victim narrative to justify leaving. Some people fell for it. Not many though. Most see exactly who she is and what happened.

Agreed. Myself included (although I don't hate facets, merely dislike them). Had he left the country and just got on with his life I would have assumed this to be the case. However, he didn't. He left the country and has ripped into it publicly for 2 years. His obsession with it is not natural. These are not the actions of a man who simply dislikes some aspects of it. He clearly despises it. The title of Tom Bower's book "Revenge" was spot on.

His actions of leaving his country, his family, his duty and then slagging them off shows exactly what he thinks. Why would he pick up an award for fighting racism in the Royal Family (and then confirm 2 weeks later there is no racism) unless he hated it? He even says it in the video below, straight from the horses mouth. Well, thanks to your constant moaning, lying and trashing your country no longer likes you, Harry. What a spoiled brat.