JonnyF

Exactly. It's like a tall bloke and a short woman. Wondering how tall the child will be. Is that "heightist"? Absolutely ridiculous. It's normal to speculate about the looks of child based on the characteristics of each parent. The shameful thing is that Harry waited nearly 2 years before saying that it wasn't said in a racist manner. He allowed his family to be deemed racist for almost 2 years. He waited for both grandparents to die before setting the record straight. This coming from the guy who recently said "Silence is betrayal". The guy is an idiot.

Let's hope not. He might return to the UK.???? He has been incredibly stupid with his admissions though. When Meghan finds her next victim and decides to divorce him, she has all the material required for said divorce in one place, available in bargain bins everywhere for $1.99. Much cheaper than hiring a divorce lawyer.

Yawn... You said (and I quote). "Partial quotes are by definition ’Out of context’". But that's not true. From your own link, it is made very clear that a partial quote is only out of context if it changes the meaning. The Sun's partial quote didn't change the meaning. You're wrong, admit it.

You quoted half the definition to change the meaning of it. A perfect example of quoting "Out of context". The Sun partially quoted from the book, but it didn't change the meaning of the full quote. Therefore, it was not out of context. You disingenuous attempts to blame the media for what Harry said have failed. Own it.

???? Actually it was you who partially quoted and thus changed the meaning (therefore making it out of context). I simply added the part you missed out. You said.... Partial quotes are by definition ’Out of context’ That is not true since you selected only half of the definition. I added the part you conveniently and deliberately missed out (from the link you yourself provided) i.e. only when... the result that their meaning is not clear or is not understood:“ The complete definition you linked to is correct, not the first part in isolation that you selectively chose to quote. In Harry's case, the Sun's partial quotation did not change the meaning, neither did it result in the quote being not understood, therefore by your own definition it was not "Out Of Context". Quit wriggling, pay special attention to the part of the definition I highlighted (which you deliberately omitted), and try again.

Nope. From your own link, it makes it clear that partial quotes are only out of context IF The result that their meaning is not clear or is not understood: The partial quote you provided did not change the meaning. It was exactly the same meaning as the full quote. Try again.

Well, you can't justify it - so by definition it is indefensible to you.

That's not out of context. It's a partial quote which is completely IN context. The context of his tour of Afghanistan. He DID think of them as chess pieces taken off the board, as the second quote confirms quite clearly. I could argue there are parts in the second quote from The BBC which actually make it worse than the snippet used by The Sun.

Indeed. Indefensible.

OK so you can't defend him picking up the award? We have progress. How about the fact that he let the rumours about his family being racist persist for almost 2 years without addressing them? A couple of days ago he stated "Silence is betrayal". Indeed it was, his silence allowed the false rumours (that he and his wife started in the Oprah interview!) to persist for almost 2 years and he did nothing to quash them despite knowing they were untrue. Care to defend that?

Where have they quoted him out of context? Everything I have seen has been direct quotes from the book. Often entires pages photographed. Please provide links where he was quoted "out of context". This is all on Harry. Not the papers that report on his spiteful, hateful, privacy invading hit piece. If anyone is being sensationalist, it's Harry as he trashes his family and reveals extremely personal details about them (such as William being circumcised) for a few silver coins. Shame on him.

OK, so you think it's OK to kill 25 people then discuss it openly in a book and describe them as chess pieces on a board, directly increasing the risk to yourself, your nuclear family and your extended family, as well as British soldiers abroad. Let's agree to disagree on that one. Care to address why he accepted an award for fighting structural racism in the RF a couple of weeks before he confirmed the RF is not racist? You've swerved it twice now.

Why do you keep blaming the "gutter press"? It's all in the book HE wrote (or put his name to), that's not a third hand report. It's straight from him. For someone who's not a fan you do seem to defend and make excuses for his pathetic behaviour at every juncture.

It's wrong whoever does it. Whataboutism won't win you this argument. BTW nice dodge on the question of picking up the award for fighting racism that you later confirm doesn't exist. Top swerve ????

It's totally against Army protocol to release or discuss a kill count. Let alone put it in a trashy book for personal profit. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64185176 But of course you'd know better than a retired commanding officer. As an aside, what do you think about him collecting an award for fighting racism in the Royal family, a couple of weeks before confirming the RF is not actually racist? Let me guess, you see nothing wrong in that, right? ????

I judge people by their words and actions. He wrote that book (or at least read the contents and approved it's publication), not the press. So as much as he likes to blame the media for everything, he is responsible for the contents therein. Presumably you're a huge fan. That would make a lot of sense actually...

Harry and his wife accused "someone" in the Royal Family of having concerns over how dark their child's skin would be i.e. racism. They wouldn't say who it was, essentially casting a shadow over all of them. Now, 2 years later (after the RF has been accused of racism for 2 years) he claims they are not racist and he never accused them of being racist at all (having just collected an award for fighting structural racism in the RF). He let the Queen and Prince Philip go to their graves before attempting to roll back/set the record straight on this. This is a week after declaring "silence is betrayal". What a vile human being he has become . "Unsympathetic" is a very polite way of describing how many British people feel towards him.

Oh dear. How embarrassing for The Dems. ???? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179 I guess this is one instance where Biden's lack of cognitive functioning could actually work in his favour. "I forgot" could actually be believable.????

*Grammar police comments edited out* Back on topic, I will abide by laws, but not "suggestions" or "requests" which impose on my liberty. If they wish to put their own population at risk for Chinese tourist dollars (or Yuan) that is their choice but don't expect me to voluntarily give up my freedoms to assist them. Feel free to tug your own forelock though, since you clearly respect their moral authority

Indeed. Scheming/plotting new ways to profit from denigrating Harry's family and British tradition. What a way to live.

On the contrary. Harry's entitled behaviour is making the Royal family look impeccable by comparison. Their policy of "give him enough rope to hang himself" appears to have been a master stroke. With every interview/book/Mockumentary he digs a deeper hole for himself. It all started when he met Markle. She was estranged from her own family and now Harry is estranged from his. I think I see a pattern emerging with this woman.

Always best to proof read before posting so others have a chance of understanding you (it's preferable to stay on topic as well so I'll ignore whatever point you are clearly struggling to make). Keeping on topic, I think they're listening more to the economists than the epidemiologists.

Yes it's a very good thing. I wouldn't want to "clean" any privilege, whatever that means ????????. Back on topic (and speaking intelligible English) presumably you support the CCP opening the borders for international travel now that they have record numbers of infected?

Travel will definitely be more dangerous now Harry. I think it's best you stay in Montecito until this blows over. 30 years should suffice.

I guess it depends on any potential anti government protests domestically. If they are likely, I am sure lockdowns will be required to "save the Thai healthcare system from Covid".