JonnyF

On 12/1/2023 at 2:30 PM, soalbundy said:

The flag is an affront to the eyes. They want to be accepted and included into society but set themselves apart by having their own flag, "Hey look at me, I'm different", no you aren't, you're boring. Thais don't have a relaxed view on these issues, they are polite and avoid confrontation which you would know if you could speak Thai and listen to what is said behind their backs, but never openly. 

Agree. The Thais have a very sensible approach to all of this. They know that trans women are not really women, that's why they have a name for them (Katoey) and refer to them as the third sex. 

They do not scream from the rooftops about being gay, they simply get on with their lives and are generally accepted. That's how it should be. A lot of the problems in the west appear to be coming from individuals who do not wish to just be accepted, they want to stand out, they want to be seen as special. That's why we see such attention seeking behaviour at the Pride marches. Purple hair, overly flamboyant behaviour, indecent exposure etc. It all just screams "look at meeeeee".

I disagree with banning the movement though. Just cordon off the parades, keep it away from the general public, keep children out etc.    

16 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Sorry you are wasting you time trying to explain to this poster.

 

He is a classic candidate for research by Dunning and Kruger.

 

He will never accept facts, what ever links you provide.

 

He will continue to bait, troll and try to intimidate you, to try to get you to rise to his posts, and try to get you banned.

You really are obsessed. If you are not responding directly to me you are lecturing other posters about me. 

I really don't need to live rent free Bro. Try to move on...

11 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Five times in 70 years caught publicly airing her views. As I said, the views of 'The Palace' were often made known via friendly third parties.

 

What I object to is the existence of the institution (I wish the Royal family no individual harm): I think that QEII performed her duties diligently and had the best interests of the country at heart. Charles may well take after his mother; we shall see.

 

I can only repeat what I stated before: The very fact that the UK HoS is a hereditary position whose sole criterion for selection is birth "right" is, by definition, undemocratic and I object to it for that reason. 

 

It's also worth remembering that QEII would not have been monarch if her uncle had not fallen in love with a divorcée. Had that not happened, the UK would have had a Nazi sympathiser as HoS, and the UK; Europe and, probably, the rest of the world would have been a wholly different - and imo a much worse - place. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a hereditary system if it throws up such a possibility.

The Royal family play a role and they play it very well.

It seems to me that the only people who object to it are those who are envious of their wealth and maybe unhappy with their own lot in life. There is no reason to change a system that has been working well for centuries so that we can end up with someone like Macron, or even worse the war criminal Blair. 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

5555555555555

 

Sooo, Trump is the biggest reason to remain. What a stupid reason. Doesn't Biden know that Trump has 90 something court cases that are "absolutely" going to see him in jail .

 

Perhaps Biden knows that he's never going to be found guilty, to be so fearful of the bad orange man.

Exactly. Biden is only staying because of Trump, and many people are only voting for Biden because he isn't Trump. 

US politics is near an all time low. The various factions bickering amongst themselves while the country continues to decline. China must be laughing their butts off. 

12 hours ago, Irish star said:

Still Culting for Putin huh 

I am not sure what you mean. I have never mentioned Putin. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else, or perhaps you should think before you post and try to come up with something more intelligent.

13 hours ago, brianthainess said:

A Huge Huge Difference less than 10k GBP, 400kTB a year and only for 2 months. There is no comparison and your wife does not even have to earn 1baht. 

Yes well Thailand has a much lower cost of living. 10k won't get you far in the UK, to be fair it should probably be higher in Thailand. 

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

Even if the UK HoS was essentially a ceremonial role, it does not justify it being 'by appointment' let alone, hereditary. The fact, as I have pointed out previously, is that the UK monarch is not apolitical. Imo the sooner we become a republic the better (not that I expect it to happen anytime soon unfortunately).

The Queen was always apolitical. King Charles will get there in the end he just needs to drop the climate alarmism. Not a good look when you live in a palace and take private jets.

I agree it won't happen any time soon. Thankfully. 

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

And the reason why immigration is to be slashed by 300k is what?

Maybe the lack of housing, the lack of available school places, the strain on the NHS and the 1.4 million people already unemployed would be a good place to start.

3 minutes ago, couchpotato said:

Of course (as I'm sure many others do)---but its not really racism, but bad form curiosity from pompous royals. Still they should know better, and definitely don't utter things out loud that will come back to haunt you. It'll all pass over in time, but the stigma will last a lot longer.

Either way I won't lose any sleep over this 'storm in a teacup'.

So essentially you agree it is unsubstantiated rumour and that even if it were true, it wouldn't really be racist.

Poor form from Harry and his wife. But when you have no talent and no job I guess you have to sell out your own family to pay for the mansion and the private jets. Pretty pathetic when you think about it. 

The fact they are being rightfully ridiculed is Karma in action.

29 minutes ago, NE1 said:

Obviously a joke right .

Isn't building stamina part and parcel of a footballer ?

Unfortunately not a joke.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/13023026/erik-ten-hag-has-lost-elements-of-man-utd-dressing-room-as-his-style-and-treatment-of-jadon-sancho-questioned

46 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I have not seen any reports or comments from any off the main parties involved that dispute/contest  the Telegraph report into the existence of the letters or content.

The fact the Palace have said that the King is looking for the source of the leak, supports beyond any credible doubt that the letters do exist.

Have you got the official release from the Palace that says the King is looking for the source?

Or is that a rumour as well?

54 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I have a preponderance of evidence going beyond probability that the letters exist and what the Telegraph reported is True.

The most obvious that proves the existence of the letters beyond credible doubt is that the King as initiated an investigation into the source of the leak because only an handfull of persons have seen the letters.

So you are saying you believe the unsubstantiated allegations.

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The idea that the British Royal Family is apolitical is nonsense. The very fact that the PM has to brief the Monarch on a weekly basis illustrates that. Why can't Charles get the news through the same channels as the rest of us?

 

Moreover, because of his position Charles has a platform from where he broadcasts his views, a fact he demonstrated yet again at the latest COP meeting.

 

Charles has been continuously interfering in political matters since his youth and governments are forced to spend time considering matters. He has disproportionate influence and it is undemocratic.

 

If we must have a HoS who is not the PM, let us elect him or her.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

Charles does not interfere with the running of the country. He offered his clumsy, ill informed opinions on the climate from time to time when he was Prince but he will need to learn to stop that now he is HoS. 

The House of Lords should be elected, I would agree on that. The Head of State? Given the fact that the role is essentially ceremonial in the UK, there is no need to vote on it. 

4 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

 

 

I leave the debate, because I get to the point you bore me.

 

All you try to do is bait, troll and bully, but I am not intimidated by you, it fact I feel sorry for people like you, who seem to believe you are a legend in your own head.

 

You are so inconsistent, it makes you look silly. When you can not answer you result to defection and more baiting.

 

So yes BYE, i will let you reply to this post and then offer no answer, that way you childish understanding will think you have won another debate, when in reality everyone but you can see the truth.

 

 

You have not disproven a single point I have made. When you get owned by actual facts (and associated links that I have provided) you resort to posting more pictures of your fridge magnets, make a couple of childish insults then run away .

Awful against Newcastle, could have been 5-0.

Interesting to see how they do against Chowsea. They seem to be improving under The Pochmeister. 

Ten Hag is getting a bit eggy banning critics from the press conference. Leaks from players about not liking to run during training etc. 

Not looking good.  

Just now, Georgealbert said:

You are just getting to the point of being ridiculous.

 

So you are saying that if you do not see the original letters, every news source is lying.

 

Even Megan Markle herself says she send the letters.

 

Bye, as it is pointless trying to talk to a brick wall.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12813423/meghan-markle-omid-scobie-not-leak-names-royal-racists.html

Markle is a proven liar. As is Scobie. It is an unsubstantiated allegation.

The only racism that can be proven is Harry's in the video I already posted. Which is somewhat ironic. 

Harry himself said the family are not racist and blamed the allegation on the press.

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-may-have-rowed-back-on-his-racism-claim-but-the-damage-is-done-and-race-now-affects-the-lens-through-which-the-royal-family-are-viewed-12783236

Funny how you always try to leave the debate when you get owned. 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Macron was elected in a free and fair election, Charles was not. 

 

It's ironic that you continually rail against the "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" and complain vehemently about what you perceive as a lack of democracy in the EU, but are happy to champion this anachronism which places an individual as the HoS on purely hereditary grounds, and has nothing at all to do with meritocracy.

 

Such a system has no place in a 21st century democracy.

Not ironic at all - if you understand the vastly different roles that the British Royal Family and the EU play.

If I was stating that the UK government should not be elected, you might have a decent point. But I am not.

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

That is something I cannot do.

Firstly I do not think the actual letters are in the public domain.

Secondly I would be surprised if any outlet would publish them. They are obviously private and deal with confidential matters and we're never intended to be in the public domain.

 

However I have no reason to believe that what is published in the Telegraph is incorrect.Neither Meghan,  Buckingham Palace Royal Sources or Royal corresponedents have contested the accuracy of the Telegraph article.

So it's just an allegation then.

41 minutes ago, GarryP said:

I thought it was very legibile. Calibri is quite easy to read. Would you prefer Times Roman?

Legibile?

It would appear you two are speaking the same language .

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The letters were leaked to the Telegraph.

In addition we know from Valentine Low they are genuine. Valentine Low initially cited Meghan as the leak. However after correspondence with Buckingham Palace and the Sussexes he acknowledged that this assumption was incorrect.

Please post a link to the letters.

Not an allegation that the letters exist. The actual letters.

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

It is known that comments about Archie's skin colour was made.

The leaked letters where the then Prince Charles acknowledges the comments were not made in malice.

 

 

That is a claim by Omid Scobie. Another allegation by a known, self confessed liar.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12799457/Omid-Scobie-lied-age-insecurity-royal-biographer-claimed-years-younger.html  

10 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Another post that made me laugh.

 

This is what you said about the King yesterday.

 

Again your only consistency is being totally inconsistent.

 

 

I was assuming you knew the difference between "The King" and the British Royal Family as an institution.

It would appear I have been giving you far too much credit.