Hurt British royals try to find exit route for Harry and Meghan

[evadgib]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 I think that your diatribe has just reinforced the point made by TheDark.

I found the post factually correct.

[mokwit]

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 I think that your diatribe has just reinforced the point made by TheDark.

It would have been nice if the British people had actually been consulted as to if they actually wanted this, rather than being berated for not liking what has been forced upon them without their consent and against their will.

[Oxx]

59 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 I think that your diatribe has just reinforced the point made by TheDark.

You clearly didn't accurately read what I wrote.  The UK is NOT an unwelcoming place for foreigners.  It welcomes the dross of the world and gives them generous state handouts.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Oxx said:

You clearly didn't accurately read what I wrote.  The UK is NOT an unwelcoming place for foreigners.  It welcomes the dross of the world and gives them generous state handouts.

As RR said, you're reinforcing it more and more.

[RuamRudy]

55 minutes ago, mokwit said:

It would have been nice if the British people had actually been consulted as to if they actually wanted this, rather than being berated for not liking what has been forced upon them without their consent and against their will.

We have a parliamentary democracy in the UK - immigration policy is determined by the elected government. The British people elect the government that decides the policy. Don't like the policy? Next time vote for someone different. 

[mokwit]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

We have a parliamentary democracy in the UK - immigration policy is determined by the elected government. The British people elect the government that decides the policy. Don't like the policy? Next time vote for someone different. 

They acted outside of that system. That policy appeared in no Election Manifesto and no Queens Speech opening Parliament. It was thus done underhandedly without mandate.

[roo860]

1 hour ago, Oxx said:

 

Stuff and nonsense.  England welcomes vast numbers of illegal economic migrants and so called "asylum seekers", as well as hordes of worthless East Europeans (drug dealers, people traffickers, thieves, pickpockets, &c.).  These people get services for which they have never contributed, and are treated far better than British natives and expats who've paid British taxes their entire adult lives.  Plus they are a drain upon social security, schools, doctors and hospitals, and disproportionately clog up our prisons.

 

I suspect that the pro-Brexit vote was driven, at least in part, by the desire to rid the Kingdom of these unworthy and unwelcome types.  Of course, in reality it's only useless Europeans that can be told to go home.  The North Africans and Muslims from the Indian subcontinent are here to stay.

 

The only place the England has become toxic for is the English white man.

Well said!!++!+

[Orton Rd]

I just asked my best mates Ugandan wife if the UK is a 'toxic' place to stay, she laughed. She came here in 1991 as an illegal immigrant and now is retired living off 2 rental properties worth over half a million in London. Started off with a 16k grant to move out of her council flat she was given when illegally here! She worked for the home office at one time processing asylum claims and always said 95% were totally bogus with made ups stories, like hers. Her view is the UK is far too soft and taken advantage of, she ought to know I think, toxic more like paradise for some of them.

[roo860]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

It sounds like your personal political views have more to do with your critical postings on the Harry-Meghan issue than anything directly to do with what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish -- leading a private life outside of their royal encumberments.

 

But I will agree on one thing -- they really ought to be in or out when it comes to public funding/support from British taxpayers/government. If they don't want to be royals, which in my opinion is entirely their right to decide, then the taxpayers and government shouldn't be supporting them. Fair is fair.

 

I would have liked him to have stayed in the Army, had a lot of respect for him in those days. 

[evadgib]

3 minutes ago, roo860 said:

I would have liked him to have stayed in the Army, had a lot of respect for him in those days. 

The press ruined the annominity he had enjoyed there.

[Oxx]

47 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As RR said, you're reinforcing it more and more.

As an expert, perhaps you'd care to point out a single statement that I made which is inaccurate.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Oxx said:

As an expert, perhaps you'd care to point out a single statement that I made which is inaccurate.

Let's just say that your opinion shows how toxic it can be.

[overherebc]

3 hours ago, mokwit said:

It makes them persona non grata in my book. Hillary is a vile false person IMO. Clooneys and H  are more likely to be using Meghan as a conduit to ingratiate themselves with British Royalty than actual real friends of Harry who I have always regarded as a fundamentally decent bloke (as are his Father and Grandfather IMO). According to a photographer assigned to him he has gone from a happy fun person to a moody unhappy one since his marriage.

Haven't most of us ????????????????

 

JOKE!!!  just in case.

[URMySunshine]

Since Andrew is in the glasshouse Harry could take over his roles and start earning some of that 2.3 mill that daddy gifts him every year. 

[URMySunshine]

2 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

Stuff and nonsense.  England welcomes vast numbers of illegal economic migrants and so called "asylum seekers", as well as hordes of worthless East Europeans (drug dealers, people traffickers, thieves, pickpockets, &c.).  These people get services for which they have never contributed, and are treated far better than British natives and expats who've paid British taxes their entire adult lives.  Plus they are a drain upon social security, schools, doctors and hospitals, and disproportionately clog up our prisons.

 

I suspect that the pro-Brexit vote was driven, at least in part, by the desire to rid the Kingdom of these unworthy and unwelcome types.  Of course, in reality it's only useless Europeans that can be told to go home.  The North Africans and Muslims from the Indian subcontinent are here to stay.

 

The only place the England has become toxic for is the English white man.

Good job you're here then a paradise for the farang amongst the grateful local natives. 

[Just Weird]

On 1/11/2020 at 4:01 PM, sawadee1947 said:

On 1/11/2020 at 3:04 PM, Just Weird said:

Who, or what, do you think that they get "a salary" from?

In addition, about 5% of the Sussexes' income comes from the Sovereign Grant, according to their website. This money is paid from the government to the Royal Family to cover expenses for official duties and looking after royal palaces. The grant is worth £82.4m in this financial year.

It doesn't come "from the government", i.e. taxpayers, it comes from the Crown Estate.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, URMySunshine said:

Since Andrew is in the glasshouse Harry could take over his roles and start earning some of that 2.3 mill that daddy gifts him every year. 

I think they have been "earning the funds paid", but they no longer wish to live in the petrie dish of the family business, it seems, unless on their terms. The gift comes from an well invested, managed and expanding Duchy of Cornwall project,

[RJRS1301]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

We have a parliamentary democracy in the UK - immigration policy is determined by the elected government. The British people elect the government that decides the policy. Don't like the policy? Next time vote for someone different. 

But must conform to the EU polices while it is a member of the EU

[RuamRudy]

20 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

But must conform to the EU polices while it is a member of the EU

In regards to EU immigration but that's about all.

 

Reality Check: Who sets the UK's immigration policy?

[evadgib]

2 hours ago, URMySunshine said:

Good job you're here then a paradise for the farang amongst the grateful local natives. 

You have spectacularly missed his point.

[Nigel Garvie]

8 hours ago, mokwit said:

You got that part right. I can't stand virtue signaling hypocrites.

 

P.S I am English and consider myself an extreme centrist as many normal people are. I am no fan of the hawk Republicans and anyone who knows Trump's business dealing finds it hard to be a personal fan of the man. HTH. You had me boxed and labelled as a Trump supporter/hawk Republican for no other reason that  I don't like Liberals/false narratives, it seems.

 

PPS Do you work in PR on behalf of the Clooneys? Sure seems like it.

The thread has moved on, in posts, though not much in quality, sad to say. I was working, but on return I am replying to your post above. 

Although my comment didn't actually say you were American, it could easily be read as implying that, my mistake, apologies.

 

The idea about being centrist in politics anywhere, is that it cannot be extreme by definition. You can have extreme left and right wing, but being extremely in the centre is a strange concept.

 

It would help you being identified as a UK not US citizen if you didn't use the word "Liberal" in it's negative US way, where anyone to the left of Franco is a Liberal (Doubtless a Commie loving traitorous one as well! ). We have a Liberal party in the UK, they are generally considered to be centrists, moderate in their political views, although arguably a bit "Wishy washy".

 

Virtue signalling hypocrites rolls of the tongue for sure, but the virtue signalling bit has become misused to the extent that it no longer has any meaning. Is anyone who does anything that shows that they care for their fellow man/woman, virtue signalling? How hypocritical are the Tory MPs who claim that "We are all in this together" and then subject the poor to years of austerity while they stash the cash away in the Cayman Islands?

[overherebc]

6 hours ago, mokwit said:

It would have been nice if the British people had actually been consulted as to if they actually wanted this, rather than being berated for not liking what has been forced upon them without their consent and against their will.

All governments do that.

I hope no-one believes that any politician actually thinks he/she wants to be a politician to help the people.

All for me and all for me, the one.

[Oxx]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

4 hours ago, Oxx said:

As an expert, perhaps you'd care to point out a single statement that I made which is inaccurate.

Let's just say that your opinion shows how toxic it can be.

 

So, I'm 100% correct, and you can't find any inaccuracy whatsoever in what I wrote.  And you're simply reduced to a slur, "toxic", because you've got absolutely nothing to back up your apparent stance.

[sawadee1947]

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

It doesn't come "from the government", i.e. taxpayers, it comes from the Crown Estate.

No That's wrong. Crown Estate is different. 

[Just Weird]

8 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

It doesn't come "from the government", i.e. taxpayers, it comes from the Crown Estate.

No That's wrong. Crown Estate is different. 

I'm not wrong, I do know what the Crown Estate is.

[stevenl]

33 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

So, I'm 100% correct, and you can't find any inaccuracy whatsoever in what I wrote.  And you're simply reduced to a slur, "toxic", because you've got absolutely nothing to back up your apparent stance.

Toxic was the topic of the post you responded to.

[JHolmesJr]

as usual, an outsider sowing discord in the house of Windsor.

Markle is first and foremost a <deleted> actress.

On top of that, her lecturing on global warming, while flying around 

in private jets, is highly irregular.

 

[Nigel Garvie]

48 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

So, I'm 100% correct, and you can't find any inaccuracy whatsoever in what I wrote.  And you're simply reduced to a slur, "toxic", because you've got absolutely nothing to back up your apparent stance.

I don't think his stance is apparent, unless he is actually standing somewhere else! I may be mistaken, but I think you introduced the word "Toxic".

You said:-

"hordes of worthless East Europeans (drug dealers, people traffickers, thieves, pickpockets, &c.).  These people get services for which they have never contributed, and are treated far better than British natives and expats who've paid British taxes their entire adult lives.  Plus they are a drain upon social security, schools, doctors and hospitals, and disproportionately clog up our prisons.

Wow - powerful stuff - have you considered writing a column for the Daily Seig Heil. You'll probably have to avoid mentioning that all the government statistics show that EU immigrants are net contributors to our economy by many millions of pounds. With that information (Easily available - look it up) it looks like virtually every thing you wrote is inaccurate. I would suggest also, that we have shown ourselves able to supply our own drug dealers, and thieves. Our empire was built, to a very significant extent,  on profits from the slave trade, and opium sales to the Chinese. However they were British gentlemen drug dealers so perhaps that doesn't count. 

 

You could start your column "The only place that (the) England has become toxic for is the English white man."

Though in the interests of balance you would have to consider the alternative "England is not the only place that the English white man has become toxic for"!

 

Meghan has probably found the views expressed by your beloved "English white man" in the gutter press toxic to her. 

[Gene1960]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

On top of that, her lecturing on global warming, while flying around 

in private jets, is highly irregular.

 

Yes. She should've sailed around the Globe. What a shame. 

[Scott]

Troll memes removed.