Just now, Surelynot said:

No, but I hope these damned tablets I am taking will.

yeah but  your  supposed to take them orally????

Just now, Surelynot said:

What if?....Who cares?...as long as you can be happy and not vilified....live and let live.

James  Bond didnt, that was a very pc James bond movie.

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

as it gets boring after a few years

...as he gets boring after a few months.

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

What if?....Who cares?...as long as you can be happy and not vilified....live and let live.

ya let the minorities take over the world... why not?

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

...as he gets boring after a few months.

change channels there are more woke pc ones available - millions love is straight talking

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

20 minutes ago, Maliproto said:

No.  The BBC is reporting that he resigned.

I would assume he was given the classic option - resign or be fired

You could assume that but your assumption may not be correct.  

Just now, BobBKK said:

ya let the minorities take over the world... why not?

Why would the minorities be taking over the world?....What a strange thing to say....although as a white privileged male (could be wrong, only a guess).......you must feel threatened by anything that might take away those privileges.

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

change channels there are more woke pc ones available - millions love is straight talking

I certainly love his harassment of Tory ministers....worth his weight in gold just for that.

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

You assume too much. There is no way he is going to apologise for speaking the truth so he left. I suspect he was thinking of leaving anyway as a mega successful guy like him stays around then moves on as it gets boring after a few years.

What 'truth"? So far as I know Piers made a number of accusations with no proof whatsoever. 

6 minutes ago, Maliproto said:

You could assume that but your assumption may not be correct.  

Of course

13 minutes ago, simple1 said:

What 'truth"? So far as I know Piers made a number of accusations with no proof whatsoever. 

ah but it's ok for Megahn to accuse someone of saying something with no proof too?  your bias screams out loud

21 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Why would the minorities be taking over the world?....What a strange thing to say....although as a white privileged male (could be wrong, only a guess).......you must feel threatened by anything that might take away those privileges.

oh so you are a disadvantaged minority? 

A post in giant fonts has been removed

Also a flame

7 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

oh so you are a disadvantaged minority? 

Good God no......I have led a ridiculously charmed and privileged life......,.,and recognize that fact.......however, I also recognize the horrendous effects even "casual" racism can have on someones mental wellbeing..... let alone their life-chances.

On 3/11/2021 at 10:32 AM, Neeranam said:

Piers DARED to challenge something to do with the "race card", you can't do that. 

Note to myself:

Don't mention the war and don't mention black.

32 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

ah but it's ok for Megahn to accuse someone of saying something with no proof too?  your bias screams out loud

Meghan and Harry claims are based on conversations they had, which are yet to be proven untruthful. Piers has no basis in fact to make accusations as he was not a party to the conversations. Meghan has now raised an official complaint with ITV which presumes there will be some form of investigation. IMO the entire episode is damaging to the couple's 'brand' - as I mentioned before don't agree with public airing of private family matters - maybe one day their decision to go public will be clarified as it doesn't make sense to me.

 

You're correct - IMO Piers comments were an unnecessary, nasty personal attack.

2 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Why call him anything other than Prince Archie ?

Because the rules state he cannot be called that until his grandfather becomes King Charles the third, which Harry would have known already before insinuating otherwise.

4 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Because the rules state he cannot be called that until his grandfather becomes King Charles the third, which Harry would have known already before insinuating otherwise.

Not quite what I was getting at....but thanks for the info.

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

ah but it's ok for Megahn to accuse someone of saying something with no proof too?  your bias screams out loud

She has proof. Harry was there to corroborate it.

39 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Because the rules state he cannot be called that until his grandfather becomes King Charles the third, which Harry would have known already before insinuating otherwise.

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were lucky.

22 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were lucky.

They are the Queen's grandchildren; not great grandchildren.

Who is and who isn’t a prince or princess in the British Royal Family and why doesn’t Archie have a title?

Quote

The Queen’s great-grandchildren including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s son Archie, Princess Eugenie’s son August Brooksbank, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips children do not possess the title of ‘prince’ or ‘princess’.

Why does Archie not have a title?

Under current guidelines, great-grandchildren of the monarch are not princes or princesses.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's children are princes and a princess. The George because he is in line to the throne, the other two as a gift from the Queen; otherwise they would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's son would have been an Earl, had they not refused it! From the same article

Quote

Archie, who will turn two in May, was entitled to the ‘courtesy title’ Earl of Dumbarton. However, the couple announced after his birth that they had not given him a courtesy title and he would be known as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

6 hours ago, Surelynot said:

I would like to think one day....after you have grown up....you will look back on this comment and cringe with embarrassment.......it really is one of the most pathetic comments I have seen posted on TVN....and that is saying something.

I guess it must have gone over your head then.

Numerous off-topic posts and replies removed.  The topic is about Morgan.  Discussions of Royal titles is a little far afield.  

 

On 3/11/2021 at 5:38 PM, Mavideol said:

so you don't wonder how they got that rich, how many slaves or under age people they exploited,  they were colonialists/invaders maybe it's time they recognize some (maybe not all) but some of their wrong doings, some of their discriminatory practices and just in case you misunderstood my point, I never claimed that handouts are the norm but some of them do claim and/or act as they care for the less fortunate ones, then they should act rather then speak (actions speak louder then words) about it or going into so called "" fund raising "" and sometimes get paid for showing up

Without the massive pilfering of India, the UK may have collapsed into bankruptcy by the mid 19th century. There are countless accounts of deplorable behavior toward their "subjects. They closed thousands of schools in the 19th century, in order to increase illiteracy, which was intended to decrease resistance to colonial rule. The taxation was heinous. Yes, they have a tremendous amount to answer for, historically. So, to say there is no institutional racism at this point seems both revisionist, and quite disengenuous. 

 

New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative that the UK improved Indian society. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india

8 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Without the massive pilfering of India, the UK may have collapsed into bankruptcy by the mid 19th century. There are countless accounts of deplorable behavior toward their "subjects. They closed thousands of schools in the 19th century, in order to increase illiteracy, which was intended to decrease resistance to colonial rule. The taxation was heinous. Yes, they have a tremendous amount to answer for, historically. So, to say there is no institutional racism at this point seems both revisionist, and quite disengenuous. <snip>

Since they did the same to Western countries conquered I don't think it was racism, simply a position of (perceived) power and exploitation to the good of the motherland and the people involved themselves.

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Since they did the same to Western countries conquered I don't think it was racism, simply a position of (perceived) power and exploitation to the good of the motherland and the people involved themselves.

The very definition of racism is likely to be different for every person asked. The vast majority of the white people I know deny any sort of institutional racism exists. Of course that is wrong. However, I consider the denial to be due to upbringing, indoctrination, culture, being out of touch, and not being around people of color, in addition to arrogance. 

 

Most of the historical stories and accounts I have read, point toward an arrogant, cruel, and condescending attitude towards India, by the colonists. You can define that as something other than racism if it makes you feel better. 

26 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The very definition of racism is likely to be different for every person asked. The vast majority of the white people I know deny any sort of institutional racism exists. Of course that is wrong. However, I consider the denial to be due to upbringing, indoctrination, culture, being out of touch, and not being around people of color, in addition to arrogance. 

 

Most of the historical stories and accounts I have read, point toward an arrogant, cruel, and condescending attitude towards India, by the colonists. You can define that as something other than racism if it makes you feel better. 

Thanks, and you can imply I am a racist if that makes you feel better. I don't think anyone is denying this "Most of the historical stories and accounts I have read, point toward an arrogant, cruel, and condescending attitude towards India, by the colonists.", what I am saying is that the same attitude existed towards other countries like Ireland, USA, Canada, so in my book that would not be racism but simply an arrogant, cruel and condescending attitude towards all people who were in their power.

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Since they did the same to Western countries conquered I don't think it was racism, simply a position of (perceived) power and exploitation to the good of the motherland and the people involved themselves.

You mean the 'western' countries of US, Canada and Australia which were not western at the time of conquest?  Where the local aboriginal populations were isolated onto reservations and the land given (land patents) or sold off to settlers from the United Kingdom? 

3 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

You mean the 'western' countries of US, Canada and Australia which were not western at the time of conquest?  Where the local aboriginal populations were isolated onto reservations and the land given (land patents) or sold off to settlers from the United Kingdom? 

And they showed the same arrogant etc attitude towards the settlers.

35 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And they showed the same arrogant etc attitude towards the settlers.

Not exactly the same, they did it to the aborigines/first peoples because they were barbarians - or heathens (of no religion of importance), they effectively tried to do the same as China is now with their Uighur problem - and try to 'civilize' them to where their identities were destroyed.  The settlers were more likely to be treated like Scotland before home-rule -- ruled from London...  in an arrogant way where they thought they knew best....  The only reason why Canada got self-rule as early as 1867 was because the UK had only two options left after the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada.... they could suppress it and eventually lose control and the US (which was still seen as an adversary) would eventually expand north... or they could try and implement self-rule in hopes of maintaining a bulwark against the expansion of the US.