Jump to content

Prince Charles told by U.K. leaders to stop meddling in politics amid immigration comment backlash


Recommended Posts

Posted
18 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

Anyone who reputably has 2 valets to dress him in the morning, and up to 5 times during the day as he changers his clothes, and ties his shoe laces for him, after pressing them flat with an iron, is a very, very, very, odd person indeed, Royal or not.   Sounds like a second rate 1890s period drama.  I learnt to dress myself at 3 years old, he apparently did not. 

Nor I suspect would you talk to your cabbages and other plants in your garden  and George 111 was labelled the mad King, well looks like there may be another one. Still at least he has company at the Newmarket Thoroughbred Sales.

Posted
7 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Keep them safe by sending them to a country with a well-documented record of human rights abuses in recent years, specifically in relation to the treatment of refugees there?

 

A record that the UK government itself condemned just months earlier.

 

UK condemned Rwanda for human rights abuses months before signing deal to send asylum seekers there

I must admit it does seem a strange country to pick, there must be other closer countries that are amenable? Maybe they picked Rwanda  to scare any more from crossing the Channel?

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
3 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

I agree,  it has always been an unwritten rule that "Royals" do not comment on anything political, or could be considered political, for obvious reasons.

 

He didn't comment publicly. His comments were made during a private conversation.

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, KhaoYai said:

He didn't comment publicly. His comments were made during a private conversation.

Well, he is an idiot then as if you want to keep something private then you do not tell anyone.   The queen seems to manage this without a problem.   No-one in the UK wants to hear the opinions of a privileged freeloader who will never feel the effects of mass immigration, legal or otherwise.   

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, James105 said:

Well, he is an idiot then as if you want to keep something private then you do not tell anyone.   The queen seems to manage this without a problem.   No-one in the UK wants to hear the opinions of a privileged freeloader who will never feel the effects of mass immigration, legal or otherwise.   

I hate having to listen to Boris Johnson too, but I just have to suck it up...

Posted
6 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

No one is forcing you to listen to his comments are they?

 

 

What an odd thing to say.  He is next in line to the throne and anything he says is reported literally everywhere.  I'd need to hide in a cave to avoid hearing whatever daft nonsense comes out of his mouth. 

 

If he wants to enter politics there is nothing to stop him from doing so.   He can give up his free £22 million per year, resign his position in the royal family, give up his unearned titles and his privilege and stand to be elected to Parliament just like any other person in the UK.   He can then tell the people of the UK that borders are cruel and we should not attempt to control migration and see how he gets on with that.   

  • Sad 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, baboon said:

I hate having to listen to Boris Johnson too, but I just have to suck it up...

Boris Johnson is the Countries elected leader whose opinion is relevant to the decisions the UK makes , Prince Charles is not a Politician and hes done nothing that makes his opinion to be worthwhile of publicising 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Boris Johnson is the Countries elected leader whose opinion is relevant to the decisions the UK makes , Prince Charles is not a Politician and hes done nothing that makes his opinion to be worthwhile of publicising 

Odd thought for you to post online.

  • Like 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, baboon said:

Gives the government an opportunity to stoke up the culture war. They have nothing else left but divide and rule.

It was the left wing media that published his private words , Boris replied to Charles comments .

   Typical, blaming the Government for what Charles says and the Left wing media who published those words....................but "I blame the Government"

Posted
1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was the left wing media that published his private words , Boris replied to Charles comments .

   Typical, blaming the Government for what Charles says and the Left wing media who published those words....................but "I blame the Government"

But where are the venomous protestations and coming from?

 

The outrage, oh so much outrage.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because like Charles, you were not elected, unlike Charles you posted your comments online, Charles made his comments in private.


 

 

My comments are not headline news though and my Mum isnt the Queen of England 

Edited by Mac Mickmanus
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But where are the venomous protestations and coming from?

 

The outrage, oh so much outrage.

It must be rather strange for you to see people disagreeing with a persons statements , without  rioting and going on the rampage an smashing things up 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But where are the venomous protestations and coming from?

 

The outrage, oh so much outrage.

 

English don't do outrage.

 

 

"Slightly miffed" at Charles' untimely remarks should cover you.

  • Haha 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It must be rather strange for you to see people disagreeing with a persons statements , without  rioting and going on the rampage an smashing things up 

Nothing strange about your off topic hyperbole .

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nothing strange about your off topic hyperbole .

Making the point that there have been no "venomous protestations" , just people civilly replying to Charles comments 

  • Like 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because like Charles, you were not elected, unlike Charles you posted your comments online, Charles made his comments in private.

Were his comments really private? Obviously not and the linked article suggests the comments were made between the monarchy and the Commonwealth. As such, they were not private, didn't deserve to be private and shouldn't have been made at all since they were political. The monarchy is "duty bound" to stay out of politics. furthermore, if he hasn't learned his lesson yet he needs to abdicate and leave it to someone without a tin ear. The world is sick of the British monarchy's attitude to race issues and clear conservative bias.

Posted

It seems Charles was on to something.

 

A number of individuals have successfully defeated the Government’s attempt to deport them to Rawanda and in doing so demonstrated beyond doubt that the Government was in their case acting unlawfully.

 

So we have it demonstrated in the High Court that without the assistance of NGO’s the Government was prepared to, and in the process of, deporting people out with their legal rights.

 

Charles was right, this is appalling.

  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It seems Charles was on to something.

 

A number of individuals have successfully defeated the Government’s attempt to deport them to Rawanda and in doing so demonstrated beyond doubt that the Government was in their case acting unlawfully.

 

So we have it demonstrated in the High Court that without the assistance of NGO’s the Government was prepared to, and in the process of, deporting people out with their legal rights.

 

Charles was right, this is appalling.

What is wrong with going to Rwanda ?

Rwanda is a safe Country and the refugees want to go to a safe Country

  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What is wrong with going to Rwanda ?

Rwanda is a safe Country and the refugees want to go to a safe Country

the cross channel migrants left a safe country....

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, jastheace said:

the cross channel migrants left a safe country....

So they have a choice of three safe Countries ; France , U.K and Rwanda .  

Why do they prefer to stay in the U.K ?

  • Confused 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...