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.

Read Charlies 'Black Spider' letters,

proof that he is 'sticking his royal oar in'.

 

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?

24 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

I would certainly agree there are "friendlier" places with better weather no doubt. Certainly agree also about the UK Government poor handling of the Ukrainian refugees.

As far as benefits are concerned, what other available countries are better than the UK? I mean getting everything for free is pretty good.

These illegals crossing over the English Channel are not refugees, if they were actual refugees they would settle in the first safe country and be very grateful. There are a few families among the young men, that the media always show pictures of.

Look at the Ukrainian young men fighting for their country. I would think any young men would be proud to fight for their country?

Can you imagine in WW2 all the UK young men refusing to fight?

I don't doubt they want new homes, new livelihoods etc, but why does the UK taxpayer have to pay?

The other issue here is some of these illegals are paying a 3rd party to get across the channel its people smuggling, which is illegal.

Unfortunately its a messed up world we now live in.

Believe me you would not want to come from where they come from and go through what they go through to get away from it. And the vast majority of refugees would love to be able to go home. 

Ask yourself what it would take for you to become a refugee with all that entails?

Ask yourself if you would really regard the 'benefits' a refugee gets in UK as a step up?

Ask yourself how low it would have to get for you to think that?

You however were born by chance in a rich country free of war and persecution and starvation and drought and press gangs. One that many people dream (hopelessly in most cases) of living in. You presumably think you are a christian of some sort. Then I would just suggest that even if you have nothing material to offer or share with these unfortunates, you at least share some compassion and common humanity with them, rather than judging people whose shoes you have never walked in and making it even more difficult for them.

And who is going to profit from boosted bonuses in all the private companies involved in trafficking these people to Rwanda?

Good on ya Charlie!

A post with unsupported claims and responses to it have been removed.

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.

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.   

17 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.   

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

 

 

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...

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.   

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 

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

His private comments were leaked, they do not constitute meddling in anything.

 

 

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

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.

53 minutes ago, baboon said:

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

This.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Odd thought for you to post online.

Why is that "odd" ?

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Why is that "odd" ?

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

 

 

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"

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.

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 

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 

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.

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

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

Logical argument not your thing then.

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 .

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 

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.

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.

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

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....

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 ?