Meghan Markle abused & bullied Buckingham Palace staff to tears - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
#15160536
snapdragon wrote:So go and look up royal engagements, boycey.

It would be easy enough for you to do.

Anyone can do it.

I don’t see any signs that you really know. You’ve made a few glib statements about polo matches and charity work, but nothing to show you do know what they do.

You’ve not even mentioned how many countries would be involved in deciding whether the monarchy should be abolished.
What would happen to the crown states etc.

Reading what you have to say reads more about jealousy of their personal wealth.

After all, what’s wrong with playing polo? Some people where I live hang around the park spending tax payers money on getting stoned.

Whatever floats their boat


edit: Leave me out of it, Tainari. Bloody cheek

You know nothing about me.

Some of the worst racism I had to deal with in my last job was Indians against Pakistani, and vice-versa.

It was disgusting.
#15160537
Stormsmith wrote:Lemon is talking about two distinct things. 1. Racism, which is a policy of contempt towards others, and 2. Royalty that Lemon defines as an historical account of blood lines. One does not necessarily give rise to the other.

Racism is defined as "
According to dictionaries, the word is commonly used to describe prejudice and discrimination based on race. Racism can also be said to describe a condition in society in which a dominant racial group benefits from the oppression of others, whether that group wants such benefits or not. So @Stormsmith the Royals benefited from that oppressive state. No doubt about that. All of the European Royals with overseas empire possessions and territories benefited. I hate it so profoundly Stormsmith because it means that small places get stuck in limbo, in powerless positions for centuries and are denied rights. That means those people are severely limited and have to fight and have to die for a long time through many generations trying to liberate their conditions of lack. Lack of rights, lack of funds, lack of educations, lack of futures and lack of opportunities and often shortened lifespans and living with the worst possible conditions. If you study the history of these places or come from them? Like I do? It is patently obvious why the Empires gain and the colonized LOSE big time. There is no intellectual superficial discussion of 'the royals are there doing good charity work." Where do those diamonds come from on the Queen's coronation crown? England? No. Most probably her silks come from China or India, her diamonds from Africa, her gold from x and y nation and it is not in the UK with peat moss and potato fields. Someone benefits from that imperialism Stormsmith and it is not the working people of those nations with the gold, the diamonds and the silk.



Privilege neither guarantees the recipient will be a saint or a sod.

But grinding poverty guarantees you won't be well educated and be stuck in hustling for a living and have a large percentage of a chance of never getting out of the postal code you were born in. Because class controls and economic controls are linked to your place in all these class systems. It is a big waste of human talent Stormsmith.




Quite probably, but that was a long time ago. You can't claim today's Royal's are all racist because their great, great, great grandfather's were.

They aren't giving up their privileges gained from those people's thriving imperialism either. Do you think Meghan and Harry being cut off from their sources of income fully and having to live on an unemployed pregnant actress' pay in California and some retired military man's (who no longer is in the military and did not put in enough years for a pension would be able to afford their $14.5 million dollar Montecito mansion? They are totally isolated from reality that other people not from their class have to cope with. it is not about the Royals being racist. It is about their lack of awareness of what it is to be the target of the racist thoughts and the underlying systems that work in caste or class societies. Royal lineages are the very definitions of inherited wealth and caste. It is about exclusive rights. If it were not? Anyone would be the Duchess of Sussex.



Again, having/inheriting stuff doesn't mean one is racist. Racism is in an individuals heart, not wallet. Look at the proud boys. Or the Kkk. Hardly rich, hardly promoters of social justice.

They fall into the category of Bacon's Rebellion in US history Stormsmith. The landed gentry like the idea of divide and conquer and creating divisions so that the elite are not the center of lower class resentment and overthrow movements. Here is the piece on Bacon's Rebellion https://www.landofthebrave.info/bacons- ... 20colonies.

---
.?.
Someone panned the Royals as doing the charity thingee then playing polo. I wonder if you have hobbies?


How many with regular incomes can play polo and pay the upkeep of those polo-trained horses?

There are working class budget hobbies and bourgeosie hobbies. And they are rarely the same in quality or in cost.

I find Latin America makes art and music classes extremely affordable. The USA and the UK all that stuff is way too expensive for your factory worker American citizen. That is one great thing about this culture. They love art and make it cheap for people or free. I don't think the Latin Americans think art should be exclusively for the rich. ;)
#15160539
B0ycey wrote:You think I dont know what the Royals get up to everyday? Ok. :lol:

You haven't provided anything that I asked you to do to prove you know what you are taking about I see. Like what do you think they do? I don't need to know they have Royal engagements to know what those engagements consist of.


You do if you want to be taken seriously. You've made certain claims and I'm asking you to show some proof.


Basically they turn up, have a photo and if you are lucky you will get a few words. They don't provide anything and if we lost them tomorrow, it wouldn't affect how the UK operates.


Yes, it would. We won't have a head of state and dividing up the crown estates alone would be a major headache.


Polo is what they play. I could have mentioned Fox hunting but you know, some people might be offended by that.


Fox hunting has been banned. You could have mentioned shooting.


Do I care they play polo? No. But I wasn't criticing that they play polo in any case. I was just informing you what happens once they have spend about an hour of PR on a regular day. You know, because I know what I am talking about. :roll:


So, your claim is they only work for an hour a day then all go off and play polo. Gotcha.

Are you a typical republican, Boycey?


Tainari wrote:How many with regular incomes can play polo and pay the upkeep of those polo-trained horses?


Not many. It's an expensive hobby.

What is about polo you don't like?
#15160545
snapdragon wrote:You do if you want to be taken seriously. You've made certain claims and I'm asking you to show some proof.


This is called sealioning. Why should I answer your question if you won't answer mine when I asked FIRST? Although if you have attended a Royal appearance you would know I was right.

Yes, it would. We won't have a head of state and dividing up the crown estates alone would be a major headache.


This user thinking redistributing land is a major headache! God bless those who work for the Land Registry right? :lol:

Besides, we are talking about titles and privilege not the Crown Estate. Perhaps it would be wrong to remove their estate but then again why do they have it? There is certainly an argument for righting historic wrongs and maybe we could build new homes with that land... for people who can't afford a home.

Fox hunting has been banned. You could have mentioned shooting.


Fox hunting is not BANNED. Killing foxes with dogs chasing them is banned. But guess what. It still goes on like the hunts that claim they stick to the rules and then brake them.
#15160550
B0ycey wrote:This is called sealioning. Why should I answer your question if you won't answer mine when I asked FIRST? Although if you have attended a Royal appearance you would know I was right.


No. it's asking you to back up your claims that they don't do anything,

It's very easy for you to look it up

2000 engagements are carried out each year.
70,000 people entertained to lunches, dinners , garden parties etc each year.

And umpteen hundreds of letters answered.

And there's how much they add to the economy, just by existing.

I think Prince Louis, Kate and William's youngest child, added 4 million quid to the economy in the first 6 months of his life, just by existing. I might be being too conservative.

In sales of baby clothes etc.

I don't see Bojo's latest child making that for us.

For him, yeah. For us, not so much.

This user thinking redistributing land is a major headache! God bless those who work for the Land Registry right? :lol:


What does the land registry have to do with it?

Besides, we are talking about titles and privilege not the Crown Estate. Perhaps it would be wrong to remove their estate but then again why do they have it? There is certainly an argument for righting historic wrongs and maybe we could build new homes with that land... for people who can't afford a home.


Once you start trying to right historic wrongs, there's no end to it.

They had it because it belonged to them, in the same way my china tea service belongs to me. My mum left it to me. And her mum had it left it to her.


Fox hunting is not BANNED. Killing foxes with dogs chasing them is banned. But guess what. It still goes on like the hunts that claim they stick to the rules and then brake them.


It is banned.

Lots of illegal things happen.

What is your point?
#15160553
snapdragon wrote:No. it's asking you to back up your claims that they don't do anything,

It's very easy for you to look it up

2000 engagements are carried out each year.
70,000 people entertained to lunches, dinners , garden parties etc each year.

And umpteen hundreds of letters answered.

And there's how much they add to the economy, just by existing.

I think Prince Louis, Kate and William's youngest child, added 4 million quid to the economy in the first 6 months of his life, just by existing. I might be being too conservative.

In sales of baby clothes etc.

I don't see Bojo's latest child making that for us.

For him, yeah. For us, not so much.



What does the land registry have to do with it?



Once you start trying to right historic wrongs, there's no end to it.

They had it because it belonged to them, in the same way my china tea service belongs to me. My mum left it to me. And her mum had it left it to her.




It is banned.

Lots of illegal things happen.

What is your point?


SNNOORREE!!

Perhaps answer my question that I gave first and I will address your BS. Fox hunting was going near where I live only the weekend FFS.
#15160573
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... le-9340147

Her sister and dad may not be saints and probably are getting payed for their appearances, but this is what you have to do when your up against a Narcissist. You need to get your narrative out there in the press too. It's either "tell all" or try and sue your own sister.

I'm old enough to realise when someone lies about you in public you need to attack back with evidence. So I no longer judge people who go the "tell-all book" route, I mean her only other option is take her sister to court and no one wants that.

Samantha is a Criminal Psychologist and also has a Masters degree in mental health and vocational counseling..... So her diagnosis of Megan having Narcissistic Personality Disorder should carry weight, but of course the naive idiots on twitter and in the left-leaning media refuse to listen.

Well evidenced fact check included in that article. You won't see Snopes fact check the interview because they're biased now.
#15160924
They don't have issues with the Queen, the Queen wasn't even involved in the discussion because she doesn't practically lead the family anymore, Charles and William seem to do. In my opinion Archie's possible future skin tone was raised as an issue while Charles, William and Harry were discussing his status. It was most likely raised by Charles, for whatever reason, but Archie was refused a title not because of that. He was refused because he has nothing to do with the royal family officially, I wonder if Harry and Meghan should actually be stripped of their titles too if they officially leave or have left the family, regardless of their skin tone. They simply don't belong in the firm, which the royal family actually is, anymore, they're just Mr. and Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor. Or maybe they're not but Archie is.
#15160937
The story is mostly dying down over here, having been eclipsed by the terrible murder of Sarah Everard, in London.

The daily mail still have their teeth in the couple, though( naturally), and have now turned to Oprah Winfrey , saying as the instigator of that car crash of an interview, that she and CBS surely need to do some fact checking and digging down to protect her credibility.

Quite rightly, they claim prestigious interviewers such as Jeremy paxman, David dimbleby and so on would never have allowed such damaging and contradictory statements to pass unquestioned.

There’s no denying the truth of that.

They’re not going to let it go.
#15160957
JohnRawls wrote:Image


Dude :lol: :lol:

The story is mostly dying down over here, having been eclipsed by the terrible murder of Sarah Everard, in London.


Aye, this is more than likely the wrong thread to ask, but WTF? I tried to read up on this story however it was all a bit obscure. Why was a copper arrested?
#15160966
ness31 wrote:A London copper? That’s fucking horrendous. I wonder if he knew the victim?

Awful stuff. London is usually so safe even late at night :hmm:


Don't forget this is during a pandemic. There isn't the people out at night there usually are. I don't know the reasons why this lady was out at night, but I suspect a copper with a badge with intentions has the upperhand here due to being able to enquire what she was doing. Perhaps in a ideal world cops would be saints. But we know that isn't true so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that a dodgy copper who was accused of indecent exposure only a week ago turned out to be a complete an utter wanker.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

So have people given up on blaming that terrorist […]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]

...Or maybe because there are many witnesses sayin[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]