Current Affairs 2024

[Ray B]

On a more serious subject, OL wrote, Talking about eggs, Betty and Doris are being very good girls at the moment…two eggs a day .
That's good news Onelife, haven't heard much about the girls for a while, thought you had eaten them.

[Slapstick]

Hi Onelife.

"but when I think about what he has been going through successfully defending his claims against some of the media I can understand how it brings a person down"

Well he brought the stress on himself he could've walked away and I think he would have if it wasn't for Meghan, as for successfully defending his claims, that's a matter of opinion, the court ruled in favour of probability on less than half of his claims, that's completely different to being found guilty in a criminal court.

[Onelife]

On a more serious subject, OL wrote, Talking about eggs, Betty and Doris are being very good girls at the moment…two eggs a day .
That's good news Onelife, haven't heard much about the girls for a while, thought you had eaten them.

Hi Ray, you’ll be pleased to know we haven’t as yet resorted to cannibalising our girls; indeed, my wife informs me that there will be another girl added to the flock sometime in the spring. That’s all well and good but we struggle to eat the eggs the girls lay now so I can’t see the point in making the situation worse…I did put a table up outside our gates and charged £1 half-dozen which was working quite well until my wife decided she wanted just to give them away, she now spreads the eggs amongst our village friends, one of which drops us off a cake now and then. Whilst it hasn’t been a money-making enterprise, I thought it would be, we do enjoy our lovely free-range eggs…. Yes! And can you believe this… my wife was only talking about getting some bloody ducks a few weeks back…well I can tell you this, she ain’t got a quaking chance of that happening…so watch this space, Squeak! Squeak!

[Onelife]

Hi Onelife.

"but when I think about what he has been going through successfully defending his claims against some of the media I can understand how it brings a person down"

Well he brought the stress on himself he could've walked away and I think he would have if it wasn't for Meghan, as for successfully defending his claims, that's a matter of opinion, the court ruled in favour of probability on less than half of his claims, that's completely different to being found guilty in a criminal court.

Hi Slapstick, I’m sure there are a few reasons as to why he has chosen to pursue his claims, one of which could, as you say have been Meghan’s influence, however, I think it more likely to be a combination of how the press treated his mother and more recently his lovely wife. Whilst we have differing views as to why this has happened, I will never accept that the way in which the press has vilified this young lady can be justified, irrespective of whether or not her recollections of the truth are sound.

With regard to Harry’s claims of which there were in excess of 100 I don’t think it unusual to have claims thrown out in civil actions, many of which, I would have thought, would have been deemed unsubstantiated evidence by the judge leading Harrys lawyers not to proceed. I don’t know if this is how things work but having 50+ that were allowed demonstrates that Harry did have a case to be heard.

[Slapstick]

Recollections of the truth, based on recent and passed history I think I'll stick with the late Queens version.

It's been a good an interesting debate Onelife thanks for your comments.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Many years back Gillian Taylforth sued the Sun after its reports she and her then fiance indulged in oral sex in a car on a slip road of the A1. Prior to the case only readers of the Sun had heard of the allegations. She lost the case, and had to pay substantial costs. By which time the whole country knew the story. I think the same is happening with H&M. Most of us had never heard much of what they're complaining about until they started dragging it through the courts. There is logic to letting it pass.

[Onelife]

Recollections of the truth, based on recent and passed history I think I'll stick with the late Queens version.

It's been a good an interesting debate Onelife thanks for your comments.

Thanks for your comments, Slapstick….and thank you for giving the discussion a more rounded platform where little to no blood was spilt.

We will no doubt return to this topic.

Regards

Keith

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'd be very happy I'd we didn't and allowed them to sink into the obscurity they crave.

[Stephen]

And pigs might fly

[Mervyn and Trish]

Post 183 should of course read ".....if we didn't....." Bleep bleep autocorrect.

[Mervyn and Trish]

So Sainsburys and Tetley say they're monitoring tea supplies but there's no need to panic. I predict empty shelves tomorrow.

[Onelife]

The way temperatures are rising in this country we should soon be able to have our own plantations?

In the mean time if any of you should run short I have ample supplies left over from my pre-covid buying spree…. small mark up applies.

[towny44]

Hi Onelife.

"but when I think about what he has been going through successfully defending his claims against some of the media I can understand how it brings a person down"

Well he brought the stress on himself he could've walked away and I think he would have if it wasn't for Meghan, as for successfully defending his claims, that's a matter of opinion, the court ruled in favour of probability on less than half of his claims, that's completely different to being found guilty in a criminal court.

Hi Slapstick, I’m sure there are a few reasons as to why he has chosen to pursue his claims, one of which could, as you say have been Meghan’s influence, however, I think it more likely to be a combination of how the press treated his mother and more recently his lovely wife. Whilst we have differing views as to why this has happened, I will never accept that the way in which the press has vilified this young lady can be justified, irrespective of whether or not her recollections of the truth are sound.

With regard to Harry’s claims of which there were in excess of 100 I don’t think it unusual to have claims thrown out in civil actions, many of which, I would have thought, would have been deemed unsubstantiated evidence by the judge leading Harrys lawyers not to proceed. I don’t know if this is how things work but having 50+ that were allowed demonstrates that Harry did have a case to be heard.

As did William and Kate, if all you are talking about is the typical gossip that Harry complained about, but Will followed the accepted Royal protocol of not commenting on any gossip. Just why Harry was so outraged by the press reports of him and Chelsy, only he can say, and why he left it so long, again only he can say, but it is perhaps noticeable that the court case happened after he met Meghan.

[Onelife]

Good morning, John…I was rather hoping the conversation had moved on to ‘tea’ or the possible lack of it this morning, but “hey, ho!”

As far as Harry and Chelsy’s private phone calls are concerned the answer is quite simple…in matters not what the content of the phone calls were...they were ‘private’ and no one has the right to invade their privacy.

With regard to why he left it so long, you John have already answered that question, in that, up until the time that Harry left the firm he was still bound by that pathetic “never complain, never explain” safeguard from scrutiny clause. The other contributing factor is that it wasn’t until further down the line that he was introduced to David Sherborne (lawyer) who was already acting on behalf of others that were also subjected to media malpractices.

I’m happy to continue this discussion but for now I’m off for my morning cuppa.

[Slapstick]

Sussex.com complete with full ROYAL coat of arms, glad they've chosen a private and not use their titles for profit

Sorry Onelife couldn't resist.

You couldn't make it up.

[Onelife]

Hi Slapstick, I had already ventured into their new re-branded website and thought what an excellent job of they had made of it. I particularly liked how they have portrayed themselves…

Sussex.com describes the duke as a “humanitarian, military veteran, mental health advocate and environmental campaigner” and the Duchess as a “feminist and champion of human rights and gender equity” as well as “one of the most influential women in the world”.

“The coat of arms used on the Sussexes’ website features the motif given to the Duchess by the late Queen
Issued in 2018, it includes numerous references to her upbringing, with rays of sunshine and flowers representing California and a songbird with wings elevated “as if flying and an open beak, which with the quill represents the power of communication”.

Its her personal coat of arms so why shouldn’t she use it?

I wish them both well and wish them every success with their forthcoming ventures.

[david63]

one of the most influential women in the world

I think that there may be some who would question that description.

[Onelife]

one of the most influential women in the world

I think that there may be some who would question that description.

Likewise, there are some who doubt onelife is the most handsome chap on the forum but I put it down jealousy

[Slapstick]

Hi Slapstick, I had already ventured into their new re-branded website and thought what an excellent job of they had made of it. I particularly liked how they have portrayed themselves…

Sussex.com describes the duke as a “humanitarian, military veteran, mental health advocate and environmental campaigner” and the Duchess as a “feminist and champion of human rights and gender equity” as well as “one of the most influential women in the world”.

“The coat of arms used on the Sussexes’ website features the motif given to the Duchess by the late Queen
Issued in 2018, it includes numerous references to her upbringing, with rays of sunshine and flowers representing California and a songbird with wings elevated “as if flying and an open beak, which with the quill represents the power of communication”.

Its her personal coat of arms so why shouldn’t she use it?

I wish them both well and wish them every success with their forthcoming ventures.

Why would she want to use it Onelife?

As you've already said given to her by the late Queen, did they not want away from the family and public life

It comes down to the same old thing with this pair, use the media and royal titles when it suits, slate and sue when it doesn't.

Oh the hypocrisy

[barney]

I took a look and think it’s a pretty slick website to be honest.
I’ve no problem with them using their royal titles to help make a few bucks.
Good luck to them.
My issue has always been the fact of him trashing his nearest and dearest in the process.
That, in my opinion is and was unnecessary.

[Onelife]

Hi Slapstick, I had already ventured into their new re-branded website and thought what an excellent job of they had made of it. I particularly liked how they have portrayed themselves…

Sussex.com describes the duke as a “humanitarian, military veteran, mental health advocate and environmental campaigner” and the Duchess as a “feminist and champion of human rights and gender equity” as well as “one of the most influential women in the world”.

“The coat of arms used on the Sussexes’ website features the motif given to the Duchess by the late Queen
Issued in 2018, it includes numerous references to her upbringing, with rays of sunshine and flowers representing California and a songbird with wings elevated “as if flying and an open beak, which with the quill represents the power of communication”.

Its her personal coat of arms so why shouldn’t she use it?

I wish them both well and wish them every success with their forthcoming ventures.

Why would she want to use it Onelife?

As you've already said given to her by the late Queen, did they not want away from the family and public life

It comes down to the same old thing with this pair, use the media and royal titles when it suits, slate and sue when it doesn't.

Oh the hypocrisy

Hi Slapstick…to answer your first question I would imagine its because she married a prince which fits nicely alongside that of her husband’s title… which she is entitled to do.

I’m not so sure they wanted away from the family; indeed, I think Harry/Meghan very much wanted to be part of the family (can’t think why) but trying to be normal in a dysfunctional family was never going to easy.

I think one has to acknowledge that their public personas would always give them a public profile, which, I have to say they appear to be using to good effect in their chosen public roles.

I think the British media have used the couple for headline story making, stories which are now being found to be fabricated or downright untrue.

As an aside, I’m more interested in why you use the handle “Slapstick” …Onelife is self-explanatory but Slapstick??

P’s Just thinking, if your handle ‘slapstick’ has any sexual connotations, you would be best not replying…. Stephen will be pestering you from morn to night with PM’s

[Slapstick]

I took a look and think it’s a pretty slick website to be honest.
I’ve no problem with them using their royal titles to help make a few bucks.
Good luck to them.
My issue has always been the fact of him trashing his nearest and dearest in the process.
That, in my opinion is and was unnecessary.

100% agree, trashing your own family is lower than low.

Where I disagree is, that despite trashing your family, he is still willing to use the family to make his millions and wants the taxpayer to protect him when in this Country.

Furthermore, I now understand that his kids are losing Mountbatten-Windsor surname in exchange for Sussex.

Yet another trashing

Sussex- Hewitt perhaps

[Slapstick]

Hi Slapstick, I had already ventured into their new re-branded website and thought what an excellent job of they had made of it. I particularly liked how they have portrayed themselves…

Sussex.com describes the duke as a “humanitarian, military veteran, mental health advocate and environmental campaigner” and the Duchess as a “feminist and champion of human rights and gender equity” as well as “one of the most influential women in the world”.

“The coat of arms used on the Sussexes’ website features the motif given to the Duchess by the late Queen
Issued in 2018, it includes numerous references to her upbringing, with rays of sunshine and flowers representing California and a songbird with wings elevated “as if flying and an open beak, which with the quill represents the power of communication”.

Its her personal coat of arms so why shouldn’t she use it?

I wish them both well and wish them every success with their forthcoming ventures.

Why would she want to use it Onelife?

As you've already said given to her by the late Queen, did they not want away from the family and public life

It comes down to the same old thing with this pair, use the media and royal titles when it suits, slate and sue when it doesn't.

Oh the hypocrisy

Hi Slapstick…to answer your first question I would imagine its because she married a prince which fits nicely alongside that of her husband’s title… which she is entitled to do.

I’m not so sure they wanted away from the family; indeed, I think Harry/Meghan very much wanted to be part of the family (can’t think why) but trying to be normal in a dysfunctional family was never going to easy.

I think one has to acknowledge that their public personas would always give them a public profile, which, I have to say they appear to be using to good effect in their chosen public roles.

I think the British media have used the couple for headline story making, stories which are now being found to be fabricated or downright untrue.

As an aside, I’m more interested in why you use the handle “Slapstick” …Onelife is self-explanatory but Slapstick??

P’s Just thinking, if your handle ‘slapstick’ has any sexual connotations, you would be best not replying…. Stephen will be pestering you from morn to night with PM’s

I'll let your imagination run wild about my username

[Mervyn and Trish]

I think the British media have used the couple for headline story making, stories which are now being found to be fabricated or downright untrue.

Far from it. The court cases have found some of the stories were obtained by dubious means, not that they were untrue. If one was going to fabricate a story phone hacking would not be required.

[Onelife]

I think the British media have used the couple for headline story making, stories which are now being found to be fabricated or downright untrue.

Far from it. The court cases have found some of the stories were obtained by dubious means, not that they were untrue. If one was going to fabricate a story phone hacking would not be required.

Damages excluding legal fees thought to be in the region of £400,000 suggests someone has been telling lies.