Current Affairs 2024

[CaroleF]

A lovely, happy photograph, superb!

[Mervyn and Trish]

Astonishing storm in a teacup. Are the press seriously expecting us to believe they never publish manipulated pictures? Or are they suggesting this one has been massively changed to remove the ITU and all the tubes keeping Kate in a coma until the divorce comes through? What a load of tosh.

It's a lovely Mother's Day family photo taken by a Dad of his wife and children, with minor tweaks, like most of us do. The end.

[Stephen]

Agree Ray

Don’t know what all the fuss is about

[oldbluefox]

Canon lens
Adobe Photoshop software....
.....by appointment to Katherine, Princess of Wales

[Ranchi]

The annoying thing about this whole episode is the sense of entitlement of many to know about another person’s medical condition. The key person in this is the Princess of Wales. She is entitled to have complete control over her medical history. It is no one else’s business but hers and her immediate family.

[Stephen]

The annoying thing about this whole episode is the sense of entitlement of many to know about another person’s medical condition. The key person in this is the Princess of Wales. She is entitled to have complete control over her medical history. It is no one else’s business but hers and her immediate family.

Absolutely

[Slapstick]

The annoying thing about this whole episode is the sense of entitlement of many to know about another person’s medical condition. The key person in this is the Princess of Wales. She is entitled to have complete control over her medical history. It is no one else’s business but hers and her immediate family.

100% agree.

[Ray B]

Ranchi, I absolutely agree. I do not believe when the media says it's the public that wants to know, its the rag bag media that wants personal details.
I can't believe all this media attention over a photo is still rumbling on.

[oldbluefox]

This is the media stirring it up. I don't think Joe Public are bothered one way or another. Photoshopped or not it was a lovely photograph.
Similarly I see no reason why we should all know the intimate details of Kate's medical history, especially by journalists who get very touchy if they think their own private lives are coming under scrutiny.

[towny44]

This is the media stirring it up. I don't think Joe Public are bothered one way or another. Photoshopped or not it was a lovely photograph.
Similarly I see no reason why we should all know the intimate details of Kate's medical history, especially by journalists who get very touchy if they think their own private lives are coming under scrutiny.

Not quite true, there are a lot of republicans as well as many Welsh and Scots nationalists, who are anti royalists, and some seem quite happy to see a major Royal suffering such discomfort from the media.

[oldbluefox]

The only people stirring it up are the media who must be giving delight to the Republicans and separatists around the nation. They would be enjoying the negativity of the media to further their cause.

It doesn't help the Royal cause when on TV they refer to Camilla as Queen of England. She is not. She is Queen Consort to England and the rest of the nations in the United Kingdom. Again this is the media either intentionally or unintentionally getting it wrong.

[Stephen]

I picked up on that the other day when the news were talking about the 'Queen' attending an event. I thought that doesn't sound right and immediately made me think of the late Queen, god bless her.

[Ray B]

I hope The Princess of Wales has learnt a valuable lesson from all of this, and that is ,don't trust the press.

[oldbluefox]

I wonder how the Press deal with photographs in advertising which have been extensively doctored previous to which the object created would not be anything you would want to eat or wear.

[Mervyn and Trish]

And of course Prince Andrew claimed he never met Victoria Giuffre and that the picture of him with an arm round her was a fake. But now we know for sure it was real because it was in several papers, and they never use fake photos.

[Mervyn and Trish]

So Diane Abbot. The comments made about her, whether sexist, racist or not, were very unpleasant.

However, irrespective of race or gender she seems pretty thick, and thank goodness she never made it to Home Secretary!

[towny44]

So Diane Abbot. The comments made about her, whether sexist, racist or not, were very unpleasant.

However, irrespective of race or gender she seems pretty thick, and thank goodness she never made it to Home Secretary!

I wonder if she will come gunning for Stephen, he must have posted dozens of jokes ridiculing the silly old goat labour MP.

[Slapstick]

As much as she's not my cup of tea, to be subjected to those comments was way beyond acceptable, then for Sunak to accept the apology and therefore accept the money he's donated is simply disgraceful.

The speaker also moved away from the controversy by not allowing her to question Sunak at PMQ's, saying she hadn't submitted a question prior to PMQ's, she doesn't need to and he had the authority to let her question him, but claimed there wasn't time.

Bet if I'd made those comments I would've been cuffed and charged, but then I'm not a multimillionaire with the PM as a friend.

[Stephen]

The ‘old boy’ network in action again.

She’s not my cup of tea either. But she has brought allot of it on herself in the past with the gaffs she’s made. But that doesn’t make it right that she shouldn’t be heard at PMQ’s time. She could have stood up and down all night but it was obvious she was being blocked from speaking. If that isn’t discrimination I don’t know what is.

Shame on the speaker.

[oldbluefox]

My understanding of parliamentary protocol is that if you wish to ask a question at PMQs you must submit the question to the Speaker beforehand. He then selects the questions and allocates time to the subject.
Diane Abbott is a long serving parliamentarian who would be fully aware of the protocols. My question is why didn't she submit her question beforehand but instead spent her time 'bobbing' in the knowledge that there was little or no chance she would be called forward?
As for the Speaker he had already had his knuckles rapped for straying away from protocol and was no doubt in no hurry to stray away from them again.

[Stephen]

But do we know for sure that she didn’t submit her question before hand.

[Slapstick]

She doesn't need to submit a question, that's the point.

The speaker can choose back and forth from all benches, 40 times she stood up and was simply ignored, no doubt Sunak and Starmer were happy with it.

How can it be that cross benches are discussing her whilst she sits there but she is not allowed to comment, as Stephen has said this was discrimination, pure and simple to avoid controversy.

[Stephen]

46 times according to the BBC news channel. Ridiculous really.

[oldbluefox]

So why did she not submit her question which would have been very difficult to ignore given the circumstances. In that situation I would have agreed with you.

[Slapstick]

Because forewarned is forearmed, rather than the classic "I refer to the answer I gave sometime ago" as they normally do, she could've put him on the ropes, but the speaker knew that and that's the reason she wasn't given her opportunity.