|
Post by northwestman on Mar 12, 2021 12:23:12 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 12:28:16 GMT 1
The difference is, I am prepared to listen to the young people I mentor from the BAME community in how racism is received. I am also prepared to recognise that racism is propagated is different from when you and I were kids. If you actually read my posts on this thread I have asked questions and posted links. Why for example, were the baby bump pictures reported differently in the Mail? Just because she is not a very nice person doesn't cut it. Now i would bet my bottom dollar, the way you go on here about how s**te us white people are, and that we are all institutional bigots and racist, that you don't point out flaws in there own judgements. and indeed some factual evidence would also be helpful. Where have I said this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 12:29:43 GMT 1
Rather than discuss wider issue, focus on 1 bit of terminology, but can you please point out where i am saying about prejudice directed at me, i am talking about wider generalisations. You’re taking a tragedy unrelated to the topic at hand, and immediately making it about you and a ‘not all white men!!!’ agenda. Hope this helps No, I will disagree, the point i was making was about how things are perceived, and not sure if you watched the news yesterday, about the Anti Men speeches in parliament. Did you hear about the lunatic woman who is a peer and in the house of lords stating about bringing in a curfew on men of 18:00. If you were a stranger to this country at this moment, and never been anywhere, you would be frightened of meeting a male.....
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 12, 2021 12:31:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by dachshund on Mar 12, 2021 12:38:37 GMT 1
You’re taking a tragedy unrelated to the topic at hand, and immediately making it about you and a ‘not all white men!!!’ agenda. Hope this helps No, I will disagree, the point i was making was about how things are perceived, and not sure if you watched the news yesterday, about the Anti Men speeches in parliament. Did you hear about the lunatic woman who is a peer and in the house of lords stating about bringing in a curfew on men of 18:00. If you were a stranger to this country at this moment, and never been anywhere, you would be frightened of meeting a male..... The overwhelming majority don’t actually think a curfew on men is something to ever be considered. They’re making the point though to highlight that the onus shouldn’t, as usual, be placed on women to stay in at night to prevent violent crime against women
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 12:50:06 GMT 1
No, I will disagree, the point i was making was about how things are perceived, and not sure if you watched the news yesterday, about the Anti Men speeches in parliament. Did you hear about the lunatic woman who is a peer and in the house of lords stating about bringing in a curfew on men of 18:00. If you were a stranger to this country at this moment, and never been anywhere, you would be frightened of meeting a male..... The overwhelming majority don’t actually think a curfew on men is something to ever be considered. They’re making the point though to highlight that the onus shouldn’t, as usual, be placed on women to stay in at night to prevent violent crime against women I am going to be controversial here, I think that women should be able to wander the street in safety at any time of the day they choose, without fear for their safety....... But there are some evil people in this world, does not mean every bloke is like that. The way people drone on about locker room talk from groups of men...... really, a man states to another man that he finds a woman attractive...... so what, have you ever been to an all women event, Speak to your Missus, girly nights in are not recipe exchanges, or looking at knitting patterns, when a group of women get together, there topic of talk is as equally as trashy as when groups of males are together. Question for you, if a group of men all got together with a few tinnies, and started waving sex toys about...... what would public reaction be? We could be as equally extreme like saying that we should not have women midwives for fear of them strangling babies (Beverly Allit) but that would be equally as ludicrous as us wanting to make a point of it, however if a bloke stated that, he would be off in that little white van wearing a straight jacket.....
|
|
|
Post by dachshund on Mar 12, 2021 13:32:46 GMT 1
No one is saying every man is like that. You’re railing against a false opponent that you’ve created yourself
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 13:47:53 GMT 1
No one is saying every man is like that. You’re railing against a false opponent that you’ve created yourself Ahhh, so last nights news was completely wrong, and that woman did not say that she should table an amendment to have a man curfew of 18:00, phew, good to know its just in my head....... oooopppps, another taboo subject is mental health, you cant question that either...
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 12, 2021 18:24:13 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9354981/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-disingenuous-allegations-Archies-skin-expert-claims.html" duchess of Sussex accused royals of having 'concerns' about Archie's skin tone Described pain that officials denied son title of prince and 24/7 security Katie Nicholl says her remarks were 'misleading' because her and Harry 'would have known' about constitutional position regarding Archie not being a prince Duchess of Sussex accused royals of having 'concerns' about Archie's skin tone Described pain that officials denied son title of prince and 24/7 security Katie Nicholl says her remarks were 'misleading' because her and Harry 'would have known' about constitutional position regarding Archie not being a prince ,I think it was disingenuous to throw all this together and suggest that Archie wasn’t a prince because of the colour of his skin. I think it was misleading.' Archie was not born a prince due to an order by King George V in 1917 ruling only royal offspring in the direct line of succession could be made a prince or princess. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 18:52:48 GMT 1
Well I for one am glad the mail found someone to clear that up for us!
|
|
|
Post by Red Rose In Exile on Mar 12, 2021 21:12:32 GMT 1
Piers Morgan runs from an interview at Good Morning Britain
Prince Harry runs from an interview in Afghanistan UK base to go to the front line.
Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 13, 2021 10:23:37 GMT 1
Well I for one am glad the mail found someone to clear that up for us! clearly the Mail has its own agenda to discredit any thing meghan and harry may have said in the oprah interview and there are some inconsistency which are been questioned if this interview brings up how this country deals with race issues and leads to a situation were a resonable debate can be had , which then leads to a balanced fairer society for evryone regardless of there coulour or faith then this could be somthing posative. my concern is it could lead to more division rather than a unified wish to bring about meaningful change for a fairer society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 10:35:54 GMT 1
Well I for one am glad the mail found someone to clear that up for us! clearly the Mail has its own agenda to discredit any thing meghan and harry may have said in the oprah interview and there are some inconsistency which are been questioned if this interview brings up how this country deals with race issues and leads to a situation were a resonable debate can be had , which then leads to a balanced fairer society for evryone regardless of there coulour or faith then this could be somthing posative. my concern is it could lead to more division rather than a unified wish to bring about meaningful change for a fairer society. It won’t achieve anything as our gammon faced chest beating flag waving white male racism denying members have demonstrated, cos this racism things just being blown out of proportion ain’t it!
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 13, 2021 10:39:10 GMT 1
clearly the Mail has its own agenda to discredit any thing meghan and harry may have said in the oprah interview and there are some inconsistency which are been questioned if this interview brings up how this country deals with race issues and leads to a situation were a resonable debate can be had , which then leads to a balanced fairer society for evryone regardless of there coulour or faith then this could be somthing posative. my concern is it could lead to more division rather than a unified wish to bring about meaningful change for a fairer society. It won’t achieve anything as our gammon faced chest beating flag waving white male racism denying members have demonstrated, cos this racism things just being blown out of proportion ain’t it! that is my concern as well but it is an opportunity ,what we do with it is another question.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Mar 13, 2021 10:52:54 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 11:00:57 GMT 1
So they have just rerun the program then?
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Mar 13, 2021 11:21:25 GMT 1
To save you reading it all this is one Megan and Harry’s lie proved.....
'Three days before our wedding, we got married,' Meghan claimed. 'No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said: 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us.'
'So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.' Harry added, singing: 'Just the three of us!'
It was quite the revelation. But if there really were just 'three' people present, then a legal wedding can't actually have happened.
This is because the law dictates that anyone marrying in England needs two witnesses, as well as the person officiating. In other words, at least five people must be there.
Furthermore, if what Harry and Meghan told Oprah was true, it follows that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the man in charge of the worldwide Anglican communion, had not only broken the law, but then presided over a fake royal wedding at St George's Chapel, at Windsor Castle, on May 19, 2018, in the presence of the groom's grandmother, the Queen, who is the titular head of the Church of England.
This didn't happen, according to the Special Licences Section of the Office of the Archbishop, which commented this week: 'A special licence was issued for the marriage in St George's.'
So what really happened in the couple's 'backyard'? According to an informed source at Lambeth Palace, the episode Meghan refers to was actually a 'rehearsal' of the wedding ceremony, during which — as is normal — the couple went through their wedding vows.
At its conclusion the archbishop, Justin Welby, also blessed the couple. What he did not do was marry them.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 13, 2021 11:24:42 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 11:28:52 GMT 1
To save you reading it all this is one Megan and Harry’s lie proved..... 'Three days before our wedding, we got married,' Meghan claimed. 'No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said: 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us.' 'So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.' Harry added, singing: 'Just the three of us!' It was quite the revelation. But if there really were just 'three' people present, then a legal wedding can't actually have happened. This is because the law dictates that anyone marrying in England needs two witnesses, as well as the person officiating. In other words, at least five people must be there. Furthermore, if what Harry and Meghan told Oprah was true, it follows that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the man in charge of the worldwide Anglican communion, had not only broken the law, but then presided over a fake royal wedding at St George's Chapel, at Windsor Castle, on May 19, 2018, in the presence of the groom's grandmother, the Queen, who is the titular head of the Church of England. This didn't happen, according to the Special Licences Section of the Office of the Archbishop, which commented this week: 'A special licence was issued for the marriage in St George's.' So what really happened in the couple's 'backyard'? According to an informed source at Lambeth Palace, the episode Meghan refers to was actually a 'rehearsal' of the wedding ceremony, during which — as is normal — the couple went through their wedding vows. At its conclusion the archbishop, Justin Welby, also blessed the couple. What he did not do was marry them. Don’t you dare let a bit of fact get in the way of racism and poor MM being hounded by the press
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 11:41:43 GMT 1
What people should understand is that shouting your opinion louder than the next person will not change facts.....
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Mar 13, 2021 11:42:09 GMT 1
To save you reading it all this is one Megan and Harry’s lie proved..... 'Three days before our wedding, we got married,' Meghan claimed. 'No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said: 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us.' 'So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.' Harry added, singing: 'Just the three of us!' It was quite the revelation. But if there really were just 'three' people present, then a legal wedding can't actually have happened. This is because the law dictates that anyone marrying in England needs two witnesses, as well as the person officiating. In other words, at least five people must be there. Furthermore, if what Harry and Meghan told Oprah was true, it follows that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the man in charge of the worldwide Anglican communion, had not only broken the law, but then presided over a fake royal wedding at St George's Chapel, at Windsor Castle, on May 19, 2018, in the presence of the groom's grandmother, the Queen, who is the titular head of the Church of England. This didn't happen, according to the Special Licences Section of the Office of the Archbishop, which commented this week: 'A special licence was issued for the marriage in St George's.' So what really happened in the couple's 'backyard'? According to an informed source at Lambeth Palace, the episode Meghan refers to was actually a 'rehearsal' of the wedding ceremony, during which — as is normal — the couple went through their wedding vows. At its conclusion the archbishop, Justin Welby, also blessed the couple. What he did not do was marry them. Don’t you dare let a bit of fact get in the way of racism and poor MM being hounded by the press Best to follow ‘the facts’
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Mar 13, 2021 13:57:20 GMT 1
Watching that interview was desperately frustrating. At key moments, Winfrey's guests gave answers that were vague, unclear, incomplete. And they weren’t adequately challenged or followed up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 14:00:35 GMT 1
Watching that interview was desperately frustrating. At key moments, Winfrey's guests gave answers that were vague, unclear, incomplete. And they weren’t adequately challenged or followed up. Allegedly what was cut out was a lot of context to comments.... but not sure that side of TV would have been so dramatic. There is a lot to run on this yet, and fear this will lose Harry and Meghan a lot of support.
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Mar 13, 2021 14:33:26 GMT 1
Watching that interview was desperately frustrating. At key moments, Winfrey's guests gave answers that were vague, unclear, incomplete. And they weren’t adequately challenged or followed up. The critic in The Saturday Times highlighted this as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 15:52:23 GMT 1
Thanks for that. I do like Al Jazeera as a source, good to see some balanced views.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 13, 2021 16:01:15 GMT 1
Thanks for that. I do like Al Jazeera as a source, good to see some balanced views. so do i find its channel has coverage of a range of topics that get zero coverage in the uk, as i dont subscribe to online newspapers it is often hard to find a balanced perspective. also the media now seems so polarized.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Mar 13, 2021 16:03:52 GMT 1
Watching that interview was desperately frustrating. At key moments, Winfrey's guests gave answers that were vague, unclear, incomplete. And they weren’t adequately challenged or followed up. I can't recall whether I've ever watched an Oprah Winfrey interview before, but from the portions of the H&M 'love-in' which I did see, all I can say is that her abilities are vastly overrated. Not once did she challenge, or contradict any of the statements or accusations put out by the pair. Perhaps this was the payback for getting an invitation to their wedding at Windsor Castle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 16:05:43 GMT 1
Watching that interview was desperately frustrating. At key moments, Winfrey's guests gave answers that were vague, unclear, incomplete. And they weren’t adequately challenged or followed up. Allegedly what was cut out was a lot of context to comments.... but not sure that side of TV would have been so dramatic. There is a lot to run on this yet, and fear this will lose Harry and Meghan a lot of support. I assume your use of the word “allegedly”, dismisses whatever point you’re trying to make as it’s clearly not a fact?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Mar 13, 2021 18:17:59 GMT 1
What people should understand is that shouting your opinion louder than the next person will not change facts..... Oh I don't know, it seemed to work quite well for that Farage fella.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Mar 14, 2021 10:45:24 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9359141/Is-Meghan-Markle-preparing-bid-Americas-woman-President.htmlMeghan Markle will use the furore over her interview with Oprah to launch a political career which could take her all the way to the White House, if rumours circulating around Westminster last week turn out to be accurate. One senior Labour figure – a veteran of Tony Blair's Downing Street administration with strong links to Washington – claimed to The Mail on Sunday that Ms Markle, 39, was networking among senior Democrats with a view to building a campaign and fundraising teams for a tilt at the US Presidency. Not beyond the realms of!
|
|