User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#37382
Youngian wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:26 am I’ve already got the message despite never having seen a full interview with Harry. Time for him to wind his neck. If you want to be a ubiquitous interviewee that doesn’t become boring you need you need a stack of amusing showbiz anecdotes. He’s no Kenneth Williams or Barry Cryer.
I'm not sure whether this counts as a colourful showbiz anecdote

By satnav
#37396
I caught a bit of Witchell on BBC Breakfast earlier. Is new line of defence for the royals seems to involve pointing out what is not included in the book. According to him there is no evidence of racism included in the book. I would hazard a guess that the book probably doesn't include racism allegations because they will be more appropriate when Meghan gives her account of events.
By RedSparrows
#37401
It'd be a strange strategy to not mention it at all, so grasping at straws by Witchell etc relies on the assumption that the couple are monumentally stupid. Somehow I suspect that's not the case.
By Bones McCoy
#37405
Maybe this will be the reign when our monarchy is quietly sidelined.

Preserved to entertain tourists and domestic loonies.
Not no longer a dominant force in news and politics.
User avatar
By kreuzberger
#37409
Aye, but he says he's partial to the Beak. At least he will think he's interesting.
User avatar
By Abernathy
#37434
I dare say The Sun will now be trying to jdentify Harry’s cherry-plucking cougar.

Lady Harriet Fuckpig-Smythe or someone similar, I suppose.
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#37436


I mean yeah you can't invoke privacy when you've told the whole world that you had a frozen knob at your brother's wedding.
User avatar
By kreuzberger
#37442
The Weeping Angel wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:50 pm I mean yeah you can't invoke privacy when you've told the whole world that you had a frozen knob at your brother's wedding.
The whole point in privacy law is that the decisions do not lie with the tabloids, rather their victim. Not a million miles away from the thankfully corrected absurdity "contributory negligence" and rape.
Spoonman, Oboogie liked this
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#37443
kreuzberger wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:42 pm
The Weeping Angel wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:50 pm I mean yeah you can't invoke privacy when you've told the whole world that you had a frozen knob at your brother's wedding.
The whole point in privacy law is that the decisions do not lie with the tabloids, rather their victim. Not a million miles away from the thankfully corrected absurdity "contributory negligence" and rape.
Does that apply to other people though? I mean he's revealed that William is circumsised for example.

https://pagesix.com/2023/01/05/prince-h ... SocialFlow
Prince Harry, 38, revealed in his bombshell “Spare” memoir that, despite rumors of the contrary, both he and his brother, Prince William, are circumcised.
User avatar
By Abernathy
#37454
That is quite excellent. John Oliver does some brilliant work.
User avatar
By kreuzberger
#37497
Youngian wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:49 am A timely review of the monarchy
...
Die Kreuzette has been in Bayern for a couple of days. Back tomorrow.

I'm half-tempted to show this to her in a beyond horrifying game of Bottom Trumps.
By satnav
#37532
Dan Wootton, Angela Levin and Carole Malone are all losing their shit on twitter because they think that Tom Bradby is not giving Prince Harry a proper grilling.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 13
The BBC

I had never even heard of “Bob Vylan&rdqu[…]

The Very Online Left latest

Question, is Yorkshire bylines part of byline time[…]

The Daily Torygraph

We can never have a serious public debate about […]

Robert Jenrick MP

Ah, The Critic - owned by Jeremy Hosking via o[…]