Current Affairs Harry and Meghan Part 3: I can't think of a snappy subtitle
- Thread starter tsubaki
- Start date
- Status
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
It was worth all of it just for that.
Working members of the Royal family take note that is how you do great public service.
Do you think this has all been an orchestrated plot by the Royals to shift attention away from Andrew. Taking away Britain's most forensic and fearless interviewer in the process?
coollino
Player Valuation: £80m
Stole that one right off Twitter tutut
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
If only they could think in that joined up way. You probably have a valid point there though this is taking the heat away from Andrew's affairs so perhaps it's not as bad for them as first thought.
Crisis 1 is about taking advantage of young girls who may or may not have been trafficked and the other is the in-laws don't like me which happens up and down the country on a daily basis. If I were at the Palace I know which one I would rather answer questions on.
NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
Oh gawd, the blue rincers have a martyr, they love their Piers...
Another powerful British man she's brought to heel
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
He must eat like a king to get gout like that.
He shouldn't as his mum isn't giving up the throne anytime soon. What a silly Charlie.
Toffeeslam
Player Valuation: £40m
He was the only one who gave it to this Tory government for the multiple screw ups they have inflicted on us
Morgan is gonna go full on gammon, free speech, Lawrence Fox, GB news, free Tommy, down with the woke brigade nutter now.
I don’t do twits mein Friend
NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
He wont go away for long...Another powerful British man she's brought to heel
However, dismissing the mental health Megan spoke about as a lie was bang out of order, "shock jock" it is the way.
He deserved to be sacked for the way he shouts over people, including his co-presenter. He can often be somewhat effective but it's not worth the trade off. He's clearly a very arrogant, rude person. So if he were sacked for his behaviour over a consistent period of time, fine.
That said, being sacked for not automatically believing what someone says with little to no corroborating evidence is ridiculous IMO.
If people disagree with him, argue back and say why he's wrong. Debate him. But that doesn't happen anymore - instead it's a constant "cancel anyone who doesn't fit the narrative" routine.
That said, being sacked for not automatically believing what someone says with little to no corroborating evidence is ridiculous IMO.
If people disagree with him, argue back and say why he's wrong. Debate him. But that doesn't happen anymore - instead it's a constant "cancel anyone who doesn't fit the narrative" routine.
- Status