Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

1…504505507509510…1040

Comments

  • awavey
    awavey Posts: 2,368
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The whole Harry and Megan saga.
    If you don't want the gig, fcuk off then.
    Oh and you could at least pay some of the public funds back for your house renovations before you go.
    Sounds a lot like "they're rich so they can't possibly have any real problems". Didn't have you down for that sort of lefty nonsense.

    I dont think you have to be some rabid republican to recognise they have a remarkable lack of self awareness as a couple, moan about the press, do a special documentary with the press with full of juicy quotes the same press can then spin for weeks and round they go again.

    a sprinkling dose of humility from time to time goes along way,
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,671
    Ballysmate wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The whole Harry and Megan saga.
    If you don't want the gig, fcuk off then.
    Oh and you could at least pay some of the public funds back for your house renovations before you go.
    Sounds a lot like "they're rich so they can't possibly have any real problems". Didn't have you down for that sort of lefty nonsense.

    I am actually a bit of a Royalist albeit I agree they could be trimmed down a bit. (No, not in the way the Romanov's were trimmed). They offer a good return for the money.
    What grates with me with this pair is their constant dripping and lack of self awareness.

    Pretty easy to avoid royal news if you're not interested. Given the circumstances of his mother's death I can forgive him not just letting it slide when papers run stories on whether his wife is 'allowed' to wear a particular colour of nail varnish.

    No idea what you're on about re nail varnish.
    His mother died after getting into a car being driven by a drunk driver.

    That's a very selective description and even if that's all it was, being a member of the royal family can hardly have helped him come to terms with it.

    Half a dozen papers ran a story about how Meghan was breaching royal protocol by wearing dark nail varnish.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,671
    awavey wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The whole Harry and Megan saga.
    If you don't want the gig, fcuk off then.
    Oh and you could at least pay some of the public funds back for your house renovations before you go.
    Sounds a lot like "they're rich so they can't possibly have any real problems". Didn't have you down for that sort of lefty nonsense.

    I dont think you have to be some rabid republican to recognise they have a remarkable lack of self awareness as a couple, moan about the press, do a special documentary with the press with full of juicy quotes the same press can then spin for weeks and round they go again.

    a sprinkling dose of humility from time to time goes along way,

    Why should they be held to a different standard than anyone else?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The whole Harry and Megan saga.
    If you don't want the gig, fcuk off then.
    Oh and you could at least pay some of the public funds back for your house renovations before you go.
    Sounds a lot like "they're rich so they can't possibly have any real problems". Didn't have you down for that sort of lefty nonsense.

    I am actually a bit of a Royalist albeit I agree they could be trimmed down a bit. (No, not in the way the Romanov's were trimmed). They offer a good return for the money.
    What grates with me with this pair is their constant dripping and lack of self awareness.

    Pretty easy to avoid royal news if you're not interested. Given the circumstances of his mother's death I can forgive him not just letting it slide when papers run stories on whether his wife is 'allowed' to wear a particular colour of nail varnish.

    No idea what you're on about re nail varnish.
    His mother died after getting into a car being driven by a drunk driver.

    That's a very selective description and even if that's all it was, being a member of the royal family can hardly have helped him come to terms with it.

    Half a dozen papers ran a story about how Meghan was breaching royal protocol by wearing dark nail varnish.

    I don't think a title makes any difference one way or the other to the pain of losing your mother tbh.
    As you say, you can avoid some of the crap, such as the nail varnish. Even I seem to have managed it.
    If as I suspect, you hold the press in some way culpable for Diana's death, it is all the more remarkable that Mrs H vowed to 'break the internet' in her quest for fame.
    As someone pointed out upthread, the job description doesn't ask a lot for the millions in return. Rock up, smile and cut a ribbon.
    If they don't want to do it, fine. Renounce your titles/entitlements and go and be the posh Posh n Becks if that is their wont.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,671
    Ballysmate wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The whole Harry and Megan saga.
    If you don't want the gig, fcuk off then.
    Oh and you could at least pay some of the public funds back for your house renovations before you go.
    Sounds a lot like "they're rich so they can't possibly have any real problems". Didn't have you down for that sort of lefty nonsense.

    I am actually a bit of a Royalist albeit I agree they could be trimmed down a bit. (No, not in the way the Romanov's were trimmed). They offer a good return for the money.
    What grates with me with this pair is their constant dripping and lack of self awareness.

    Pretty easy to avoid royal news if you're not interested. Given the circumstances of his mother's death I can forgive him not just letting it slide when papers run stories on whether his wife is 'allowed' to wear a particular colour of nail varnish.

    No idea what you're on about re nail varnish.
    His mother died after getting into a car being driven by a drunk driver.

    That's a very selective description and even if that's all it was, being a member of the royal family can hardly have helped him come to terms with it.

    Half a dozen papers ran a story about how Meghan was breaching royal protocol by wearing dark nail varnish.

    I don't think a title makes any difference one way or the other to the pain of losing your mother tbh.
    As you say, you can avoid some of the crap, such as the nail varnish. Even I seem to have managed it.
    If as I suspect, you hold the press in some way culpable for Diana's death, it is all the more remarkable that Mrs H vowed to 'break the internet' in her quest for fame.
    As someone pointed out upthread, the job description doesn't ask a lot for the millions in return. Rock up, smile and cut a ribbon.
    If they don't want to do it, fine. Renounce your titles/entitlements and go and be the posh Posh n Becks if that is their wont.
    I was thinking more generally of the impact constant press scrutiny and intrusion has on anyone. It seems to have a high rate of attrition on people's mental and physical health. I also don't think that the way H & M come across in the media is likely to be an accurate representation of who they really are. Subject any of us Cake Stoppers to that level of intrusion (not to mention the misreporting and fabrication) and we'd probably come across in an unflattering light.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,348
    Taking a step back from this whole 'Woyal' thing. Bear in mind, i'm a bit of a Republican but they do some good, they do highlight issues, they do a lot of charitable work and they do pull in billions in tourism - far, far more than their cost to the taxpayer. The Queen's role as head of the Commonwealth is not insignificant by any means. So I put up with them and the most stable societies live under a benign monarchy.

    There is absolutely no doubting that the British Press are gutter pigs.
    I couldn't give a farq if MM sent a private letter to her dad. There is absolutely no 'public interest' in publishing that letter. The fact that they published the letter and try to justify it as something of public interest succinctly sums up their whole raison d'etre - to make money.

    So whatever they publish and whatever their justification, there is very little reason other than to sell papers and make money. Phone hacking, Brexit centric press, Rupert Murdoch - Pills, Diana or Rotten Europeans (Daily Heil), red tops disguised as something respectable and factual. Emotive bollox; an insidious loop into vacancy, nothing less, it's all a soap opera with sordid details the fuel of their bait to them.
    If they want to paint a picture of someone as bad, or evil or otherwise, they can and they do.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Scarboro
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Pinno wrote:
    Taking a step back from this whole 'Woyal' thing. Bear in mind, i'm a bit of a Republican but they do some good, they do highlight issues, they do a lot of charitable work and they do pull in billions in tourism - far, far more than their cost to the taxpayer. The Queen's role as head of the Commonwealth is not insignificant by any means. So I put up with them and the most stable societies live under a benign monarchy.

    There is absolutely no doubting that the British Press are gutter pigs.
    I couldn't give a farq if MM sent a private letter to her dad. There is absolutely no 'public interest' in publishing that letter. The fact that they published the letter and try to justify it as something of public interest succinctly sums up their whole raison d'etre - to make money.

    So whatever they publish and whatever their justification, there is very little reason other than to sell papers and make money. Phone hacking, Brexit centric press, Rupert Murdoch - Pills, Diana or Rotten Europeans (Daily Heil), red tops disguised as something respectable and factual. Emotive bollox; an insidious loop into vacancy, nothing less, it's all a soap opera with sordid details the fuel of their bait to them.
    If they want to paint a picture of someone as bad, or evil or otherwise, they can and they do.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Scarboro

    Apparently it was Meghan Markle's friends who first brought the letter into the public domain (probably with her approval but we'll never know). Her father then released it to the press because he accused her friends of misrepresenting it's content in attempts to paint him in a bad light.

    Two things. Firstly, MM chose to marry Harry with all that entails. Secondly, the British press undoubtedly has many faults but people should be careful what they wish for. A free press is one of the few things that helps to keep us all free and we neuter it at our peril.
  • Wheelspinner
    Wheelspinner Posts: 6,562
    Shortfall wrote:
    ...Secondly, the British press undoubtedly has many faults but people should be careful what they wish for. A free press is one of the few things that helps to keep us all free and we neuter it at our peril.

    Not convinced that any of the tabloid rags are worthy of protection under the “free press” argument tbh. They are certainly nowhere within a million miles of actual quality journalism.
    Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    Pinno wrote:
    far, far more than their cost to the taxpayer

    The taxpayer makes a fortune out of them. Widely ignored, even on this thread :lol:
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Pinno wrote:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Scarboro
    That's sad - I never knew that - poor lad, poor family. What the hell did the press think they were doing by hounding a young actor? If they discovered he was in a psychiatric hospital they should've at least left him alone - not broadcast it to the nation - at most they could've offered private support - perhaps in return for a possible story when he was ready.
    Shortfall wrote:
    [more story crap with no proof of source or genuine reason for anything that nobody should care about except the family.]
    Who cares - "Sir Sir, Jonny said some naughty words, Sir Sir ... "
    Shortfall wrote:
    Two things. Firstly, MM chose to marry Harry with all that entails. Secondly, the British press undoubtedly has many faults but people should be careful what they wish for. A free press is one of the few things that helps to keep us all free and we neuter it at our peril.
    Yes - perhaps the press should address their own faults before picking on everyone else. There's enough cr4p going on in this world - we don't need them inventing more.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Slowbike wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Scarboro
    That's sad - I never knew that - poor lad, poor family. What the hell did the press think they were doing by hounding a young actor? If they discovered he was in a psychiatric hospital they should've at least left him alone - not broadcast it to the nation - at most they could've offered private support - perhaps in return for a possible story when he was ready.
    Shortfall wrote:
    [more story crap with no proof of source or genuine reason for anything that nobody should care about except the family.]
    Who cares - "Sir Sir, Jonny said some naughty words, Sir Sir ... "
    Shortfall wrote:
    Two things. Firstly, MM chose to marry Harry with all that entails. Secondly, the British press undoubtedly has many faults but people should be careful what they wish for. A free press is one of the few things that helps to keep us all free and we neuter it at our peril.
    Yes - perhaps the press should address their own faults before picking on everyone else. There's enough cr4p going on in this world - we don't need them inventing more.

    See how you like it when press freedom is gutted (here's a clue- you won't). It'll happen in our lifetimes. Be careful what you wish for.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    Longshot wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    far, far more than their cost to the taxpayer

    The taxpayer makes a fortune out of them. Widely ignored, even on this thread :lol:

    I don’t get the argument that tourists flock to the UK to not get a glimpse of the royal family. Surely if we got rid of them, the tourists would still flock here to do everything they currently do (plus greater access to ex-royal buildings)
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Longshot wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    far, far more than their cost to the taxpayer

    The taxpayer makes a fortune out of them. Widely ignored, even on this thread :lol:

    I don’t get the argument that tourists flock to the UK to not get a glimpse of the royal family. Surely if we got rid of them, the tourists would still flock here to do everything they currently do (plus greater access to ex-royal buildings)

    I'm not actually talking about any tourism benefits!
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,348
    Shortfall wrote:
    Firstly, MM chose to marry Harry with all that entails.

    ...and intrusion into her private life, a continuous scrutiny of their lives and highly subjective commentary and opinion is acceptable/justifiable/in the public interest/moral?!

    Anyone in the public eye has to live by standards that the rest of us don't. It's a blatant hypocrisy. I think all the editors think is 'will this story sell or won't it?'.
    Shortfall wrote:
    Secondly, the British press undoubtedly has many faults but people should be careful what they wish for. A free press is one of the few things that helps to keep us all free and we neuter it at our peril.

    What Wheelspinner said.

    I hope that the Royals win their case. The bullshit has to be curbed. The crap printed about the EU or more, the language the Daily Heil and the Express use when reporting is astounding. The have demonized the EU and protagonists within and wholly influenced the EU referendum.

    Print the truth, not some bastardisation of events just to sell stories and placate their owners agenda. It is manipulation of the masses. Certain papers destroy credibility, wreck careers, lives and democracy.
    If ultimately, Britain leaves the EU, it will be down to the press who on the whole have failed to present a balanced argument.
    Take ITV international news. I watched this when I was in Sweden. It was very Europe centric. There were lots of news items about events in Europe. It presented a picture of a Britain in Europe.
    I come back and there's f*ck all about Europe apart from the bad and we go on and on about issues in America from Trump, the 'special relationship', the Opiate addiction epidemic in the US. They paint a very skewed picture and we are far more European than American. America is a huge cultural shift away from us.
    The long term effect of this is an erosion of positive attitudes towards Europe, an indifference. That has been massaged by the Pro Brexit press to the extent that a huge proportion of thick, influenceable Joe Public thinks that the EU has little or no benefit to us and is trying to be the all controlling, German lead, federal (= Nazi party?) European state. When the reality is quite different.
    ...and people voted leave. Any wonder?

    A free press should not be a license to print bollox.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Shortfall wrote:
    See how you like it when press freedom is gutted (here's a clue- you won't). It'll happen in our lifetimes. Be careful what you wish for.
    Here's a clue - won't I? Why not?

    Quite frankly, our local press is a joke - although they don't do tabloid stuff, their attention to detail is second to none ... oh - no, sorry ... None ... they don't spell check, they don't fact check and they publish broken URLs.

    I don't really bother with national press - I'll read a few bits off the news feed - but they tend to be factual pieces - not about individual people - or opinions, clearly stated as such.
    If the "gutter press" disappeared overnight I doubt I'd notice.
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    The bullshit does very much need to be moderated, but the fundamental problem I have with criticism of the press (and politicians, and most other things) is that if the public weren't a total bunch of morons* it wouldn't be an issue. If people didn't read sensationalist newspapers they wouldn't make them, if people didn't think the BNP were worth voting for they wouldn't have existed. This is where having the BBC is so valuable as we need something to be based in reality as a benchmark (obviously it will always be a balancing act).

    We get the press and politicians we deserve.

    *Slightly tongue in cheek, but not really.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,776
    Just a small point of order, as a high profile actress MM was already in the public eye. Her profile has simply been raised.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,671
    Shortfall wrote:
    Apparently it was Meghan Markle's friends who first brought the letter into the public domain (probably with her approval but we'll never know). Her father then released it to the press because he accused her friends of misrepresenting it's content in attempts to paint him in a bad light.

    If the letter was already in the public domain, how on earth could her father 'release' it to the press? Secondly, if it had been released by her friends I suspect her legal advisers would have told her not to bother bringing a case. Perhaps you should be more critical of your sources.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Those of you wanting to curb the freedom of the press are living in a fools paradise if you think something completely honest, fair and objective will fill the space left by an eviscerated fourth estate. What will happen is that the rich and powerful will be able to get away with a lot more than they already do and there will be nobody left to hold them to account. Newspapers are already facing massive losses in circulation and who knows what will fill the breech? Facebook? Is that what you want?
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Do you really understand what freedom means? I mean, really understand?
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    rjsterry wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Apparently it was Meghan Markle's friends who first brought the letter into the public domain (probably with her approval but we'll never know). Her father then released it to the press because he accused her friends of misrepresenting it's content in attempts to paint him in a bad light.

    If the letter was already in the public domain, how on earth could her father 'release' it to the press? Secondly, if it had been released by her friends I suspect her legal advisers would have told her not to bother bringing a case. Perhaps you should be more critical of your sources.

    Because "sources close to" Meghan Markle had alluded to existence and had related their interpretations of some of the content to sources in the press without actually leaking the whole letter.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Shortfall wrote:
    Those of you wanting to curb the freedom of the press are living in a fools paradise if you think something completely honest, fair and objective will fill the space left by an eviscerated fourth estate.
    So you admit that the press are not completely honest, fair or objective - yet they are allowed to publish in the guise of being honest, fair and objective ...
    Shortfall wrote:
    What will happen is that the rich and powerful will be able to get away with a lot more than they already do and there will be nobody left to hold them to account.
    The owners of the papers are not exactly poor ....
    Shortfall wrote:
    Newspapers are already facing massive losses in circulation
    Good - if they're crap they deserve to close.
    Shortfall wrote:
    and who knows what will fill the breech? Facebook? Is that what you want?
    Well - it's no more or less "honest, fair or objective" than what it's replacing...

    The press should be honest, fair and objective.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Slowbike wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Those of you wanting to curb the freedom of the press are living in a fools paradise if you think something completely honest, fair and objective will fill the space left by an eviscerated fourth estate.
    So you admit that the press are not completely honest, fair or objective - yet they are allowed to publish in the guise of being honest, fair and objective ...
    Shortfall wrote:
    What will happen is that the rich and powerful will be able to get away with a lot more than they already do and there will be nobody left to hold them to account.
    The owners of the papers are not exactly poor ....
    Shortfall wrote:
    Newspapers are already facing massive losses in circulation
    Good - if they're crap they deserve to close.
    Shortfall wrote:
    and who knows what will fill the breech? Facebook? Is that what you want?
    Well - it's no more or less "honest, fair or objective" than what it's replacing...

    The press should be honest, fair and objective.

    Nobody except an idiot is going to pretend that the press is always honest, fair and objective but there is legal redress through the courts where people feel they have overstepped the mark. The press have many failings but I want to live in a free and democratic society where we can hold our leaders and influencers to account. You might not want a timid pet poodle of a press to replace what we have now but I'm afraid that's what we're likely to get.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Shortfall wrote:
    Nobody except an idiot is going to pretend that the press is always honest, fair and objective
    May be not always - but they should at least try to be.
    Shortfall wrote:
    but there is legal redress through the courts where people feel they have overstepped the mark.
    The damage is already done.
    Shortfall wrote:
    The press have many failings I want to live in a free and democratic society where we can hold our leaders and influencers to account.
    The press are influencing you - don't you get that? You read the tripe they publish ...
    Shortfall wrote:
    You might not want a timid pet poodle of a press to replace what we have now but I'm afraid that's what we're likely to get.
    I guess you've not had a pet poodle ...
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Slowbike wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Nobody except an idiot is going to pretend that the press is always honest, fair and objective
    May be not always - but they should at least try to be.
    Shortfall wrote:
    but there is legal redress through the courts where people feel they have overstepped the mark.
    The damage is already done.
    Shortfall wrote:
    The press have many failings I want to live in a free and democratic society where we can hold our leaders and influencers to account.
    The press are influencing you - don't you get that? You read the tripe they publish ...
    Shortfall wrote:
    You might not want a timid pet poodle of a press to replace what we have now but I'm afraid that's what we're likely to get.
    I guess you've not had a pet poodle ...

    I'm glad you know which press and news outlets I subscribe to and how much weight I give each of them. How did you discover that I wonder? Where do you get your news from by the way? Listen, I don't know about you but I don't live in Utopia. Many of our great institutions are flawed but we are in danger of ruining the good in the pursuit of the perfect. Like I say, be careful what you wish for because it's coming our way.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,671
    Shortfall wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Apparently it was Meghan Markle's friends who first brought the letter into the public domain (probably with her approval but we'll never know). Her father then released it to the press because he accused her friends of misrepresenting it's content in attempts to paint him in a bad light.

    If the letter was already in the public domain, how on earth could her father 'release' it to the press? Secondly, if it had been released by her friends I suspect her legal advisers would have told her not to bother bringing a case. Perhaps you should be more critical of your sources.

    Because "sources close to" Meghan Markle had alluded to existence and had related their interpretations of some of the content to sources in the press without actually leaking the whole letter.
    So it wasn't in the public domain, then. "Sources close to" ≠ friends.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,776
    Shortfall wrote:
    Newspapers are already facing massive losses in circulation and who knows what will fill the breech? Facebook?
    Twitter. Apparently.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    edited October 2019
    i
    rjsterry wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Apparently it was Meghan Markle's friends who first brought the letter into the public domain (probably with her approval but we'll never know). Her father then released it to the press because he accused her friends of misrepresenting it's content in attempts to paint him in a bad light.

    If the letter was already in the public domain, how on earth could her father 'release' it to the press? Secondly, if it had been released by her friends I suspect her legal advisers would have told her not to bother bringing a case. Perhaps you should be more critical of your sources.

    Because "sources close to" Meghan Markle had alluded to existence and had related their interpretations of some of the content to sources in the press without actually leaking the whole letter.
    So it wasn't in the public domain, then. "Sources close to" ≠ friends.

    I watched a discussion with former newspaper editor on Sunday Morning Live recently where he accused Meghan Markle's friends in America of orchestrating a PR campaign against her father and releasing information about the letter to damage his reputation. He only actually published it 9 months after receiving it in response to this.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Shortfall wrote:
    Like I say, be careful what you wish for because it's coming our way.
    If that's honest and respectful publishing then great ...
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Slowbike wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Like I say, be careful what you wish for because it's coming our way.
    If that's honest and respectful publishing then great ...

    It will probably be very respectful but will only contain a small part of the truth. So we won't get many more stories about Meghan Markle and her nail polish but neither will find out about scandals like MPs expenses or exposes about the likes of billionaire paedophileJeffery Epstein.

Categories