Harry and Meghan
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Reminds me of when some third-party supermarket security guard goes rogue and beats up a customer and people criticise the supermarket as if they directly hired them.
Well, ultimately, they ARE to blame in that scenario. Sub out such things, get meathead, pay for meathead? Who's fault is it, really.
They still have a duty of care to have proper people working for them or on their behalf.
This bloke wasnt just working for them, he's their close protection guy, drives them in cars etc. And he choked some poor woman, who later topped herself.
But it is fine, so long as they didn't actually vet the guy themselves...! !
And FWIW, I would be very surprised if one of them didn't meet the chap or ok the chap prior to being given the gig, bearing in mind what he is there to do.
Edited by poo at Paul's on Thursday 29th September 13:22
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: So if you send your kid to school on the bus and it turns out the bus company messed up the checks and the bus driver is a kiddie fiddler and the unthinkable happens it's your fault because you didn't do your own checks right?
Maybe you even said hello to the bus driver as you sent your kid off on the bus.
I'm using an extreme example for effect but I think when you reflect on this you'll see you're being a bit daft just because of who it is.
Yes, that’s exactly the same situation, a school bus driver vs the close protection office for the ‘Bullet magnet’ that is Harry Sussex! Maybe you even said hello to the bus driver as you sent your kid off on the bus.
I'm using an extreme example for effect but I think when you reflect on this you'll see you're being a bit daft just because of who it is.
Perhaps the analogy would be fair if before putting my kid on the bus with peado Pete the driver, I’d taken the council or Govt to court over my kid’s safety and made a case for him having highly trained police take him to school, as he’s so good looking!
You keep clutching at them straws, and let’s wait to see how the Susexes spin this one on Oprah!
Tell us, Poindexter, do you honestly think they just turned up to see some 25 stone 6ft 7 giant stood between them telling them what to do, driving them about etc and never met the guy first or gave him the OK? If not, no wonder they need taxpayer funded special ops to look after them, they’ve got no flipping gump at all!
I wonder if they asked less questions because of his race? That’d be a turn up!
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:popeyewhite said:
Cash in on what? The actions of the people who love them and they in turn love. Would you stab your own family in the back? Because that's what they're getting cash for, betrayal and salacious gossip.
Out of curiosity do you think Camilla having lunch with Jeremy Clarkson a couple of days after Clarkson's "strip Meghan naked and throw st at her" article is good judgement?Mobile Chicane said:
Well I've read it.
Mostly boring school / Army stuff, but there is some insight into the impact of some of the early press coverage: 'Harry's a thicko / exam cheat / druggie' etc.
Also the cost of security going forward. Some £6M a year. Easy to see how the £11M Harry inherited from Diana isn't going to go terribly far...
2 things. 1 His 11 million has been invested for 25 years, so will be a fair bit more than that now. Mostly boring school / Army stuff, but there is some insight into the impact of some of the early press coverage: 'Harry's a thicko / exam cheat / druggie' etc.
Also the cost of security going forward. Some £6M a year. Easy to see how the £11M Harry inherited from Diana isn't going to go terribly far...
2 it would not be 6m a year if he wasn’t such a bell chop.
if he just went off and lead the quiet life he claimed to want to lead, it’d cost 3/5 of fk all to keep him safe. The biggest risk would be from himself, tbh. TDK-C60 said:
They are in a different situation to most of us being Royals - and that brings spotlights and risks.
The basic question is if William gets protection that costs £M/year - or even lets face it Andrew - then why shouldn't H&M?
Yes they have decided to live in another country but that doesn't suddenly make protection impossible. More complicated in some aspects perhaps, but not impossible.
No matter what the fallout, this basic security protection should be extended by his family. Willy and Pa (and perhaps Granny) had chosen not to do that which I suspect he is rather miffed about (noting I haven't got to that bit in the book yet).
You’re seriously suggesting that this grown man should have his daddy provide security for him? The basic question is if William gets protection that costs £M/year - or even lets face it Andrew - then why shouldn't H&M?
Yes they have decided to live in another country but that doesn't suddenly make protection impossible. More complicated in some aspects perhaps, but not impossible.
No matter what the fallout, this basic security protection should be extended by his family. Willy and Pa (and perhaps Granny) had chosen not to do that which I suspect he is rather miffed about (noting I haven't got to that bit in the book yet).
Jog on the pair of you!
Maybe he needs his daddy to buy his underwear for him too?
DeejRC said:
Tbf this whole thread is silly.
I don’t agree. It’s interesting to see the at some could see something coming fair few years ago, and could see these people as a right pair of Doyles, but likely couldn’t quite see the extent of the s
t storm and meltdown they’d end up with! It’s quite astonishing!
DeejRC said:
poo at Paul's said:
DeejRC said:
Tbf this whole thread is silly.
I don’t agree. It’s interesting to see the at some could see something coming fair few years ago, and could see these people as a right pair of Doyles, but likely couldn’t quite see the extent of the s
t storm and meltdown they’d end up with! It’s quite astonishing!
There’s a few people trying to read a lot of stuff into posts to suit their agenda, you could be one if them! Butt the interest, shock, scandal and sheer comedic elements of this thread emanate from vehement anti H&M posters, mainstream media, Harry and Meghan and their PR team and vehement H&M supporters.
I for one find it pretty interesting to see just how polarised it’s all become, and that’s quite ironic based on the subject matter.
And fwiw, I think the main strongly against H&M opinions expressed are more anti H than anti M. She doesn’t and hasn’t really ever done enough to illicit strong opinions, although Clarkson may disagree. Harry on the other hand has kicked many of the long term supporters of his squarely in the b
ks over all this, and I suspect they won’t be forgetting that too soon. sugerbear said:
Prince Andrew - the falklands. Were the same things said about him? Did his helicopter flying endanger his comrades? Maybe Simon Weston should sue Andrew for putting him in danger.
I think you should read up a bit on Andrew in the Falklands war, not sure if you were there or even alive at the time, but it’s quite a different scenario, not least the circumstances of his going, but also the ‘times’ we were in. To say Andrew put his colleagues at as much risk as Harry, just isn’t true. They were all at risk due to being on ships many thousands of miles from home and with limited support, up against superior weaponry when involved in engagements. dobbo_ said:
I wonder what a thread would have looked like in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death.
"I struggle to believe the paps could chase someone through a tunnel and cause an accident"
Basically what I'm saying is, in your desire to hate Harry and Meghan, you've become blind to any possibility that anything they say could ever be true.
You’re implying the paparazzi caused the crash that killed Diana. But of course if old Henri had had a few less and drove at 50kmh…."I struggle to believe the paps could chase someone through a tunnel and cause an accident"
Basically what I'm saying is, in your desire to hate Harry and Meghan, you've become blind to any possibility that anything they say could ever be true.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff