A Political Thread

[Reiser99]

My simple issue is the hypocrisy of it all and that America feels like it can do whatever it likes regardless of the consequences. The CIA (with British help) have admitted helping to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government because the Prime Minister was trying to limit foreign influence on oil production and bring it back under Iranian control. Another example is selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. Western European nations have been interfering in other countries affairs for hundreds of years and America over the last century has slowly increased it's interference too. However when the reverse is true it's completely unacceptable. Yes Qasem Soleimani was one of the leading figures in the problems of the Middle East and I fully understand eliminating a military threat, but America and some of it allies need to stop pretending that by killing him they have the moral high ground. All this has ever been about is power and money and that's what drives America's interest in the Middle East. They don't have the best interests of the people, they don't want stable and economically successful democracies. They want poor states that they can bully into letting them do what they want. Iran may be a state that is opposed to the West, but it is still a sovereign state. You may disagree with how it acts or the way the country is run, but that is their choice. It's especially hypocritical when you criticise and interfere in states like Iran, trying to change how they behave, but completely support states like Saudi Arabia, because they are your allies.

Basically stop pretending this is the good guys vs the bad guys. It's one state defending its and its allies interests/people from another state defending its and its allies interests/people. Only difference is one side is stronger than the others and most of us live in countries allied to that side.

 

[General Melchett]

There are so many other examples of hypocrisy. There is so much talk about the Iran nuclear deal and how they must never be allowed to develop and hold nuclear weapons while on the other hand it is perfectly acceptable for its neighbour and long term adversary Israel to have nuclear weapons. Maybe just maybe the region would be more safe if neither had nuclear weapons.

Also one or two on here have suggested that in spite of the collateral damage this week the assassination of Soleimani will save more lives in the long run. How can anyone possibly know that at this stage? Killing him is essentially a gamble. What happens if Iran responds by cosying up to Russia in the same way Assad did? Things could escalate and get out of hand very quickly.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

For me the issue is more about being force fed information about them (particularly Harry & Megan) in the news. In my opinion it's not news. Have a Royal family channel on Sky for those who want to keep tabs on them but don't force it down our throats in the news unless it is actually newsworthy. Clearly the media and the family have an understanding, we'll give you access if you give us coverage and the family don't like it when it gets too invasive or excessive.

They are essentially entitled ultra A list celebrities and I don't subscribe to the Royal family moving with the times by welcoming this sweet mixed race girl next door type. She is a multi millionaire elite and from what I hear extremely high maintenance.

According to the Sunday Times article today Harry draws his main source of income via his father from the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy of Cornwall is a crown body, which doesn't pay corporation tax or Inheritance tax and has helped it build up assets of more than £1billion. Plus Prince Charles is not subject to Capital gains tax because the Crown body retains the gains. So, all in all a nice earner for the Royal family.

Harry's also got a share of his great grandmother's legacy to her grandchildren and great grandchildren, of which his share is around £7m, plus what he and William got from their mother on her death net of IHT. So Harry is not short of bob or two himself, gained from a trust fund, which enjoys massive tax perks and inherited wealth, which he did not earn, which the normal British citizen is not entitled to and can only dream of. The price of this I am afraid is that he performs his "Royal duties" and with that is the downsides like press intrusion.

Harry and Meghan are essentially rebelling against the senior members of the Royal family because they are low down in the royal pecking order (what is Harry now 6th in line?) and seeking their own life, which is fine and as adults they are entitled to, but maybe without cashing in on ***les bestowed on them if they Do make their own life part time in Canada and security measures not at the British tax payers' expense . And now the Royal family acting like a mafia family and demanding answers because the whole saga, plus Prince Andrew, have hurt their brand image.

 

[ncurd]

Have to say if press treated my wife as they treat Meghan I'd want out of it all as well. Especially when if I know I have enough inherited wealth that I could live very comfortably.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Have to say if press treated my wife as they treat Meghan I'd want out of it all as well. Especially when if I know I have enough inherited wealth that I could live very comfortably.

Of course, but would they give up their ***les of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and would Harry be happy to give up the handouts from his father? Part time here and part time in Canada. Sounds like Harry and Meghan want to have their cake and eat it. Still be able to Cash In on their royal status through book deals, speaking engagements and Meghan can return to her acting life on Suits?

 

[ncurd]

Honestly I'd much rather be looking at Prince Andrew and how the fucker should be a jail than the ins and outs of how Sussexes want to leave their royal duties.

 

[General Melchett]

Honestly I'd much rather be looking at Prince Andrew and how the fucker should be a jail than the ins and outs of how Sussexes want to leave their royal duties.

It's not the Sussexes who want to leave their royal duties it's Meghan. She is clearly wearing the trousers in that marriage and has decided that she'd rather live in Canada because life in the UK with all the media attention doesn't suit her. Harry is doing what he's told. I agree with Blindside about them wanting to have their cake and eat it.

In any case it's getting way too much prominence in the news this past week. It's really not that important when compared to other events. I have started changing the channel as soon as they are covered in the news because I'm just not interested.

 

[ncurd]

There's far too much speculation in that post into the details of their marriage a bit like everyon who says Meaghan is high maintenance. These aren't facts and merely rumour at best.

And I ******* hate tabloid gossip.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The way people view/project onto Meghan is crazy.
It's no wonder she wants nothing to do with the shithole press and public of this country.


Also the government have found £120m down the back of the sofa for a Brexit festival, so that's nice.

 

[Which Tyler]

Also the government have found £120m down the back of the sofa for a Brexit festival, so that's nice.

And at some point this year, the cost of Brexit will exceed every penny spent on the EU since our involvement.

Any news on the Russian funding thing that was so important it couldn't be released before the election?

Another whistleblower from Cambridge Analytica?

As for the royals - does that count as "politics" or "celebrity 'news' "?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Also the government have found £120m down the back of the sofa for a Brexit festival, so that's nice.

Won't even get that good Dutch mdma. What's the point like?

 

[General Melchett]

And at some point this year, the cost of Brexit will exceed every penny spent on the EU since our involvement.

Any news on the Russian funding thing that was so important it couldn't be released before the election?

Another whistleblower from Cambridge Analytica?

I think the Russian funding information will be released after BoJo appears on Andrew Neil and a few pigs fly past Big Ben.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

As for the royals - does that count as "politics" or "celebrity 'news' "?

Probably both in our society. Just wanted to point out the massive tax perks they get at the expense of the British tax payer, which does touch on the political. The Queen being our head of state, but of course with no real political power. I see Chris Lewis proposing a referendum on the royal family, even though he probably won't get near the Labour leadership ballot box.

We are supposed to sing our national anthem proudly, when in fact we are singing about our country's fortunes depending on the Monarch on our throne.

But hey ho, the monarchy are here to stay as part of our establishment and inculcating the notion in our British political and elite that powe and privilege is inherited and not earned.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Honestly I'd much rather be looking at Prince Andrew and how the fucker should be a jail than the ins and outs of how Sussexes want to leave their royal duties.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Rubberbandits/status/1216171914735034369

Really shows how ridiculous it is.

 

[Reiser99]

While I don't particularly care about the Royals and what they do, I did find this article interesting because it highlights how despicable certain parts of our media (journalism is far too polite for the level of shite they write) are.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...kkAkDr99_7m_HV1I1GB2MLUF6mFqTV3PPuZXFfHotLDas

Honestly they write biased articles designed to grab attention and often manipulate the facts to suit or even sometimes just make it up. Only thing worse is the number of people who read these papers across the country and genuinely believe they are being factually informed. The real problem is when it extends into politics. While I wasn't a fan of Corbyn and he wasn't a good leader, the way the tabloids went after him and used his past was atrocious. Boris had just as many skeletons if not more and yet Corbyn was consistently the focus. Hell Nick Ferrari on LBC did an hour about how much lying was going on during the election and his main example was Corbyn lying about watching the Queen's speech. Nothing about 40 (new) hospitals or 50,000 more nurses (I get the concept of net totals, but it still never made sense).

I would love politics to be more grown up in this country, but I don't how it can be when you have these rats scurrying around beneath you trying to rip apart anything you do or suggest. I thought a lot about making politics more transparent and it would all be for nothing if we continue to have such a biased media that twists the facts to suit their own narratives.

As for how to sort it, firstly all media outlets should not be able to publicly endorse a political party. Second any retraction or factual correction should take up the same space as as the original article. Conservatives used the same tactics as the newspapers by saying something they knew wasn't true, letting it go and issuing a small quiet retraction/apology that probably less than 30% of the people who saw the original claim, saw as well. It's an intentional tactic on the most part, especially by the tabloids. Unfortunately though firstly I know these actions will never happen and second they'd probably still find ways to keep doing it and the only real way to change our media is for people to stop reading them.

 

[Reiser99]

So apparently it was masterful negotiating that restored Stormont, but more money from the magic money tree.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51085579

Seriously a group of politicians can't work together to govern the country have been elected by the people of that country for 3 years, but suddenly can once some cash is waved in their direction. Honestly I hope people in Northern Ireland vote them out, but unlikely to happen.

 

[The Seeker]

 

[McTallshort]

There are so many other examples of hypocrisy. There is so much talk about the Iran nuclear deal and how they must never be allowed to develop and hold nuclear weapons while on the other hand it is perfectly acceptable for its neighbour and long term adversary Israel to have nuclear weapons. Maybe just maybe the region would be more safe if neither had nuclear weapons.

Also one or two on here have suggested that in spite of the collateral damage this week the assassination of Soleimani will save more lives in the long run. How can anyone possibly know that at this stage? Killing him is essentially a gamble. What happens if Iran responds by cosying up to Russia in the same way Assad did? Things could escalate and get out of hand very quickly.

Oh FFS! Are you serious?

 

[General Melchett]

Oh FFS! Are you serious?

Got out of bed the wrong side? Deep breaths.

 

[McTallshort]

Got out of bed the wrong side? Deep breaths.

Perhaps I did but please do a bit of research into things. No one allowed Israel to have Nuclear weapons in the same way no one allowed the US, USSR, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan or South Africa to have nuclear weapons. Everyone decided at some point that having more nuclear weapons might be a bad idea so everyone signed a treaty and agreed to stop making them. Its on Wikipedia somewhere look it up. Also Iran has stated that it wishes to wipe Israel off the map so naturally people are concerned about such a state possessing such things in the same way people are very worried about North Korea having them.

For the record Israel have never publicly acknowledged it has a nuclear arsenal.