Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36113650)

Yes, but the charity issue has nothing to do with it. He wasn’t personally involved, we are told.

So he will probably have to apologise on behalf of the charity, like Starmer had to apologise in his role of Director of Public Prosecutions and BJ on behalf of No 10.

Neat. :D

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------


Bloody hell, Seth, is that harsh or what? I hope you’ve never done anything in your life others might criticise you for.

I was a Diana fan back in the day, but I suspect she was very needy and manipulative on a personal level. Charles has always wanted Camilla - it was not right that he was practically forced into an arranged marriage.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36113611)

If the "Firm" had any judgement, they would insist that Charles sit this one out.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36113619)

Also, unlike Queenie, Charlie does not come to the throne with clean hands.
He is indirectly responsible for Diana's death (he was cheating on her big time and famously told Camilla he wished he was a tampon).

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36113619)

He is indirectly responsible for Diana's death (he was cheating on her big time and famously told Camilla he wished he was a tampon). He is directly responsible for Harry's poor state of mind.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36113652)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36113653)

Except that BJ was personally involved*… ;)

*[/i]birthday cake, cheese & wine, bottle of fizz…[/i]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36113697)

Well, I agree with that bit.

---------- Post added at 18:49 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------



Well, takeCummings at his word, why don’t you? ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36113697)

Well, I agree with that bit.

---------- Post added at 18:49 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------



Well, take Cummings at his word, why don’t you? ;)

Note to self:- I wonder if he believes his story about the trip to Durham Castle as well? :scratch:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36036975)

Not good news for those who take full advantage of the hedging and ditching season! :D

Seriously, these character assassination tactics are pathetic and I think his interview this afternoon has done him a lot of good with the public.

These vindictive reporters are doing themselves no favours, and frankly, this will show up the BBC to be anti-Conservatives for all to see. That will do their 'politically neutral' argument no good at all!

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36113699)

Who mentioned Cummings? Not sure how he took this picture, since he’s in it…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...4&d=1645123845

The cake was mentioned by a Johnson loyalist… ("ambush"…. <snigger>)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2000629.html

And the fizz was pictured in December 2020, a month after Cummings had left No. 10…https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1645124126

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36113660)

It doesn't work like that and if they were to suggest it then it would be time to abolish the whole rotten system imo

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36113701)

Well, you were quite happy with it at the time…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36113708)

I didn’t say he took the pictures. And cake or no cake, how do you know the purpose of this get-together? They may just have been discussing Conservative Party policy outside for all you know.

You cannot look at the picture and paint the worst possible scenario and then have that forming an unshakable opinion. You have to consider feasible alternatives if you want to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36113660)

It doesn't work like that and if they were to suggest it then it would be time to abolish the whole rotten system imo
:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36113723)

…And replace it with what, exactly? A presidential system?

That would work….[not]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36113538)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36113723)

…And replace it with what, exactly? A presidential system?

That would work….[not]