Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

If you’re thinking that he’s saying what you think he’s saying, then I suggest you need to open your eyes and your mind to what you think he’s saying…

btw, you were responding to a ten month old post… ;)

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

I do not feel marginalised by anyone but the present Tory government.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

South Park is still amazing when they have a target in their crosshairs and know what they want to say. They can still do pretty brutal satire in a way few television shows seem to do now.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

I have never watched South Park, but I've seen a clip of this, quite funny and pretty spot on.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

'Meghan 'has been upset and overwhelmed by her depiction on South Park for days' after irreverent US cartoon described Duchess as 'sorority girl, actress, influencer, victim' in scathing episode' - Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-source.html

So good to hear. But she's already looking into see if she can sue South Park. No surprise there. They can certainly dish it out but they can't take it themselves. What a pair of saddos.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

I wonder if the DMs sources are in their own tiny heads.

I don't know either of these people none of us do, just what the media are telling us to think.

However as mentioned all the Royal Family are a tremendous waste of our time and money. They all need to be down the food banks helpling out, along with the tabloid scribes who waste their time making things up, and people that waste their time reading /obsessing about it.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

The "source", as is often the case, is another publication. They are just reporting on an article in the US version of "The Spectator". If it's incorrect, then it's "The Spectator" that has got in wrong.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

Good reporters/media validate sources, not just cut/paste…

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

How many publications are there around the world? Hundreds? Are they each expected to validate sources? Just because people disagree with a particular source, doesn't automatically mean the story isn't true.
This story does seem odd in that they would unlikely to get anywhere with such a case.Hasn't stopped them before though.


Be wary of what "approved" publications are NOT reporting or at the very least not giving the full picture. Eg Giving the impression that X is a unique UK problem, when it's a lot wider, ie EU and beyond.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

Chris has worked in the profession and could probably contribute to the source validation point from a newspaper's perspective.

With diminished budgets and the need to publish quickly, I imagine more short cuts are taken these days than 30 years ago, for example, when the Internet was in its infancy,

I'm not sure what an approved publication is.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

What would you like me to build with your straw man?

We're not talking about "hundreds of publications", we are specifically discussing the Daily Mail (which has nearly 6000 employees), the biggest selling (not free) newspaper in the UK.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

You're a funny man. I fear you've been reading too much of The Big Book Of Conservative Scare Stories by 30p Lee, but I suppose you've got to get your material frome somewhere.

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

Tbf to 30p Lee his dinner did cost him 30p, okay the ingredients cost £54 but he clained £53.70 back on expenses for it

Re: Harry (formerly known as prince) and Megan
 

She's denied they're suing South Park.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64730600