Sentebale #5

[glitterturd]

As I finished the last one.

I thought Harry and Meghan were totally opposed to all forms of online harassment. Didn't they start a campaign about it recently?

Or are they hypocrites who believe that it's OK if it's someone they don't like?

He has chosen to live in a country where millions of people have firearms and he has chosen to brag about killing "chess pieces" in Afghanistan. His own safety isn't the priority to him but he wants his wife to have outriders so she feels like a V.V.V I.P.

It’s also worth noting that Harry wasn’t asking for something outrageous — just the ability to pay for appropriate security when he’s in the UK. That seems like a reasonable request, especially when safety is at stake

I know this thread isn't supposed to be about the court case @vera99 (there's a separate one for that) but even leaving aside that this isn't how ssecurity provision works, the Home Office explained that in fact Harry made no such offer "in any of the pre-action correspondence" ... or in other words the claim was chucked in, presumably to make him look better, only later

As for Charles's possible involvement I'm quite prepared to believe he'd try to meddle if he wished to, but that could be one hell of a risk with someone as loose-lipped as Harry, who could so easily disclose what had been done and trash any respect his father still enjoys

Media and public scrutiny are not a threat, every high profile person deals with it. Many live perfectly normal lives, the difference being they are not tipping off the press all the time. Diana had form for letting the press know exactly what and where she was doing everything. The markles are no different, they are media whores, stupid enough to think they control it.

I suspect H & M went to Nigeria and Colombia because the state agreed to protect them in the way they protect visiting royals. All part of the ego soothing...

Anything that Meghan and Harry publicly oppose does not apply to them!

Christ I had forgotten about Will Carling. He made a complete fool of himself over her. Disgraced the England rugby team and it's royal patronage, we roundly booed him when harlequins played at Leicester Tigers ground.

The bodyguards charged with protecting DiPoW seem to have been in no doubt about her having lovers.

But I don't think Harry is the result of her extramarital antics. It would have been proved via DNA testing by now if he were: it can't be that hard to get hold of some of Harry's tissue to check. In fact I'd be surprised if such a test had not been done even before his parents' divorce, because, even apart from the high treason aspect, it would have been important for the succession before William married and had children.

Not only would this have happened (below the radar) but Harry is very obviously Charles's son and Philip's grandson. He resembles both in numerous photos. This has been raked over endlessly but never goes away.

Who was the married man Diana harassed? Oliver Hoare? Kept ringing and hanging up.

The main host was the heinous, convicted paedophile Stuart Hall, who served prison time for abusing multiple young children — that alone would give me the creeps. The royals really do seem to attract more than their fair share of questionable characters. It’s unsettling how often these kinds of associations come up around them. Oh and Edward's tantrum I seem to remember.

Yes, that's the one!

Oh change the record will you?! Stuart Hall was the regular presenter of It's a Knockout. He presented it for 10 years. WTF would he not present the royal one? Were the royals supposed to have a crystal ball to see into the future that he would go on to later be convicted of CSA?

What a silly comment.

Indeed!
strange that people think we don’t know these facts!
I loved it’s a knockout as a child and watched it constantly, I actually enjoyed the royal version.

But that’s because he was the regular host of It’s A Knockout so of course he would be the host of the Royal one. He was very popular at the time especially in the North West where he was our regional news reader.

At that point no one in the general public knew anything about him like that. Although it looks like some people at the BBC knew he was bringing young girls into his dressing room. The youngest of his accusers was only 9 - really awful. Shocking it didn’t come out until he was in his 80s.

I watched it as a child too. I think I felt a little uncomfortable with the royal one. It was a bit surreal given how we normally saw them.

Stuart Hall was exposed as a result of Savile's abuses becoming public, I've never heard that there were the same sort of (ignored) rumours and allegations about him before that there were about JS.

I see he is still alive and he's 95! I googled to check out when he presented It's a Knockout and he was on there from 1972 to 1982.

What on earth has a television event broadcast in June1987 got to do with the current antics of somebody who was born in September 1984 and played no part whatever in the programme?

In any case, you can't have it both ways, Vera: either Prince Harry is a member of the royal family and is therefore as prone to dodgy contacts as any of them, or he isn't prone to dodgy contacts because he is not really a member of the royal family. (He has chosen not to be, except for wanting all the perks that go with working for the royal family.)

Prince Edward's It's a Royal Knockout press conference strop was discussed on here a few days ago, noone said it didn't happen. Some of us saw it in real time.

However, he was 23 at the time and now seems to be a sensible mature man not given to attention seeking. Hope for Harry yet perhaps, although he's leaving it a bit late.

Stuart Hall was a despicable man but I don't really think you can blame the royals. It's A Knockout was a very popular show in its day and ran for 22 years with him as the host. It's not like the royals just chose him

It's an utterly pathetic accusation. It was nearly 40 fucking years ago! He was 23, now he's 61! I guarantee that there's not one poster here, subject to the amount of public scrutiny the royals are under, wouldn't have been seen having a single hissy fit in 40 years!!

However, Harry’s situation still stands apart due to the ongoing and specific threats he’s received in recent years,

No-one knows anything about the ongoing and specific threats that other Royal Family members receive though (that’s secure and confidential information) so you can’t possibly know if that’s the truth.

It’s also worth noting that Harry wasn’t asking for something outrageous — just the ability to pay for appropriate security when he’s in the UK. That seems like a reasonable request, especially when safety is at stake.

As has been pointed out upthread, Harry did not in fact offer to pay, and this was just media spin on his behalf to mislead the public and cast the current law suit in a better light.

It’s worth noting that The Mail on Sunday reported it wasn’t true that Harry had offered to pay, and Harry promptly sued them for defamation. Mr Justice Nicklin who considered the defamation claim had this to say:

I consider that {the Mail on Sunday] has a real prospect of succeeding in demonstrating also that an honest person could have held the opinion that [Harry] was responsible for attempting to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position (and that this was ironic given that he now held a public role in tackling “misinformation”)…

My immediate impression was that the Mail was alleging that Harry was guilty of “spinning” facts to his advantage… Having now seen the sequence of events, in my judgment, the Mail does have a real prospect of demonstrating that an honest person could have held the view that this was precisely what was being done on Harry’s behalf.

Harry promptly withdrew his defamation case after this ruling, by the way.