Harry & Megan to step back from Public life

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a fairly minor story, of more interest in how the question is parliament was phrased than the non-committal answer given.
Canada, U.K. discussing how to pay for Prince Harry and Meghan's security costs: minister

An MP from the separatist Bloc Québécois said that it was "none of our business" whether Harry and Meghan decided to live in Canada, but the party will apparently object to Quebecers paying for their security.
Blair's answer came in response to a question from Bloc Québécois MP Christine Normandin.

She said while it's "none of our business" whether Harry and Meghan take up residence in Canada, "what is our business is who will pay for their security. Can the minister reassure us that Quebecers will not have to pay for the security of this royal couple?"
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair gave a non-committal answer in reply, just saying that there were discussions going on. This is the same response as given earlier and posted here, and so represents no change from the Canadian government's perspective.
"I know this is an issue of discussion for many Canadians," Blair said. "Discussions are taking place between our security officials in the RCMP and security officials in the U.K. as it relates to security obligations and how most appropriately to cover these security costs."
If the BQ maintain a consistent line on this then it doesn't sound like they have any objections in principle to the Sussexes living in Canada and so don't think there is any political capital to be made out of it with Quebec nationalists.
 
Personally I agree with Charles. Some modern architecture is gopping and not fit for purpose.

Is he still building that village in Dorset? Penny something was it?
Not Penny something, Poundbury .

Actually, it is quite a nice looking development, with just the faintest hint of chocolate box ' tweeness' about it.

Also, it does not have that ghastly modern development feel of each house being scaled down to 80% of decent size, and then being crammed too close together.

Still under unrushed construction.
 
But your post isn't "fact", she didn't "lose" her Royal Protection, she declined it. Saying "lost" as you posted seems to infer that it was taken from her.
Sorry, but it is "fact". It's ambiguous, but any inference is down to you.

I'm not responsible for whatever inference you choose to apply.

"Lose" doesn't necessarily infer "taken away" - it simply means ... well ... lose, as in "no longer have".
 
Last edited:
Ultimately, what he represents can't be exclusively defined by HMQ any more than it could be with his mother.
Well, he officially no longer represents "the Royals" as, unlike Andrew, he's no longer entitled to use HRH - which must call into question his right to register "SussexRoyal" as a brand.

... and if Brenda can't define who's "Royal" any more, then it makes a bit of a mockery of her position as monarch.
 
I suspect you were the type who was getting all frothy-mouthed about the “black spider” letters, then realised on their release that, actually, he made some good points.
"actually" prior to their release I thought little of it other than that he deserved some privacy, was well-intentioned, and I generally agreed with his views.

On their release, though, I read them (which you and others have evidently never done) and realised he was a hypocritical bar-steward who was very happy to abuse his position and influence for his own ends and personal gain, replacing an approved scheme that included 25% affordable housing with an equally ghastly one with exclusively high end (from 5 mill) boring, unimaginative boxes, built by a firm that "donated" profits to one of his "charities", and who tried to stop the Health and Safety at Work Act as it was costing him money to make changes on his farm.

After reading them I went from being a "royalist" (small "r" ) to being a realist, and realised he shouldn't be trusted to drive a milk float let alone be a head of state.
Personally I agree with Charles. Some modern architecture is gopping and not fit for purpose.
So do I, but the replacement plans for Chelsea Bks are equally gopping and infinitely more boring boxes, straight out of the worst of the 60's.

I also agree with him over climate change, etc, but not that it should be on his terms where he can talk the talk but never walk the walk - flying by private chartered jet to Geneva* then going on to Davos by electric Jag is just the latest example.

(*: and I realise he needed to fly on to Israel, but just leaving the Kleenex Premium Comfort and Laphroaig behind, as well as the butler and two valets, would have saved more carbon emmissions than most families produce in a decade).
 
Sorry, but it is "fact". It's ambiguous, but any inference is down to you.

I'm not responsible for whatever inference you choose to apply.

"Lose" doesn't necessarily infer "taken away" - it simply means ... well ... lose, as in "no longer have".
No, you moron. If you have LOST something, you have had no input into its absence or removal- a loss is something one has no control over. If you DECLINE something, that is a conscious decision you have made.
Jeez.
 
No, you moron. If you have LOST something, you have had no input into its absence or removal- a loss is something one has no control over. If you DECLINE something, that is a conscious decision you have made.
Jeez.
Oh well ... maybe you should let Merriam-Webster, Collins, the Oxford, and countless other dictionaries know that they're wrong and they're all written by "morons". I'm sure they'll treat your view with all the respect it deserves and make the appropriate changes.

... oh, and don't forget to tell all those people who think they lost weight by dieting or exercise. They're all wrong, they all had "no control over" any weight they lost, none of them had any "input" into losing any weight, and none made a "conscious decision" to lose weight. They're all wrong and all "morons" too, as no matter how many people say they deliberately lost weight none of them lost anything ...

... oh, and so are all those telling them that losing weight needs a conscious decision - after all, guzzijon's dictated that "a loss is something one has no control over" so all they have to do is pig out and wait for someone to come along and take it away, as no-one can lose anything by themselves .....

All wrong and morons ..... only the great minds on Arrse have got it right ..... :rofl: ..... :rofl: ..... :rofl:
 
Last edited:
"actually" prior to their release I thought little of it other than that he deserved some privacy, was well-intentioned, and I generally agreed with his views.

On their release, though, I read them (which you and others have evidently never done) and realised he was a hypocritical bar-steward who was very happy to abuse his position and influence for his own ends and personal gain, replacing an approved scheme that included 25% affordable housing with an equally ghastly one with exclusively high end (from 5 mill) boring, unimaginative boxes, built by a firm that "donated" profits to one of his "charities", and who tried to stop the Health and Safety at Work Act as it was costing him money to make changes on his farm.

After reading them I went from being a "royalist" (small "r" ) to being a realist, and realised he shouldn't be trusted to drive a milk float let alone be a head of state.
So do I, but the replacement plans for Chelsea Bks are equally gopping and infinitely more boring boxes, straight out of the worst of the 60's.

I also agree with him over climate change, etc, but not that it should be on his terms where he can talk the talk but never walk the walk - flying by private chartered jet to Geneva* then going on to Davos by electric Jag is just the latest example.

(*: and I realise he needed to fly on to Israel, but just leaving the Kleenex Premium Comfort and Laphroaig behind, as well as the butler and two valets, would have saved more carbon emmissions than most families produce in a decade).
What sort of entourage do you imagine the average leader of state (or their representative) uses.
A few do, but it's never for long and they don't seem able to resist what the UK has to offer.
Yeah, because the UK is known as a centre for sex tourism isn’t it you utter belter?
 
Oh well ... maybe you should let Merriam-Webster, Collins, the Oxford, and countless other dictionaries know that they're wrong and they're all written by "morons". I'm sure they'll treat your view with all the respect it deserves and make the appropriate changes.

... oh, and don't forget to tell all those people who think they lost weight by dieting or exercise. They're all wrong, they all had "no control over" any weight they lost, none of them had any "input" into losing any weight, and none made a "conscious decision" to lose weight. They're all wrong and all "morons" too.

.. oh, and so are all those telling them that losing weight needs a conscious decision - after all, guzzijon's dictated that "a loss is something one has no control over" so all they have to do is pig out and wait for someone to come along and take it away.

All wrong and morons ..... only the great minds on Arrse have got it right ..... :rofl: ..... :rofl: ..... :rofl:
Wrong. If you are on a diet you make a conscious decision to limit your food intake. The weight loss is incidental to that.
And in any case you were talking about someone losing their police protection, which you don’t do by eating less. Imbecile.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but it is "fact". It's ambiguous, but any inference is down to you.

I'm not responsible for whatever inference you choose to apply.

"Lose" doesn't necessarily infer "taken away" - it simply means ... well ... lose, as in "no longer have".
John

As you well* know, English is all about context.

In the sentence in discussion, I’d hazard that 95% of people asked would understand ‘lose’ in the exact same way that everyone else does on here.

You make some very good points, but I’d suggest that it’s your go-to-the-mattresses/die-in-a-ditch** defence of everything you say that is one of your major problems when you get on a roll.

Remember: he who defends everything defends nothing.

Please don’t lash out at me with another missive with harsh fonts: you’ll just prove the point.

* for example, I’m not talking about a source of ground water here.

** Other metaphors are available.
 

smeg-head

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I'd knock this thread on the head if I were you guys. It's been hijacked by he-who-is-never--wrong and can only turn into the usual slagging match that he tends to provoke. We are all morons and cretins, we know nothing but a no-mark, never-deployed, passed-over, lady-boy lover is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge. Time this thread was put to bed.
 
I'd knock this thread on the head if I were you guys. It's been hijacked by he-who-is-never--wrong and can only turn into the usual slagging match that he tends to provoke. We are all morons and cretins, we know nothing but a no-mark, never-deployed, passed-over, lady-boy lover is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge. Time this thread was put to bed.

Agreed, hoof it.
 

craven50

Old-Salt
I'd knock this thread on the head if I were you guys. It's been hijacked by he-who-is-never--wrong and can only turn into the usual slagging match that he tends to provoke. We are all morons and cretins, we know nothing but a no-mark, never-deployed, passed-over, lady-boy lover is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge. Time this thread was put to bed.
Put to bed? Agreed
 
John

As you well* know, English is all about context.

In the sentence in discussion, I’d hazard that 95% of people asked would understand ‘lose’ in the exact same way that everyone else does on here.

You make some very good points, but I’d suggest that it’s your go-to-the-mattresses/die-in-a-ditch** defence of everything you say that is one of your major problems when you get on a roll.

Remember: he who defends everything defends nothing.

Please don’t lash out at me with another missive with harsh fonts: you’ll just prove the point.

* for example, I’m not talking about a source of ground water here.

** Other metaphors are available.
No intention of lashing out at you at all - it was ambiguous, as someone said (... oh, that was me). It was actually deiberately ambiguous.

My point was simply that it was factually correct, as easily illustrated with "losing" weight being the rather obvious result of a concious decision.

*: Also as in "losing" yourself in a crowd, speeding up and losing following runners, losing a tail, etc.
 
No intention of lashing out at you at all - it was ambiguous, as someone said (... oh, that was me). It was actually deiberately ambiguous.

My point was simply that it was factually correct, as easily illustrated with "losing" weight being the rather obvious result of a concious decision.

*: Also as in "losing" yourself in a crowd, speeding up and losing following runners, losing a tail, etc.
Please see post #1334; #1335; #1336; #1337.
 
I'd knock this thread on the head if I were you guys. It's been hijacked by he-who-is-never--wrong and can only turn into the usual slagging match that he tends to provoke. We are all morons and cretins, we know nothing but a no-mark, never-deployed, passed-over, lady-boy lover is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge. Time this thread was put to bed.
The hijacking can be very easily traced back exactly to post #1,208 and the arrival here of the usual small handful of posters who had previously taken no interest in the thread apart from suggesting it was merged / moved and who have since contributed nothing whatsoever to the topic and whose sole contribution to the thread has been their normal flow of off-topic personal abuse in my direction.

Rather sad in CA, particularly when one of the lead participants is a mod (albeit of the modelling forum).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top