Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Sly

The Royal Family

By Sly, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Mike Oxlong

Mike Oxlong

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

With all due respect, I thought my post was fairly clear as a 'draw a line under this and move on', but seeing as you have raised it again I will respond - in spite of the fact that this isn't even on topic with this thread so apologies.

 

I am not disputing that more men are killed. My dispute with the statistic is/was twofold:-

 

1. Those men are also being killed by men, at least in the majority of cases, therein men remain the problem in terms of the general public being fearful of attack. Buce had already pointed out before I responded.
 

2. It was irrelevant to what was being discussed at the moment in time. I cannot see that anybody has suggested that men are not vulnerable etc, but the conversation at the time of your post was about ways in which women can be made to feel more safe given the pertinent issue at the moment. The point you made wasn't incorrect, it was just irrelevant to the point in hand. I'm sure your point was that men deserve the right to feel safe too, and I, along with everybody else, wholeheartedly agree with that. 

That's why I referenced the BLM issue, as similar things happened during that conversation too. Whereby people would dig up statistics to show that white people were in fact more likely to die in police custody than black people, but again, whilst that statistic is true it's skewed, in that there are more white people than black, and irrelevant to the larger issue, in that it was about a systematic look at injustice faced by black people not about police custody. 

 

I hope that makes sense, as I can't be arsed to reply again and derail another thread :).

Sorry, but I love posts that start “With all due respect ...” 

 

They rarely disappoint 

  • Haha 1
Jimothy

Jimothy

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Sorry, but I love posts that start “With all due respect ...” 

 

They rarely disappoint 

With all due respect, you're a noodle.....

  • Haha 2
  • 8 months later...
  • 1 month later...
samlcfc

samlcfc

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Anybody seen this weird behaviour? 

I saw it come up on twitter earlier today.

 

 

I did see that pop-up and I've seen similar previously. According to comments surrounding previous videos, it seems as though this behaviour is allowed or expected as 'required' for them to get from A to B.

 

Still, seems extremely cuntish to me. You'd think the soldiers should be able to evaluate their surroundings and act apporpriately in line with what most would consider ethical behaviour. Then again, if the orders come from above, humans are pretty well evidenced as able to defer responsbility for their own actions to authority figures.

 

Haven't clicked into the Twitter link, but it'd be interesting to see how many people defend behaviour like this and blame people for getting in the way. I remember there being a few on previous videos and although tourists etc being in your path isn't ideal, I certainly wouldn't consider it clearance to annihilate children.

 

 

 

Edited by samlcfc
  • Haha 1
Parafox

Parafox

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Anybody seen this weird behaviour? 

I saw it come up on twitter earlier today.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, samlcfc said:

I did see that pop-up and I've seen similar previously. According to comments surrounding previous videos, it seems as though this behaviour is allowed or expected as 'required' for them to get from A to B.

 

Still, seems extremely cuntish to me. You'd think the soldiers should be able to evaluate their surroundings and act apporpriately in line with what most would consider ethical behaviour. Then again, if the orders come from above, humans are pretty well evidenced as able to defer responsbility for their own actions to authority figures.

 

Haven't clicked into the Twitter link, but it'd be interesting to see how many people defend behaviour like this and blame people for getting in the way. I remember there being a few on previous videos and although tourists etc being in your path isn't ideal, I certainly wouldn't consider it clearance to annihilate children.

 

 

 

I thought they were supposed to halt and then challenge the person obstructing their path.

Could be that they simply didn't see him through the fur of their bearskins and they would have been totally "eye's front". Having said that, the guardsman on the right does appear to look down as he steps over the kid. Not defending it BTW, just offering potential explanations. Maybe the kid ran in front of them at the last minute.

Edited by Parafox
  • Haha 1
samlcfc

samlcfc

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

I thought they were supposed to halt and then challenge the person obstructing their path.

Could be that they simply didn't see him through the fur of their bearskins and they would have been totally "eye's front". Having said that, the guardsman on the right does appear to look down as he steps over the kid. Not defending it BTW, just offering potential explanations

Upon second viewing, the word 'annihilate' may have been a little strong lol. The soldier does appear to somewhat attempt to step over the child, but still personally seems like a pretty absurd event.

 

Just seems like the kid/care-giver didn't heed the memo on the queens guard and the guard probably doesn't have much of a say in deviating from his path without fear of disciplinary action.

SecretPro

SecretPro

Posted
Posted

Prince Andrew finding the ability to sweat again tonight.

 

Prince Williams affair and love child with Rose Hanbury hitting the headlines Internationally again (though not in England, due to the press injunction). 

 

They are all grim...

 

Apart from Harry it seems, who along with Megan has been subject to years of press hatred and an orchestrated smear campaign at the hands of Prince Williams PR team and lawyer in an effort to deflect from the affair. Imagine selling your own Brother down the river like that. Especially after Charles, Camilla and his mum.

  • Like 1
Parafox

Parafox

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Do their guns have bayonets? If yes I think that kid is lucky to have escaped alive. 

Yeah but they're probably as bent as Prince Andrew's explanation of his alleged contacts with Epstein.

Parafox

Parafox

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Prince Andrew finding the ability to sweat again tonight.

 

Prince Williams affair and love child with Rose Hanbury hitting the headlines Internationally again (though not in England, due to the press injunction). 

 

They are all grim...

 

Apart from Harry it seems, who along with Megan has been subject to years of press hatred and an orchestrated smear campaign at the hands of Prince Williams PR team and lawyer in an effort to deflect from the affair. Imagine selling your own Brother down the river like that. Especially after Charles, Camilla and his mum.

Really, apart from HM the Queen, her father and to a lesser degree, Prince Philip, I find the whole lot of the second/third generation of Royals a bunch of money sucking ingrates.

  • Like 3
boots60

boots60

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Parafox said:

Really, apart from HM the Queen, her father and to a lesser degree, Prince Philip, I find the whole lot of the second/third generation of Royals a bunch of money sucking ingrates.

Know them do you?

 

Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted (edited)

Out of all the controversies over the past few years, plus indeed this one, must have given the Queen a lot of undeserved stress.

 

She seems to be the one in the Royal household to be genuinely innocent, free of any doubts of her actions and ethically clean.

Edited by Wymsey
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Popular Post
Buce

Buce

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Out of all the controversies over the past few years, plus indeed this one, must have given the Queen a lot of undeserved stress.

 

She seems to be the one in the Royal household to be genuinely innocent free of any doubts of her actions and ethically clean.

 

I guess that depends on your understanding of ethically clean:

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

 

The Queen, Prince Charles vetted 1,062 laws before passage in parliament:

The government, The Guardian reported, exempted the Queen from a 2006 act to prevent the mistreatment of animals, stopping inspectors from entering her estates

https://nationalpost.com/news/the-queen-prince-charles-vetted-1062-laws-before-passage-in-parliament-the-guardian

 

Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption

Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person in country not bound by a green energy rule

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption

Edited by Buce
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Jattdogg

Jattdogg

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SecretPro said:

And she's paying Andrews legal bills (which means we are paying Andrews legal bills)

The sick barstard needs to be thrown onto the street and told to find his own way. IMO.

 

But he knows too many royal secrets so that wont happen.

  • Like 1
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted

Seems the clause that provides for third parties to use the agreement to not be sued by guiffre has to be agreed by one or both parties. As Epstein is dead, PA looks to be on very dodgy ground trying to use this agreement to avoid the case

  • Popular Post
What the Fuchs?

What the Fuchs?

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 30/12/2021 at 00:58, Parafox said:

Really, apart from HM the Queen, her father and to a lesser degree, Prince Philip, I find the whole lot of the second/third generation of Royals a bunch of money sucking ingrates.

Whereas the queen’s generation were just money suckers lol. Anyone who defends such an outrageously anachronistic, undemocratic and anti egalitarian system is beyond all reason imo, the fact we still gleefully hand over hundreds of millions of £s every year to a secretive family of billionaires while we still have poverty and food banks and cuts to foreign aid sickens me.

  • Like 7

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...