Harry & Meghan 10: Even Less Relevant to the BRF

[rosamundi]

3 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Scottish police cannot inspect the Queen's fishing boats, which she rents out. If a fugitive is looking for a place to hide, that's the place to go.

If you're referring to this part of the article,

Quote

Her estate rents out fishing beats on the River Dee to the public, advertising them “as some of the finest fishing in Scotland”.

Fishing beats are stretches of river where fly fishing is permitted under licence. Boats aren't involved. The issue here is not the sheltering of fugitives but potential difficulty in investigating unlawful fishing.

[samurai_sarah]

10 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

(snip)

Under British law, this is all OK

(snip)

Scottish police cannot inspect the Queen's fishing boats, which she rents out. If a fugitive is looking for a place to hide, that's the place to go.

Nor can environmental inspectors.  If a boat is poorly maintained and leaking oil into the water, no one will ever know. 

(snip)

Minor quibbles - there is no such thing as a unified body of British law. The article didn't make that very clear.

And she doesn't rent out boats, but beats. Meaning she has the fishing rights to stretches of the river Dee, which the estate rents out. A lot of estates in Scotland make money off of renting out their beats or organising hunting trips during deer stalking season. So, if I absolutely want to go poaching, her Majesty's beats wouldn't be a bad place for me, since the authorities have to get her permission to catch me.

 

Spoilered, because not everyone is interested in minor legal details:

Spoiler

If, however, I as a private person decide to pointlessly stand in her Majesty's beat in the Dee, there is also absolutely nothing she can do to evict me. I can also set up camp for a day or two, as long as I have walked in with my camping gear and leave no trace. The estate can ask me to move on, but thanks to Scots Law, asking politely is all they can do!

In England, they could get me arrested for tresspassing. Not in Scotland - hence the quibble about no unified body of British law.

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by samurai_sarah

[EmCatlyn]

13 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

Minor quibbles - there is no such thing as a unified body of British law. The article didn't make that very clear.

And she doesn't rent out boats, but beats. Meaning she has the fishing rights to stretches of the river Dee, which the estate rents out. A lot of estates in Scotland make money off of renting out their beats or organising hunting trips during deer stalking season. So, if I absolutely want to go poaching, her Majesty's beats wouldn't be a bad place for me, since the authorities have to get her permission to catch me.

 

Spoilered, because not everyone is interested in minor legal details:

  Reveal hidden contents

If, however, I as a private person decide to pointlessly stand in her Majesty's beat in the Dee, there is also absolutely nothing she can do to evict me. I can also set up camp for a day or two, as long as I have walked in with my camping gear and leave no trace. The estate can ask me to move on, but thanks to Scots Law, asking politely is all they can do!

In England, they could get me arrested for tresspassing. Not in Scotland - hence the quibble about no unified body of British law.

 

Thanks for all your great tips on what we could do when we go trespass on HM’s property in Scotland.  Camping, fishing and just enjoying nature.  😉 

[Jackie3]

My goodness! Racial and sexual discrimination doesn't matter? Isn't worthy of a comment?

The Queen's staff get to harrass whom they want, with no legal repercussions. That is just amazing.

[Jackie3]

On 7/13/2022 at 4:12 PM, EmCatlyn said:

Almost all their projects—including Harry’s autobiography—seem to have been delayed.  Of course, they don’t exactly have to worry about being homeless, but I wonder if they will be able to keep the lifestyle they have if they don’t become more successful.

That's kind of you to worry about them. Believe it or not, some people watch them and hope they crash, babies and all. 

[prayawaythefundie]

7 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

My goodness! Racial and sexual discrimination doesn't matter? Isn't worthy of a comment?

The Queen's staff get to harrass whom they want, with no legal repercussions. That is just amazing.

Well, all the exemptions granted to the Queen were listed in the article, then you listed them again and expressed your outrage. I can‘t speak for others but I just felt no need to repeat or state the obvious. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

Harry and Meghan's new head of security - who worked for Michael Jackson and One Direction, was FIRED by the Jackson family after they discovered his past criminal record which includes a domestic violence charge and two DUIs.

Daily Mail

The guy may have turned over a new leaf, and I am not snarking at the Sussexes if they opted to give him a chance, but it is a little ironic that Princess Diana died in a car driven by a drunk “security” person and that Meghan, who is so much a feminist, is ok with the domestic violence charges.

[Jackie3]

8 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Well, all the exemptions granted to the Queen were listed in the article, then you listed them again and expressed your outrage. I can‘t speak for others but I just felt no need to repeat or state the obvious. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Didn't list them all! I think there more!

I'm sorry if you want be me be silent about sexual and racial discrimination.  You can choose that route, but I won't. I've known too many people who were hurt by these things. But if it doesn't outrage you, that fine (I guess).

It's good to speak up when leaders are given too much power! 

[samurai_sarah]

23 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Didn't list them all! I think there more!

I'm sorry if you want be me be silent about sexual and racial discrimination.  You can choose that route, but I won't. I've known too many people who were hurt by these things. But if it doesn't outrage you, that fine (I guess).

It's good to speak up when leaders are given too much power! 

No one is defending any of it. That much is obvious. So, what precisely do you want everyone to say? How can I make this better for you?

Edited July 16, 2022 by samurai_sarah

[prayawaythefundie]

40 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

I'm sorry if you want be me be silent about sexual and racial discrimination.  You can choose that route, but I won't. I've known too many people who were hurt by these things. But if it doesn't outrage you, that fine (I guess).

It's good to speak up when leaders are given too much power! 

You are such a good and upright person!!! I am so so sorry that I (and apparently everyone else) can‘t comply with your standards when you make it so easy by exactly telling us what to think, feel and say. 

[AmazonGrace]

I am not  surprised if the royals want all the exemptions they could get - even if they weren't actually planning to discriminate against anyone or do any other evil,  they'd want to protect their image and privacy and would like the protection against getting  sued for anything.  But it doesn't mean that the lawmakers had to give them that immunity... so I'd be angrier at whoever voted yeah let's let old Elizabeth do anything she wants.

But I thought the American president has some degree of immunity as well...? When Trump was president it was said that he can't be sued during the presidency.

[prayawaythefundie]

44 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

I am not  surprised if the royals want all the exemptions they could get - even if they weren't actually planning to discriminate against anyone or do any other evil,  they'd want to protect their image and privacy and would like the protection against getting  sued for anything.  But it doesn't mean that the lawmakers had to give them that immunity... so I'd be angrier at whoever voted yeah let's let old Elizabeth do anything she wants.

I agree that having immunity does not automatically mean you are actually doing anything wrong. Not being investigated on discrimination / environmental issues does not automatically mean you do discrimate / harm the environment.

However, it‘s intransparent and I would value voluntary transparency. So yes, I would like to see Charles & William not pushing for more exemptions from future laws when it‘s their turn to decide. Whether they can actively „hand back“ some of these privileges that are already written into law, I don’t know. Maybe some Brits can help out here?

They could, of course, just always give their permission to investigate when asked. That would build trust.

Edited July 16, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[AmazonGrace]

Yeah I don't think anybody should be above the law, especially if it's just an accident of birth. .

[zee_four]

On 6/27/2022 at 7:14 AM, Jackie3 said:

Not a hater, but I don't think racism is an adjacent topic. Given my own experience, I suspect it is front and center to their move. Living with racism is hell.

I know what you mean about a nuanced discussion, though. You're trying to subtly question her claims of racism. A white lady is saying to a BIPOC lady--That's not really racism!" or "That's not racist enough!"   How frustrating that you've been called on this!

I"m sorry Meghan is not providing enough proof to satisfy you.

What if someone questioned your depression or back pain or trauma history? Say they wanted to have a  "nuanced" discussion of whether it was "bad enough" to merit therapy, or surgery or medication. That's what you are trying to do. Meghan (and in fact, any BIPOC person) doesn't owe you any explanations. 

I can see why Meghan wouldn't want her kids to deal with ugliness like this.

 

You're assuming people who criticize MMs handling of her racism claims and other ways she has presented herself are white though. I'm mixed race and part of why MM really grinds my gears is she has made herself a public face of the ultimate victim of racial discrimination who represents and advocated for poor PoC. 

Yes she has experienced racism period. Even if I didn't believe she did, its not my place or anyone else's, white, black, mixed with black, mixed with other ethnic backgrounds of color, etc. to question or criticize that. But in this case anyway the racism definitely was real, from some of her detractors. And that's wrong and inexcusable.

But my criticism is that she claims to speak for us. To do this she constantly lies about coming from a low income and disadvantaged background. Then instead of tackling issues that women of color face in the US, and they are countless, she's playing Mean Girls with the press and Royal Family and whinging about her overly privileged lifestyle. Her attempts at compassion and understanding are really cringey attempt to RP SJW that would be funny in satire but in reality are just pathetic.

Furthermore, she's been too happy to or least has no problem with her PR team advocating the idea that now anyone who criticizes MM or her actions is doing so for racist reasons. That's not OK to me. 

As a mixed race woman I believe she needs to stop trying to be the face of racial issues because she's doing so much more harm than good. In today's hyper bipartissn environmental that damage is exponentially magnified. I hope that helps makes sense (not just the OP, really more directed to the overall thread)

Edited July 17, 2022 by zee_four

[Jackie3]

 

7 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

I agree that having immunity does not automatically mean you are actually doing anything wrong. Not being investigated on discrimination / environmental issues does not automatically mean you do discrimate / harm the environment.

 

Of course not! But why ask for the immunity in the first place? That's like saying, "Well, I won't be racist, but I'd like the freedom to be racist." "Well, I won't sexually harass my employees, but I'd like the legal freedom to do so."

It's indisputable that the Palace has been racist.  Until the 60's, the Palace had an outright ban on hiring BIPOC individuals. From the Guardian:

Quote

They reveal how in 1968, the Queen’s chief financial manager informed civil servants that “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners” to clerical roles in the royal household, although they were permitted to work as domestic servants.

In the late 60's, laws against discrimination began getting passed.  The Queen was made exempt from those laws.

This meant that women, or people from ethnic minorities, couldn't bring a suit if they were sexually harassed or denied advancement because of their race. 

In the 70's, laws were passed allowing victims of sexual or racial harrassment to bring lawsuits against perpetrators. The Queen was exempted again. She tried to hide it, though.

Quote

But staff in the royal household were specifically prevented from doing so, although the wording of the ban was sufficiently vague that the public might not have realised the monarch’s staff had been exempted.

Many former Palace employees have reported that there are few, if any, BiPOC employees at that Palace, especially in higher level positions. Charles' valet confirmed this was true in his book. 

This is the environment MM entered. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Jackie3

[rosamundi]

6 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Whether they can actively „hand back“ some of these privileges that are already written into law, I don’t know. Maybe some Brits can help out here?

I think they could, yes, the government could pass a bill which did a blanket revocation of all the carve-outs. Amending each one individually would be possible but time-consuming and there's always the possibility to miss one. A more general bill would be written more broadly and would effectively revoke all carve-outs in one go.

Whether there is the political will to do that is another question entirely, because parliamentary time is limited and the party in power is traditionally more loyal to the monarchy than the current opposition party is. I think the easiest way to deal with it at the moment would be for Prince Charles and Prince William to just co-operate with any investigations as required.

[Jackie3]

On 7/14/2022 at 12:58 PM, LilaMae said:

I hope that the lack of output from these kinds of "big name celebs" help media outlets like Netflix and Spotify realise that just because someone's a celebrity, doesn't mean that they are going to produce successful content. There are so many talented unknowns who would do great things with the opportunities that were handed to the Sussexes based on their names.

 If only they had stayed in England and used their names to get lots of British taxpayers' money. That would have been fine. (Though there are many British taxpayers who could have "done great things" with that money.)

LOL, Spotify and Netflix don't care whether the Sussex's content is great or not. They care whether it makes money. If the Sussex's make them them money, they'll continue to be wined and dined by these media outlets. 

Most likely, lots of people will tune in solely because of who they are.I bet many people on this thread will!

I hear you, though. It's wrong for the Sussex's to get Spotify contracts because of their name. Lots of talented actors deserved it more than they do.  Plus, using influence in Hollywood is wrong, and hardly ever happens.
 

[prayawaythefundie]

2 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

 

Of course not! But why ask for the immunity in the first place? That's like saying, "Well, I won't be racist, but I'd like the freedom to be racist." "Well, I won't sexually harass my employees, but I'd like the legal freedom to do so."

It's indisputable that the Palace has been racist.  Until the 60's, the Palace had an outright ban on hiring BIPOC individuals. From the Guardian:

In the late 60's, laws against discrimination began getting passed.  The Queen was made exempt from those laws.

This meant that women, or people from ethnic minorities, couldn't bring a suit if they were sexually harassed or denied advancement because of their race. 

In the 70's, laws were passed allowing victims of sexual or racial harrassment to bring lawsuits against perpetrators. The Queen was exempted again. She tried to hide it, though.

Many former Palace employees have reported that there are few, if any, BiPOC employees at that Palace, especially in higher level positions. Charles' valet confirmed this was true in his book. 

This is the environment MM entered. 

Reading my entire post would have saved you so much time.

50 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

LOL, Spotify and Netflix don't care whether the Sussex's content is great or not. They care whether it makes money. If the Sussex's make them them money, they'll continue to be wined and dined by these media outlets. 
 

That‘s exactly the point: The Sussexes don‘t make them any money right now. They have failed to deliver for more than a year. 

[LilaMae]

5 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Reading my entire post would have saved you so much time.

That‘s exactly the point: The Sussexes don‘t make them any money right now. They have failed to deliver for more than a year. 

The Spotify deal was signed in December 2020, so that's now 19 months of no content (other than introductory special just after signing).

The Netflix deal was signed in September 2020. In six weeks, that will be two years without any content at all.

 

[Coconut Flan]

6 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

LOL, Spotify and Netflix don't care whether the Sussex's content is great or not. They care whether it makes money. If the Sussex's make them them money, they'll continue to be wined and dined by these media outlets. 

First they have to put some content out.  That's the sticking point right now.

[Four is Enough]

16 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

owever, it‘s intransparent

Do you  mean opaque?

[samurai_sarah]

9 hours ago, rosamundi said:

I think they could, yes, the government could pass a bill which did a blanket revocation of all the carve-outs. Amending each one individually would be possible but time-consuming and there's always the possibility to miss one. A more general bill would be written more broadly and would effectively revoke all carve-outs in one go.

Whether there is the political will to do that is another question entirely, because parliamentary time is limited and the party in power is traditionally more loyal to the monarchy than the current opposition party is. I think the easiest way to deal with it at the moment would be for Prince Charles and Prince William to just co-operate with any investigations as required.

They can renounce their rights, but there's a legal issue there. If you read the statutes closely, you will find that they all refer to "her" Majesty. So, they're up for discussion in the event of her death. As far as I know, that doesn't automatically transfer. It certainly doesn't extend to her family, only to her. If, say, Prince William damages my garden wall, it's right and proper for me to call the police.

The trouble is that she is the head of state. So, she enjoys immunity. Just like US-citizen Anne Sacoolas did, when she killed British Harry Dunn: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-59996219

11 hours ago, zee_four said:

You're assuming people who criticize MMs handling of her racism claims and other ways she has presented herself are white though. I'm mixed race and part of why MM really grinds my gears is she has made herself a public face of the ultimate victim of racial discrimination who represents and advocated for poor PoC. 

Yes she has experienced racism period. Even if I didn't believe she did, its not my place or anyone else's, white, black, mixed with black, mixed with other ethnic backgrounds of color, etc. to question or criticize that. But in this case anyway the racism definitely was real, from some of her detractors. And that's wrong and inexcusable.

But my criticism is that she claims to speak for us. To do this she constantly lies about coming from a low income and disadvantaged background. Then instead of tackling issues that women of color face in the US, and they are countless, she's playing Mean Girls with the press and Royal Family and whinging about her overly privileged lifestyle. Her attempts at compassion and understanding are really cringey attempt to RP SJW that would be funny in satire but in reality are just pathetic.

Furthermore, she's been too happy to or least has no problem with her PR team advocating the idea that now anyone who criticizes MM or her actions is doing so for racist reasons. That's not OK to me. 

As a mixed race woman I believe she needs to stop trying to be the face of racial issues because she's doing so much more harm than good. In today's hyper bipartissn environmental that damage is exponentially magnified. I hope that helps makes sense (not just the OP, really more directed to the overall thread)

That's my issue with her: She doesn't speak for me. She's taking my voice away and making it all about her.

[prayawaythefundie]

48 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

Do you  mean opaque?

Yes, according to my dictionary. Thank you. 😊  Sorry for the mistake. Prefix „in“ indicates contrary meaning for words of foreign origin in my first language. 

[viii]

Anyway… anyone else excited to read Tom Bower’s book? Should be fun! 

[LilaMae]

53 minutes ago, viii said:

Anyway… anyone else excited to read Tom Bower’s book? Should be fun! 

There have been some excerpts in the Times (British newspaper) which are quite interesting. It's going to be published next week, so I'm sure the reviews will say if there's anything "big". 

I'm more interested to see whether Meghan tries to sue him...