DailyMail website blunders

May and Trump. One unelected by anyone, the other elected by a considerable minority albeit within the rules. The one I feel a little sorry for is Elizabeth, doubtless instructed by Madame May to invite him as a house guest. And told that her son ought not be part of the party because he might challenge Trump on matters about which he feels strongly, climate change, and no one can challenge the Don.
What a horrible person. Hopefully he might be impeached although is abortion denier Pense any improvement?
Maybe I should exercise my entitlement to Irish citizenship. Mind you the church rules there in banning abortion sending their citizens to the United Kingdom for help.
What a screwed up world.
 
You are too harsh, lindier. I am willing to accept that Trump may be a "horrible person". He is certainly a buffoon. Nonetheless, I am confident he will turn out to be the best President the USA has had in a long time. As for impeachment, it seems any more that every President is threatened with it. It's to be expected, and is no big deal. When will Donald be staying at Buckingham Palace? Maybe Elizabeth will feel entitled, as an ancient monarch, to give him a piece of her mind.
 
Mate. I hope you're right about Trump. I guess Reagan came with pretty low expectations and managed to surprise us with his relationship with Maggie and Gorbachev. However I'm not too certain that he looks before he leaps and his reluctance to admit mistakes isn't the mark of a statesman.
I gather that dates have to be arranged although there is now a head of steam behind the suggestion that the invitation should be withdrawn or postponed for a while.
One thought though. Discussions with the monarch are supposed to be confidential and I doubt anyone will be impressed if he follows his tweeting proclivities on any conversations with her.
 
Good old Elizabeth -- I used to think of her as not much more than a joke. Her pastel outfits, with matching accessories, were (and remain) an irresistible target for mockery. HOWEVER, I find of late that I have become genuinely fond of her. I will miss the Queen when she's gone, though there is every reason to believe that, having made it this far, she has another ten years in her. Maybe she has her own Twitter account and will match Donald tweet for tweet.
 
Might be interesting. I'm not sure she will have twitter but I suspect Charles will. And given the difference of opinion between him and Trump on climate change I'm sure there could be some interesting leaks.
In a way it's a little sad that the Queen doesn't have any choice in who she entertains on a state visit but has to do what the government ask of her. In other words I suspect that it is May who is inciting Trump to massage his ego. What might be interesting is to see whether he is invited to address Parliament.
And perhaps if the Royal family invites the Obamas or the Clintons over for a private visit. I suspect there is far more in common with them that with the current President and a private visit should not normally cause a diplomatic incident although who knows with the current administration.
Incidentally a petition to cancel the invitation to Trump has now one million signatures which indicates that it should be discussed in a Parlianmentqry debate. Though I suspect that an excuse will be found to prevent this on the grounds it might upset the applecart.
 
'The applecart' - that is the most complimentary name I've heard for The Dump in a long time :happy banana:
 
'The applecart' :happy banana:

...upset again

4224042532_5be91afe50_z.jpg
 
Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source for news

udWWPSG.jpg

[SUB][SUP]Wikipedia Foundation office in San Francisco, US

[/SUP][/SUB]Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”.

The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
 
Melania Trump wins damages from Daily Mail for calling her a whore

5X647L8.jpg


The ultimate disgrace for the Daily Mail and journalism in Britain.

The Daily Mail newspaper has agreed to pay damages and costs to the first lady of the United States over an article about her modelling career in which she was described as a whore.

he story was published during the US election campaign last year.Mrs Trump accepted damages and an apology from the newspaper at London's High Court.


She filed her lawsuit in February, seeking damages of $150m (£120m). The amount accepted by Mrs Trump was not disclosed in court.

DM also posted short apology on their shit site. :facepalm:


flwVElI.png
 
I can say with complete confidence that I am not contributing to these increased levels. I am neither giving people STDs nor getting them from others. Actually, I wouldn't mind contracting a minor infection (herpes maybe) in exchange for some sex. It's been way too long.
 
Back
Top