British Politics

I keep hearing its a Christian country but I don't know one single practicing Christian

 

Ever had goose at xmas? I've never tried it in case it's crap and xmas dinner would be ruined.

 

The Bill Gates funded Guardian are fully behind Tesco and their social programming .

What a shock

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...accine-passport-cleared-by-watchdog-christmas

 

I wonder what his views are on the fact that The Grauniad was founded on the racist slave cotton trade money

Probably won't say anything on that just like his numerous visits to Epstein's *****phile Island which he is still trying to frantically distance himself from.

 

True, we’ve become a nation of selfish bastards.

 

Granddaughter of SS Nazi Stormtrooper and unelected ruler of the EUROPEAN UNION Ursula von der Leyen is fully behind EUROPEAN wide mandatory vaccines.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree .

 

Never tried it. Had some foie gras the other night, was passable I suppose. Probably prefer liver sausage tbph.

 

There's **** all meat on it and produces about 2 inches of grease in the tray.

You need to have it raised on a rack out of the oil.

The meat is stringy and dark a bit gamey.

Goose fat is good for cooking spuds as it can stay liquid for higher temperatures than regular oil.

 

Nazis in arms

Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

Yeah, we do our totties in goose fat.

 

Gay as ****.

 

How many "refugees" you taking in for Christmas mate ?

I'm sure you aren't one of the millions of selfish people that don't want more 3rd World immigrants entering illegally, you want open borders because it makes you feel righteous and morally superior.

Then complain that you have to step over homeless people in London because we don't have enough affordable housing .

Just blame Maggie Thatcher and the Tory scum .

 

About six years ago our village church used to get a handful on Sunday. I think the numbers got so small through natural wastage that they just gave up.

 

You still have the resident idiot in your village though which is nice.

 

We've got two, plus a *****.

 

If I had a manger I’d let you stay in it Duncs, but as I don’t, the best I can offer you is the allotment shed. Help yourself to Brussels Sprouts

 

It's just sprouts now

 

Meghan’s letter to father: Mail loses appeal in privacy case

please log in to view this image

In texts released by the court the duchess expressed frustration about the royal family, describing them as “constantly berating” Harry
ACUNDO ARRIZABALAGA /EP
The Mail on Sunday has lost its appeal against a court ruling over its publication of the contents of a letter the Duchess of Sussex wrote to her estranged father.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision by a High Court judge that the duchess “had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the letter”.

However, the court said the duchess had shown an “unfortunate lapse of memory” when she apologised for forgetting that she had told one of her senior advisers to help the authors of a book about her and Prince Harry.

please log in to view this image

I
Meghan, 40, had sued Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) for breach of privacy and copyright after it published in February 2019 the contents of a handwritten letter she wrote to Thomas Markle in August 2018.

In a statement after the ruling, she said: “This is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what’s right. While this win is precedent-setting, what matters most is that we are now collectively brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that conditions people to be cruel and profits from the lies and pain that they create.

“Today, the courts ruled in my favour — again — cementing that The Mail on Sunday, owned by Lord Jonathan Rothermere, has broken the law. The courts have held the defendant to account and my hope is that we all begin to do the same. Because as far removed as it may seem from your personal life, it’s not. Tomorrow it could be you.”

please log in to view this image

Meghan denied that she thought it likely that her estranged father, Thomas, would leak the letter, but “merely recognised that this was a possibility”

Giving a summary of the decision, Sir Geoffrey Vos said: “The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision that the duchess had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the letter. Those contents were personal, private and not matters of legitimate public interest.

“The articles in The Mail on Sunday interfered with the duchess’s reasonable expectation of privacy and were not a justified or proportionate means of correcting inaccuracies about the letter.”

In todays’ ruling, Vos, Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Bean dismissed the appeal by ANL. Reading a summary of the decision, Vos said: “It was hard to see what evidence could have been adduced at trial that would have altered the situation.

“The judge had been in as good a position as any trial judge to look at the article in People magazine, the letter and The Mail On Sunday articles to decide if publication of the contents of the letter was appropriate to rebut the allegations against Mr Markle.

“The judge had correctly decided that, whilst it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter for that purpose, it was not necessary to publish half the contents of the letter as ANL had done.” The judges were told during the hearing that 585 out of 1,250 words had been republished in the five articles.

Meghan’s barristers argued that the letter was “deeply personal” and “self-evidently was intended to be kept private”. In her written evidence, the duchess denied she thought it likely that her father would leak the letter, but “merely recognised that this was a possibility”.

Jason Knauf, former communications secretary to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, claimed in a witness statement that Meghan wrote the letter with the understanding that it could be leaked.


He said she had sent him an early draft of the letter and had written: “Obviously everything I have drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked so I have been meticulous in my word choice, but please do let me know if anything stands out for you as a liability.”

In further texts released by the court, the duchess can be seen expressing her frustration about the response of the royal family, describing them as “constantly berating” Harry.

The Court of Appeal was also told that Knauf provided information to Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, the authors of the biography Finding Freedom, leading to Meghan apologising for misleading the court about whether he had given information.

Vos said: “The Court of Appeal said that this was, at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part.” However, he said it did not bear on the issues and had not featured in the newspaper’s argument in court.

Matthew Dando, a partner in the law firm Wiggin LLP, said it was troubling that Meghan had won a summary judgment without the case going to a full trial, with “very concerning consequences for freedom of expression”.

He continued: “By preventing key evidence being heard regarding the preparation of the duchess’ letter and its intended audience, the Court of Appeal has presumptively elevated the duchess’ privacy rights over matters of public interest and freedom of expression.

“This decision heightens concerns that privacy laws permit public figures selectively to determine what can be reported about them and manipulate the media narrative. It also sets a dangerous precedent that anyone arguing against that status quo may not even be entitled properly to test the claimant’s evidence in court.”


However Steven Heffer, head of media and privacy at Collyer Bristow, said it was “another bad loss” for the newspaper, which would face heavy costs as well as damages.

“Privacy law requires the court to balance the claimant’s right to privacy against the rights of the press to publish matters which are in the public interest, but this is not the same as what the public may be interested in reading.

“An individual has the right to a private life, and to keep information private, but the media has a right to publish information if there is a genuine public interest in the story. It is clear that the Mail failed to establish any such public interest in this case.”