Megan and Harry again!

In short; no.

apologies to NellG I took your remark out of context of your post.

Oopsadaisy1

*apologies to NellG * I took your remark out of context of your post.

No worries, I am a grumpy old bag today and taking everything a bit too personally - so my apologies too. Fairly sure I could win the lottery today and find fault! ?

MissAdventure

In short; no.

?

Apropos of the discussion yesterday about the television schedules and the broadcast of the forthcoming interview, MM 'is understood to have wanted the highly anticipated interview to be broadcast on Britain's main channel.' (Daily Telegraph).
This seems to indicate that the date was deliberately selected to clash with the Queen's Commonwealth speech.

To its credit, the BBC has refused to be involved in a bidding war, saying it could not justify spending a substantial amount of taxpayers' money on this interview, which will be covered on news channels.
I have no intention of watching the interview anyway, but I assumed it would only be broadcast in America.

She chose the day of the broadcast ?

What's the betting Tom Bradby (ITV) will be involved somewhere along the line?

Sorry to go on, but I've been pondering the Commonwealth/Women clash and just happened to mention it to family in New Zealand this morning.
New Zealand was actually the first country in the world to give women the vote, over 125 years ago. Meghan herself emphasised this on her NZ tour. The New Zealanders, in their own manner, loved her for it and applauded her for her principles.
Roll on 2 or 3 years and New Zealanders have now become more hostile to her. New Zealand, being a Commonwealth nation, has its principles too. They seem angry that Meghan has sidelined Harry in all this and the NZ press has turned on them too. It seems The Queen has won out down there already.

She's not coming out of this looking very good is she? Love that the BBC said no to the platforming. But unfortunately they'll probably schedule some equally awful twaddle, so I shan't uphold them saving my licence money too soon ?

See this is why those of us who are neutral on the whole thing get accused of attacking posters motives.
The Telegraph understands that MM wanted the interview shown on the main UK channel becomes "so she chose the date then"

This must have been what the Salem Witch Trials were like.

I saw Mistress Markle standing near a black cat!

Then she's in league with the Devil! Burn the witch!

No, I asked a question - ‘she chose the day of the broadcast ?

? This is a question mark, I asked a question,

Not guilty here, Alegrias. I said two pages ago, the date clash might well be "pure coincidence".
I am in tune with March 8th because it is actually my birthday. Or do you require evidence of that too?

You're the one who has posted "so she chose the date then" I'm not sure who you're supposed to be quoting Alegrias because no one else has said that.

Annie asked a question; "She chose the date of the broadcast?"

Perfect example Alegrias1 you've just changed she chose the day of the broadcast? into so she chose the date then totally different phrase.

We're nattering about a TV programme and someone's possible reasons for wanting it to be shown at a certain time- not condemning anyone to death Alegrias.

I'm always surprised that the 'neutrals' bother to comment at all, I mean, if you don't care either way, you don't care either way. If there's a need to moderate other opinions then you do care. If there's a need to support a perceived underdog then you do care.

If it's a concern that people are believing everything they read then that's a different issue, and might be better as a question?

Genuine question, because everyone's point has some value and is therefore worthy of a bit of thought:

Is discussion of a contentious figure a witch hunt? If so, what is the ultimate goal of said hunt? Are the people discussing it ultimately aiming for the elimination of the subject? Or are the said 'hunters' attempting to better understand a set of novel behaviours in another human?

Bearing in mind that it's not the 1600s, and last time I looked I wasn't posting as Goody Nell. ?

Ooooh, look Jeremy Vine is conducting a witch hunt a I type! ?

NellG that’s gracious of you thanks.
I must read through the posts properly in future.

NellG

We're nattering about a TV programme and someone's possible reasons for wanting it to be shown at a certain time- not condemning anyone to death Alegrias.

I'm always surprised that the 'neutrals' bother to comment at all, I mean, if you don't care either way, you don't care either way. If there's a need to moderate other opinions then you do care. If there's a need to support a perceived underdog then you do care.

If it's a concern that people are believing everything they read then that's a different issue, and might be better as a question?

BUt why shouldn’t “the neutrals” post ? It really sounds as if you want to police the thread and make sure nobody who isn’t anti Meghan and pro the queen is allowed to post .

“Just discussing a tv programme “. Oh yes of course. No criticism at all eh ? ?

Are you really "crying with laughter" Lucca ? It's interesting the emojis people choose for their posts, especially ones that need importing because they're not GN standards.

Well, as long as the interview is shown on a free-to-air channel, which I have read will be the case, I shall certainly watch it, and the Queen’s one as well.

I for one am very interested to hear what both the D&D of Sussex have to say.

Thank you all who recognised i had typed a question mark

Lucca if I've given you a laugh today then I have surely contributed more to the conversation than you have. Post where you like, post what you like. I think my comment was clear.

What is it with this site and the lack of comprehension skills? ? People are funny aren't they?

You're welcome Annie.

As you very well know Goody Nell, The Crucible was set at the time of the Salem Witch Trials but referred to the McCarthyite persecution of communists. In both scenarios, people who were condemned for being different and posing a threat to the status quo. The slightest perceived misdemeanour was jumped and on blown up to be a threat to society. In Salem it didn't matter if you were a good person or not, if someone took a dislike to you, that was it, the rest of society made sure you were dealt with.

So if your face didn't fit, you were for it. See any parallels?

That's why I post, not because I idolise MM in favour of the Queen, but because people draw conclusions and make their minds up about people without any understanding of their lives at all. Apparently even the absence of a question mark proves that you were talking s****.

Are these emojis acceptable to everyone?