Royal Lodge Will Not Be Given Up By Prince Andrew

King Charles is said to have no power to kick Prince Andrew out of his home at the Royal Lodge in Windsor, and sources say the Duke has no plans to vacate.

An insider claims the monarch will be unable to remove the disgraced royal from the property because his brother’s name is on the lease, not the royal family’s.

It’s been reported that the Royal Lodge had been lined up for Prince William and Kate to move into, but Andrew reportedly plans to honour the lease he signed in 2003, which expires in 75 years, by refusing to move out of the £30 million mansion.

This is despite alleged pressure from Buckingham Palace to move to Frogmore Cottage, a smaller dwelling on the Windsor estate once lived in by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

An insider, who’s in frequent contact with Andrew, told a newspaper outlet that the lease was in the duke’s name so no one could take that away from him, and they said that it has never been suggested that it could be taken away from him. 

And that this was a lease between Andrew and the Crown Estate, not a matter for the King. It was a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the only way they could move him out would be through an arrangement, he would have to agree.

A friend told a newspaper outlet that Andrew was feeling down and refusing to budge from the property, which was believed to have been set aside for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their three children.

The friend told the newspaper that Andrew was so fragile, and reports have swirled that Andrew has been in low spirits and even reclusive and that he was refusing to see anybody, and that this had been his family home for the past 20 years, was it really sensible to kick him out?

They added that he was concerned that now the Coronation was over, the knives would be out, and that he was worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there, but that they were dealing with human beings, not real estate.

And it’s widely understood that the Royal Lodge, once inhabited by the Queen Mother, has been earmarked for Prince William and his family.

Prince Andrew has a lease that’s legally binding, and if anybody else had a lease and they didn’t violate the terms and conditions would they give up their home? Of course not, and it’s no different in this case, and just because he’s a prince doesn’t count him out, it’s all about the legality of a document.

Prince William and his family have clearly no shortage of places to live, they have their pick and Prince Andrew should be left alone.

As long as the bills are paid there’s no reason why Prince Andrew shouldn’t be allowed to stay there, and besides once Prince William becomes king after his father’s death, William, Kate and family will likely live at Buckingham Palace. So, for the time being, they can remain where they are, which is a smaller property, where their children can have a more normal life because believe me once William becomes king, life for those children will alter dramatically.

However, due to our dire economic crisis, all the royals should be downgraded, and there’s no reason these royals need to be taxpayer funded. Turf them out and open up these historical sites to the public and tourists, and let the royals be self-sufficient like the rest of us!

Working From Home To Be Made A ‘Human Right’ As Part Of The Labour Election Manifesto

Labour plans to give people the legal freedom to work from home as part of its election manifesto, as well as making it easier for employees to strike.

The policy to make flexible working the default option is featured in an extensive inventory of proposals being formally weighed up, which has been leaked.

The key line purposes make flexible working the default from day one for all employees, except where it’s not reasonably possible.

It comes at a time when there are escalating fears that Britain’s poor productivity is having a damaging impact on economic recovery.

The position was first set out by the party in July 2021, when Angela Rayner, Labour’s Deputy Leader, said it wasn’t just about working from home but also broader flexible working rights.

Other examples include flexible hours, staggered hours, compressed hours, annualised hours, and flexibility around school runs and other family and caring commitments.

This sharply contrasts with the Conservative Party’s perspective, with prime ministers attempting to entice people back into the office after the Coronavirus pandemic.

Increasing the possibility of people working from home could endanger the motivation to improve the UK’s productivity, which trails behind some of the other major economies and is seen as essential for ensuring improved development in the long term.

In a further blow to those imperilled by the cost of living crisis, the Bank of England hiked interest rates up 0.25 percentage points to 4.5 per cent, a new 15-year high.

It is the 12th consecutive bump and a peak since October 2008, when the credit crunch sent the level tumbling.

It means that about 2.2 million people with variable-rate mortgages will face immediate increases in their bills.

The working-from-home policy was one of several bold proposals in the leaked 86-page policy handbook which had been circulated prior to Labour’s National Policy Forum (NPF).

The contents of the document were obtained and published by the Left-leaning political website Labour List.

A number of the policies in the document are not new and fit in with the party’s public perspective.

The document was newly circulated to stakeholders in the party, confirming that its policies are likely to be considered for the party’s next manifesto.

The NPF will be meeting to discuss the policies this summer and there will be further debate at Labour’s party conference this autumn.

Their Scroungers’ Rights Act was bad enough, now they want to add even more non-rights. It’s down to employers to determine work habits, not the Government.

The United Kingdom is a country that could theoretically reintroduce slavery, or at least completely abolish most basic workers’ rights.

The Tories are bad enough and I for one want them gone, but Labour is just as terrifying. This country is now past the tipping point. There are a handful of worthy politicians and our Government institution is working against the majority of British people.

And then we have Artificial Intelligence, which is more affordable than humans, and large companies couldn’t care less about decent customer service these days. If your job can be done from home, it can be done by Artificial Intelligence, and all employers will soon catch on.

Sir Keir Starmer is a positively dangerous person who will destroy the United Kingdom. In fact, he’s even madder than Jeremy Corbyn, simply because he’s got a legally trained mind, whatever that is. His policies just don’t add up because they’re sheer nonsense, but hey, go ahead, give him power and stand back and watch the UK slide down the drain.

Customers Are Furious After HP Disables Printers If Cheaper Ink Is Used

Hewlett Packard, or HP, have disabled the printers of customers who used ink cartridges from more affordable rival companies.

This sparked outrage after they issued a ‘firmware’ update blocking customers from using cheaper, non-HP ink cartridges in their printers.

HP printers won’t function now unless they’re fitted with the approved ink cartridges after they were remotely updated.

If the cartridges aren’t fitted with an HP microchip, which is generally more costly, the machine will refuse to print any documents.

HP ink cartridges can cost more than double the price of third-party offerings.

The printer company told a newspaper outlet it issued the update to decrease the risk of malware attacks, saying third-party cartridges that use non-HP chips or circuitry could pose risks to the hardware performance, print quality, and security.

According to their website, the printer company also blocked the use of other ink cartridges in order to maintain the integrity of their printing systems and safeguard their intellectual property.

Before the update, HP printers would issue an alter to customers when they didn’t use HP branded ink but now the devices won’t work at all if they’re used.

Many furious customers took to social media whining about the update claiming they felt cheated by the update.

Signing up for an HP ink subscription can set customers back by £4.49 a month to print 100 pages.

The subscription ranges from 99p for 10 pages per month to £22.40 for 700 pages.

It’s unclear which printer models are or will be impacted by this change in the end.

This isn’t the first time HP has angered its customers by blocking the use of other ink cartridges.

The company has been forced to pay out millions in compensation to customers in America, Australia and across Europe since it first introduced dynamic security measures back in 2016.

The easy solution would be, from now on never buy an HP printer.

It was a good printer and now it will stop working if you don’t buy the official cartridges. This is a rotten thing to do to people and hopefully, they will lose customers for doing it, but then they sell the printer at a loss because they can make more money from the ink that they sell. Sell a printer once, sell the ink for the lifespan of the printer.

Some ink printers come with attached ink wells on the outside that are refillable and you don’t even need to buy cartridges, which sounds like the best idea of all.

You can also make your cartridges refillable. All you have to do is purchase an ink kit with a syringe and fill the cartridge thereby getting around buying new cartridges and HP’s firmware.

Ink cartridges are gross polluters. In the United Kingdom, we dispose of 55 million toner and ink cartridges yearly but all of these could be recycled and reused – not very green, are they?

If you buy a printer or any commodity for that matter, does that not then mean that it’s your property? And does the manufactory of that item have the right to make alterations to it without your permission?

It appears that the plan is to ensure that you own nothing and that you will borrow, lease or rent everything in years to come – presented all for your benefit, of course, and companies love subscription-based sale models because they’re extremely profitable.

So, why would you buy from a manufacturer who does this? When you can buy other models, unless, of course, they also follow suit, then we will have no choice but to accept it.

We Are Brothers At War

The ongoing rivalry between Princes William and Harry might appear unusual in the level of public outrage it’s created.

Fuelled by apparently non-stop complaints from Montecito, most recently in the shape of Prince Harry’s new memoir Spare, it has definitely forged a torrent of bad publicity for The Firm, but this isn’t the first time the royal brothers have declared war, or that the consequences threatened to be so serious.

Ninety years ago there was a bitter falling out between two leading members of the Royal Family, brothers who, by the outbreak of the war, could barely stand the sight of each other.

The ingredients were tumultuous. This was a stand-off between a King, George VI, and, exceptionally, a former King, the Duke of Windsor, who had abdicated to marry the woman he loved.

The Duke was rumoured to have pro-Nazi sympathies that moved from the merely embarrassing to the potentially treacherous with the onset of the Second World War.

Prince Harry might have dressed up in a Nazi ensemble for a fancy dress party in 2005, but it was rumoured that the Duke had actually hoped to be restored as King by Adolf Hitler, had the German oppressor won the war.

These sets of warring brothers are not so many generations apart. George VI (or Bertie, as his family knew him) was great-grandfather to William and Harry, whilst his older brother David, who had briefly reigned as Edward VIII, was their great-great uncle, and the similarities with today’s generation are evident.

They include the high level of emotion that’s forever present with any sibling rift, a devastating loss of status brought on by a departure from royal life, fiercely intelligent divorcees looking to influence their husbands, and, underlying everything, as it always does, the question of money.

The month after Edward’s abdication, relations had looked as though they might remain cordial. The former monarch wrote to his brother, George VI, on January 17, 1937, to say the events of December were past history and that they had a future to look forward to. That George VI had his life as King to look forward to, and that Edward had attempted to make his succession as easy as possible. He also pledged that throughout his reign, which he hoped would be a long and grand one – for the rest of his life, he would do all in his power to support his brother to the best of his ability.

But, soon after he sent the letter, they started to argue furiously.

The first, and foremost, reason for this conflict was money.

The initial agreement between the brothers was that the Duke of Windsor would receive an annual allowance of £25,000, a sum paid straight from the king’s pocket. This would keep it a family matter and remove any risk of taxpayers financing the ever-controversial Wallis.

But the details of this circulated to the newspapers, probably via Edward, and that made George VI extremely upset, and he complained to the Duke that he hadn’t told anyone that they had even signed an agreement and that this was now public property.

It was also obvious that the former king had fibbed about his finances and that he’d squirrelled away as much as a million pounds from the Duchy of Cornwall, and George said that the rumour was that he’d preserved a very large sum from this source and that his brother must tell him whether this was so because when he signed the papers it was understood that he was going to be very badly off.

The difference in all of this is that Edward VIII was the heir and Harry has always been the spare.

Could you imagine William putting his hand in his pocket for his brother Harry? However, Charles continued to finance the Sussexes until the summer of 2020, somewhere in the region of 2.5 million.

William didn’t ask to be born first, but then Harry didn’t ask to be the spare. Very much like Princess Margaret was the spare.

Prince Harry isn’t the first and probably won’t be the last royal to encounter tribulations amid the frustrations at being the spare to the heir.

Of course, Princess Margaret was the spare for a long time, but she was completely devoted to the Queen, and I’m assuming all the indulgences that came with that devotion.

The only thing that she really complained about was that she wished she’d been better educated.

Lessons need to be learned for the new generations of royals because all they seem to do now is complain and winge. Previous generations lived through the war and had a truly perilous childhood, and the people that came out of it just felt extremely fortunate to be alive.

I know, I know. Now I’m banging on about previous generations and they were completely different from today’s generation, and it’s evident that Prince William’s standing and wealth are well established and secure – Harry’s will never be.

Some might say that Edward chose badly for a wife, the same as Harry has done, but he only chose badly because other people didn’t like her. However, the marriage lasted and they lived together until the end, unlike other royal couples who may not have divorced but live largely disconnected lives.

Perhaps if the Queen Mother had encouraged her husband to be slightly more accommodating in his attitude and they’d welcomed Wallis Simpson into their family, perhaps Edward could have been a support to his brother in his new role. Sadly the Queen Mother disliked him enormously and it seems that Edward was a weak man.

He probably tried out plenty of other women before settling on Wallis Simpson. Perhaps he saw her as an escape route from the burden of being King, and I’m pretty sure a role could have been found for them in the United Kingdom, but sadly divorcees were made an example of back in the day.

Save Our Pharmacies To Help Save The NHS

The announcement of an unprecedented expansion in healthcare services provided by high street pharmacies conveys the kind of fresh, revolutionary thinking the NHS needs to ensure its long-term survival.

For the first time, local chemists will be permitted to write prescriptions for seven common conditions, including earache, sore throats and urinary tract infections, without reference to a General Practitioner.

Nearly half a million women will be able to access oral contraception without having to talk to a practice nurse and blood pressure assessments will also be provided.

In all, the changes are expected to free up 15 million GP appointments for those with more serious illnesses. As well as cutting waiting times at GP surgeries. This should also reduce pressure on hospitals’ A&E departments, where numerous patients go by default because they’re unable to see their family doctor.

As the son of a community pharmacist and a GP, Rishi Sunak knows precisely how important this reform could be to fulfil his promise to cut NHS waiting lists, but there’s a massive snag. Owing to soaring wholesale medicine prices, the spike in energy and staffing costs, chronic government underfunding and late repayments, community pharmacies are engaged in a frantic fight for survival.

Almost 700 closed between 2015 and 2022, and with nine out of ten making a loss on dispensing medicines to NHS patients, the toll will only increase.

A newspaper outlet has campaigned passionately for government action to save our pharmacies before it’s too late. Contracts, unchanged since 2015, must be revised to reflect rocketing prices and repayment urgently speeded up.

Real-term funding levels have plunged by a staggering 30 per cent in those eight years. It’s an unsustainable situation. Local chemists provide a community lifeline, somewhere the elderly and unwell can go without an appointment and confide their concerns to a compassionate ear.

They’re only too willing to shoulder more of the burden put on the NHS but they just can’t do it without the necessary resources. Rishi Sunak should know that better than anyone, and if he wants these vital reforms to flourish, he must pay pharmacists a fair price for their efforts.

And good luck to the pharmacists because all those lonesome elderly people will probably be at their pharmacy every day, thus taking the pharmacist away from their job, so your medication will probably take longer to be checked.

Rather than paying General Practitioners for the number of patients on their books, they should be paid for each face-to-face consultation.

Also, they should stop this nonsense of only allowing 10 minutes for consultation because slightly more time spent on each patient could repeat fewer visits and perhaps achieve a more precise diagnosis.

Their working week should also include weekends, the same as it is for many of us, plebs. This might have a dramatic impact on the turnover at golf clubs, but hey ho someone has to suffer, but hopefully no longer their patients.

General practice GPs are in a state where the Government has not trained enough doctors and nurses for an extremely long time, and evidently, they’re not paying them enough for them to stay in the United Kingdom, although there are remaining doctors that work extremely hard, seeing more patients than ever before.

However, we have to remember that chemists remained open all through the pandemic, whilst doctors hid away.

Pharmacists tend to get to know their customers, unlike GPs of today, some of whom don’t even bother to read your notes.

Yet during the pandemic, some doctors were driving about in their posh cars, making a fortune during COVID.

First of all, we were told that the GP couldn’t see you go to A&E. Now it’s don’t go and see your GP, go and see a pharmacist. Then all the pharmacists will close because they’re too overburdened – then who will we see when we’re sick?

Falmouth Is Preparing To Refit A Giant Barge That Will House 500 Migrants

A giant barge that will accommodate 500 migrants has anchored in Cornwall, with ministers promising more vessels in the future.

The Bibby Stockholm arrived in Falmouth for renovations ahead of going into service next month.

It was towed from Italy and will now undergo safety checks as well as being refitted to increase the onboard capacity as it presently only has spaces for 200 people.

The vessel will be moved into position off Dorset in the middle of June, and used for single adult male asylum seekers.

Confirming the plan last month, immigration minister Robert Jenrick said it would help trim the £6 million a day cost of housing Channel migrants in hotels.

He also claimed it would help prevent the United Kingdom from becoming a magnet for asylum shoppers in Europe.

The Home Office said it was in discussion with other ports and further barges would be announced in due course.

The Bibby Stockholm barge will provide essential and practical accommodation as well as healthcare and catering facilities when it’s berthed at Portland in Dorset, according to the Home Office.

The Port of Portland is also set to welcome more than 40 cruise ships over the course of the year and usually announces arrival and departure dates on its website to allow residents and local businesses to prepare for busy periods.

But it’s now removed the dates, with a source telling a newspaper outlet that bosses feared far-Right activists would organise demonstrations when there were large numbers of tourists in the area to maximise their impact.

A Portland Port spokesman, when asked about the report, said: ‘All cruise calls are proceeding as normal at Portland Port but arrivals and departures are subject to change, as they are at any port.

‘Therefore, it is best to contact the cruise line involved for the most up-to-date information.’

There will also be round-the-clock security on board to ‘minimise the disruption to local communities’.

However, the Government is encountering stiff local opposition to positioning Bibby Stockholm at a favoured beauty site.

This is despite suggestions that local councils could be paid up to £3,500 per migrant to receive barges in their ports.

There has also been a backlash from charities and human rights campaigners who say the accommodation is not suitable for people escaping war.

The barges include a gym, games room and bar. It also has tasty nutritional food in its restaurant and Wi-Fi throughout the ship, but that’s no good really when thousands of migrants cross the channel every week, and the summer’s not even here yet.

But then what’s the solution, has anyone got one? I know, most of you will say, send them back.

There’s a chain of migrants coming to the United Kingdom from overseas, so who’s leading and handling this migration? And meanwhile our homeless are still homeless. Many of whom have served our country, whilst risking life and limb.

These people fought in wars and then they come back home and end up with nothing, but if you’re a migrant the United Kingdom will welcome you with open arms. I understand that some have come from war-torn countries, but if the shoe was on the other foot would they welcome us with such open arms? Perhaps there’s a hidden agenda!

People in the United Kingdom have paid towards something, whether it be tax or National Insurance all their lives, yet migrants come over to this country, get everything they need and haven’t paid a penny into the system, and it’s an absolute disgrace, and I really have no idea how this will end.

Our Government talk about sustainability. This is not sustainable and it’s not fair to British taxpayers!

Very Few Tears

Former Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams claimed there would have been very few tears shed in parts of Britain if Margaret Thatcher had been killed in the 1984 IRA bombing.

The Tory Prime Minister survived the Brighton attack, which occurred during the Conservative Party conference, claiming five lives and leaving 31 injured.

MP Sir Anthony Berry died, along with area chairman Eric Taylor, and the wives of three MPs, Lady Jeanne Shattock, Lady Muriel Maclean and Roberta Wakeham.

Margaret Thatcher’s suite was damaged, but she was unharmed in the horror.

But Gerry Adams said that there would have been very few tears shed for Margaret Thatcher in Republican Ireland or in many villages in Wales and working-class Scotland and England itself.

He said Margaret Thatcher was notorious following the deaths of IRA hunger strikers after refusing to meet their demands, and said she was masquerading as being somebody who was indomitable.

Challenged about the inflammatory remarks by ex-Tory MP Rory Stewart, himself a former British soldier, Gerry Adams said that he never went to war.

He said, “You came to me, you know. You came in, in khaki, and tanks. I think including the deaths of British soldiers and RUC officers- all those deaths are to be regretted.

“It’s a regrettable part of our history. And clearly for civilians, for them to be killed, it doesn’t matter if it was an accident or not. That’s even more regrettable, and thankfully we’re now out of all that, and we need to learn the lessons of it.”

The Northern Irish politician was discussing the Troubles in Northern Ireland on the Rest is Politics podcast, presented by Alistair Campbell and Mr Stewart.

Asked if he would have been happy if Margaret Thatcher died, Gerry Adams said, “Happiness or happy is not a term I would use. The fact is, there was a war.

“Margaret Thatcher was notorious, not just for her presiding over the deaths of the hunger strikers which could have been easily resolved, by very simple improvements in the prison regime.

“But also because she was upfront, and she was being the Iron Lady, and she was masquerading as being somebody who was indomitable, and so on.

“There would be very few tears shed for Margaret Thatcher in Republican Ireland, or in many villages in Wales and working-class Scotland and England itself.

“But, it’s done, it’s over, it’s gone. All of that was in the past.”

Sadly, Margaret Thatcher started the decay and destruction of what was once a great country, the United Kingdom, but we can all go on about our yesterday’s, as long as that doesn’t bleed into our present day. However, it did because Margaret Thatcher started a movement against the workers and people praised it.

Most things are fading from our society before our very eyes, and it’s an indisputable fact that the major problems we face today lead straight back to the Thatcher years.

She sold most of our utilities such as water, gas, electricity, railways and social housing.

Under her watch the coal industry was destroyed and industrial production was relegated to the margins of economic activity.

Her creed was greed and good old selfish interest because as far as she was concerned there was no such thing as society.

She was a rabid class bigot and amazingly ignorant of both fiscal and monetary policy, and she was a catastrophe for this country, and now we’re reaping the consequence of her social and economic policies, but of course, Margaret Thatcher couldn’t have done all that she did without the help of like-minded politicians and members of the public that voted the Conservatives into office.

Meghan: Who Is She?

Who is Meghan Markle and why is she so despised? Well, there are few celebs in the world that divide opinion quite like Meghan, but she also has a large amount of both dedicated critics and ardent defenders and while both groups agree that Meghan is disliked in some quarters, they each have radically different reasons for why this is the case.

Defenders of Meghan Markle see the attacks on her as being motivated by prejudices such as racism, sexism and snobbery, which have been fuelled by the ruthless British institution and insensitive media culture.

Many have said that she’s a privileged person who plays the victim. Meghan was never privileged, she had to work hard to get where she was before she met Harry. Nothing comes easy in this life unless we work extraordinarily hard for it and that’s precisely what she did, but she has a fearless nature and that helped as well as being extremely straightforward – nothing wrong with that, but some people feel that makes her a drama queen and diva.

She might have grown up in Los Angeles, but numerous critics have said that she came from the wrong side of the tracks – hardly. Her mother was a make-up artist and her father was an Emmy Award-winning television lighting director and director of photography.

Meghan is mixed race, and that’s a problem how? But it was a problem for other people when they were criticising her in the media. Another gossip for the media pundits who obviously had nothing better to do with their time, but of course, snapping pictures of her and Harry makes them bags of money and they don’t care who they hurt in the process.

Her parents separated when she was two years old and divorced four years later, and although that likely didn’t have an impact on her at that age, it must have been challenging for her as she got older, but she has an extremely close relationship with her mother.

Her father worked as a director of photography and lighting for numerous sitcoms and Meghan would sometimes visit the set, but she’s now estranged from her father and paternal half-siblings, Samantha Markle and Thomas Markle and both parents contributed to raising her until the age of 9 years old, after which her father was left in charge of caring for her as her mother pursued a career.

Meghan Markle isn’t the kind of person that people make her out to be. She’s kind and idealistic, and she strives to support people and help them reach their potential, and she will go above and beyond for friends, family and those in need.

She is a natural-born leader.

She’s beautiful, intelligent and has taken the world by storm.

She’s insanely intelligent and poised, but also extremely cautious, which isn’t surprising with what she’s had to go through with the media.

Meghan has been described as ‘Hurricane Meghan’ and the ‘Difficult Duchess’ because she reportedly threw a tantrum after she was not permitted to wear a specific tiara on her wedding day. Whether this is true or not, it was her wedding day, the most special day of a woman’s life and she should be allowed to wear what she damn well likes.

Racial prejudice is the elephant in the room, as far as many of Meghan Markle’s defenders are concerned it’s one that she has to bear. Nobody should have to tolerate racial prejudice, it’s criminal and numerous people outside of that would be arrested, so why shouldn’t those that do be arrested?

Meghan married into the Royal Family which was built on the idea of a strict social hierarchy. She was an American commoner, who was also a divorcee and she was never going to be accepted by the haughty royals, especially with Meghan’s more contemporary and egalitarian perspective, which was a threat to their sober and privy world.

What the royals actually wanted was for Meghan to be more like Kate and conduct herself with a degree of passivity and conformism, but Meghan is a strong woman and many resented that.

Feminism was never going to sit well with the British royals and it’s only fairly recently that they ultimately came around to making the rules of succession equal for men and women.

There was always a sense that Meghan was a foreigner when she married into the Royal Family and she was never completely accepted, not really! And of course, the people of the United Kingdom were always going to side with the royal establishment, and they were never going to have any compassion towards Meghan Markle.

Much of the abuse directed against Meghan Markle was generated and fuelled by the media and the negativity shown towards Meghan made money, it sells newspapers and drew in more viewers for shows.

While no public figures can expect to be immune from criticism, the level of outrage that the British tabloids directed towards Meghan was disturbing. If Meghan goes to a royal event, the media seethed, if she stays at home, they’re livid. There appears to be nothing that she can do that will satisfy the media.

And as with all controversial celebs, people will pick a side.

The Brothers Are Still Worlds Apart

Prince Harry wore an uneasy smile on his face today as he watched the Coronation of King Charles III from his seat in the third row, while his brother Prince William was at the front alongside his radiant wife Kate Middleton.

But this is what transpires when you no longer want to be part of Royalty. Harry is no longer a royal and therefore sits further back, but then he is the ‘spare’ and he was never going to be in line for being king, but their mother would have been so sad to have seen how distant the two brothers now are and she wouldn’t have wanted that for them and would have wanted the two brothers to be close, but that wasn’t to be.

I can sort of understand the logic behind why Harry would want to bash the Royal Family, but he and Meghan made money out of it. Perhaps it would have been better if they’d bestowed that money to some charities and not their own pockets. At least that way they wouldn’t have appeared so hostile.

However, it is the Royal Family and it’s not like they’ve not had multiple scandals before. Prince Andrew was one of them, but they just kept calm and carried on – a stiff upper lip, so to speak!

The King didn’t need a Coronation. It’s nice and all that, but this coronation would have cost many millions of pounds, and the bill will have largely been footed by the UK taxpayers at a time when we have the cost of living crisis. 

Let’s face it, the King isn’t young by any means. Had he been younger, maybe his coronation would have been more fitting.

Yet here we are on the day of the coronation of King Charles III, along with much of the population. I won’t be celebrating and a YouGov poll revealed that 64 per cent of the people don’t actually care very much at all about this event, while only 9 per cent care a great deal.

Why are we having a coronation anyway? No other European monarchy bothers. The last one in Spain was in 1555.

There’s no legal need for a coronation. Charles is King with or without it. So, the only reason for its real purpose is to stage a gigantic candy floss PR event for the Royals and probably a good old piss-up afterwards, and of course, it will bring in tourists and royal supporters, along with the golden coaches, and King, but this isn’t Disney World!

But whether you like Charles or not he is our King.

Bosses At Google Ban Staff From Using Terms Such As ‘Man Hours’, ‘You Guys’, ‘Blacklist’ And ‘Chubby’

It’s been said that Google bosses have asked UK staff to stop using common terms including ‘man hours’ and ‘you guys’.

The US tech goliath set out a new inclusive language dossier which includes modifications to vocabulary.

Several words targetted by Google chiefs include, ‘whitelist’, Blackhole’, ‘blacklist’ and ‘black box’, as well as ‘chubby’, and to abstain from describing people or things as ‘crazy, bonkers or mad’.

Tory MP Nigel Mills called the changes woke nonsense and that he didn’t know where people found the time to come up with this sort of thing, and that we shouldn’t be ditching words and phrases used for a generation just because some snowflakes might get impacted.

Meanwhile, a Google worker told a newspaper outlet that staff had ignored the guide and concentrated on getting on with their jobs.

They revealed that they were much too busy to be worried about whether some totally innocuous phrase that’s been used for years might upset someone somewhere.

Google has said its dossier only provided editorial guidelines for writing clear and consistent Google-related developer documentation.

A newspaper outlet has reached out to Google for more information on the latest guidelines.

It’s not the first time the search engine has lurched into wokery either.

Last year, Google launched an inclusive language function designed to sidestep the use of politically incorrect words.

Users typing ‘landlord’ will see a warning that it ‘may not be inclusive to all readers’ with the suggestion they should try ‘property owner’ or ‘proprietor’ instead.

The word ‘humankind’ was a suggested alternative to what the online giant seemingly sees as the controversial term ‘mankind’.

Gender-specific terms such as ‘policemen’ or ‘housewife’ were also replaced by ‘police officers’ and ‘stay-at-home spouse’, according to the new Google Document style programme.

I’m sure that people who rent out properties routinely describe themselves as a ‘landlord’ and would be surprised that they’re actually being politically incorrect, but then I’d doubt that they would care and would be more concerned about treating their tenants fairly, even though we do know that some don’t actually care at all.

I mean, why don’t we just prohibit the use of English completely? And here’s a message to Google. You guys are crazy, mad and bonkers and should be blacklisted because after all, what gives them the right to ban language? It looks like lunatics have taken over, and this is manifestly Orwellian.

Woke is an adjective emanating from African American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning ‘alert to racial prejudice and discrimination’.

Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader understanding of social inequalities such as sexism and has also been used as shorthand for American Left views concerning identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.

Before that, not one person was ever bothered or offended, yet a few loons suddenly made a noise, they were accommodated and they pushed to try to end any meaning that had a reference to sex, colour et cetera, and now long are the days gone by, when life was just easier and we could have a laugh without being sued, and now these pathetic organisation’s are gradually removing any expression from our vocabulary that has been expressed for generations.

All this gibberish is just fuelling an already antagonistic and separated society when in fact, we should be cultivating a more harmonious and inclusive society, and Google must have used a lot of manhours to create this kind of blacklist of phrases, have they nothing better to do with their time?

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started