BigFatCoward Posted March 8 Author Share Posted March 8 @Heartofice Boris & Truss were even worse in power but your point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said: @Heartofice Boris & Truss were even worse in power but your point still stands. This you? https://www.facebook.com/reel/229750146796333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said: @Heartofice Boris & Truss were even worse in power but your point still stands. Well for both of those I don't think there was any massive dip or surprises, both were clearly terrible. May and Sunak I think dialled it up to a 1000 when they got the top job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 (edited) Sorry wrong thread. Edited March 8 by LongRider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 May while I unfit for the job was given a massive shit sandwich with Brexit. Cameron ran away, because he didn't want to get caught anywhere near the inevitable shitshow. Johnson for his part, was one of the chefs that prepared aforementioned shit sandwhich for May whom he also actively undermined, because he wanted her job. He was more or less the shadow primeminister after May's snap election fiasco. And while he might not have shaped the Tories in his own image (the rot preceded him and allowed him to rise), he certainly removed most "normal" (non-crazy/competent) people from his party. The Tory party in its current shape and form is a Brexit dividend. Johnson just removed the proverbial bottom of the barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) A colossal fuck-up by the royal family. RF: lots of speculation over Kate’s continued absence … that she’s had a breakdown, that William wants a divorce … let’s release a photo of her! *releases clearly manipulated photo that if nothing else, shows her not wearing her wedding ring. News outlets pull the photo* forgot link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972 Edited March 11 by Derfel Cadarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) Last night when this story was doing the rounds I thought it wasn’t even true, then its front page of the BBC this morning. The simplest explanation is that it was a bad photo that they tried to shop because their kids kept moving. The other one is that William is keeping Kate in a tower. Edited March 11 by Heartofice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Yeah, people edit photos all the time, half the pictures on instagram are probably edited at this stage. Bloody hell, so far as I can tell the entire ad campaign for the Google phone is based on it being good at editing photos. The story here isn’t ‘man edits family photo’ it’s that people are being really, really weird about this whole situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, ljkeane said: The story here isn’t ‘man edits family photo’ it’s that people are being really, really weird about this whole situation. This is obviously true, but it's also fair to say that when you're releasing a photo as a PR exercise, in part to prove that the person in it is okay, it turning out like this is a colossal fuckup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) 25 minutes ago, polishgenius said: This is obviously true, but it's also fair to say that when you're releasing a photo as a PR exercise, in part to prove that the person in it is okay, it turning out like this is a colossal fuckup. It's hard to think of a better way to drive the rumour mill into overdrive. At this point even I am thinking something is up! Apparently putting a 'kill notice' on a photo (pretty unfortunate term) is very rare, making it seem even more suspicious. Having said that I'm imagining that the Royal household has a bunch of middle aged, not technically proficient codgers working for it, who took the photo, 'shopped it, released it and didn't spot the error.. because they are old and their eyesight is going. Edited March 11 by Heartofice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) It probably is just a case of several photos being taken and merged into thr ‘best’, but when you’re trying to kill runours of a cover-up, releasing an edited photo is pouring petrol, not water, on the flames. Read on Twitter that apparently there will be a live appearance latrr, with cameras invited to film. So expect plenty of Weekend at Bernies memes. edit: Kare’s now claiming she was the one who edited. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68534359 Edited March 11 by Derfel Cadarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 30P Lee has fucked off to Reform. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68532602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Surprising very few I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loge Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Press agencies refuse edited photos for good reasons. Press photos are usually meant to document certain events, and once a picture has been touched by photoshop its documentary value is zero at best. Kate can post as many photoshopped pictures on Instagram as she wants but the press shouldn't touch them with a tentpole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 This might be one of the worst adverts for Google Pixel phone's smart editing software, if that's what this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 By ‘coincidence’, the Independent have published a profile on Rose Hanbury, William’s alleged mistress. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/sarah-rose-hanbury-duchess-cholmondeley-william-kate-b2510472.html#Echobox=1710067622 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 24 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said: By ‘coincidence’, the Independent have published a profile on Rose Hanbury, William’s alleged mistress. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/sarah-rose-hanbury-duchess-cholmondeley-william-kate-b2510472.html#Echobox=1710067622 That reads like a parody. 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley sounds absolutely made up. God I hate these people. AncalagonTheBlack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said: 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley sounds absolutely made up. I assumed it was some sort of Norman French name, but no, it's rooted in Old English but perhaps with Norman French orthography. maybe in how it ended up trying to fit the original Anglo-Saxon, Ceolmundleah, which meant "Ceolmund's clearing", Ceolmund being a personal name. Also, discovered that Cholmondeley is pronunced... as Chumley? Those always fascinate me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Pegging session gone horribly wrong. Allegedly. Week and maarsen 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts