I'm surprised it's only one of them.

dynamiteReady wrote:

Markle shouldn't be making allegations of racism unless she's prepared to back them up and be specific.

The accusation doesn't need backing up. I don't think anyone questions the credibility of this. It's sensitive, because technically, they're still family. Not everyone would seek a reconciliation in this instance, but I would suggest she's holding back for Harry's sake, and the kids. I personally think it's either Camilla, or Phillip.  I also shouldn't care, but in the long and tragic history of modern era racism, this is actually a seismic event.

I didn't really mean 'back up' as if she has to prove something. She didn't say who it was because it would be damaging to them. But what's happened instead is now they've all got the taint of it on them, which is more damaging. As per the bit I've bolded, at least one of those two is innocent and now got the accusation of racism swirling around them.

monkey wrote:

As per the bit I've bolded, at least one of those two is innocent and now got the accusation of racism swirling around them.

I see your point. 

Not sure how smart they are about this, but often with racism, you get bystanders who construct convoluted defences, or hide behind an implied silence. But here, we now all know something was most certainly said, and now the onus is on the perpetrator(s) to stand up for themselves, or for the 'Institution' to cover it up.

When you think about it, we will actually get more information this way.

I'd personally want to do the same thing.
You're also offering a chance of redemption here.

dynamiteReady wrote:

monkey wrote:

As per the bit I've bolded, at least one of those two is innocent and now got the accusation of racism swirling around them.

I see your point.  Not sure how smart they are about this, but often with racism, you get bystanders who construct convoluted defences, or hide behind an implied silence. But here, we now all know something was most certainly said, and now the onus is on the perpetrator(s) to stand up for themselves, or for the 'Institution' to cover it up. When you think about it, we will actually get more information this way. I'd personally want to do the same thing. You're also offering a chance of redemption here.

How do you know this?

g.man wrote:

As per the bit I've bolded, at least one of those two is innocent and now got the accusation of racism swirling around them.

I see your point.  Not sure how smart they are about this, but often with racism, you get bystanders who construct convoluted defences, or hide behind an implied silence. But here, we now all know something was most certainly said, and now the onus is on the perpetrator(s) to stand up for themselves, or for the 'Institution' to cover it up. When you think about it, we will actually get more information this way. I'd personally want to do the same thing. You're also offering a chance of redemption here.

How do you know this?

That's true. I don't. I'm taking a hunch based on the slow response to this, and a number of other intangibles (namely Harry's position).
The ponce of wails was out on his trails today. If there was no issue, a simple denial would have put the pressure back on Meghan.

monkey wrote:

Yeah you're right, the same thing cuts both ways. If it's damaging to the whole family, the right thing to do now is for the racist to step forward and take the heat.

It's the royal family anyway... if this is as "shocking" and "incendiary" as the Daily Mail makes out, then a "shocking" response, to most of us, will be an honest one.

But given the fact that Prince Andrew was sneaking out criminal defence statements under the cover of this whirlwind of shite, I'm expecting no real direct response, and a leak in a fortnight's time.

I think it is important to know because this particular type or niche of racism is very old school.

It isn't the cultural racism that persists today even into younger generations. The type that says black communities do this, you are black so you must behave in that way.


I would tie it in much closer to stuff like eugenics, treating people of other races as a sub-species. The type of racism that justifies slavery. The type that clearly implies races should not mix and doing so is akin to sleeping with an animal.

There is no justification for either of course but the latter is very outdated and would be typically be spewed by older generations as a hangover to when it was culturally acceptable. This is why I think most assumed it was Phillip. If that came out of the mouth of William or Kate I would find that to be much more troubling as it simply isn't a way of thinking that would ever have been common in their lifetimes. It would have to be a strongly held view and they would have to air it knowing it is culturally unacceptable.

monkey wrote:

As per the bit I've bolded, at least one of those two is innocent

Not necessarily...

Jimmy buckets can drop him at training, I really wouldn't mind.

And yet Jason Williams exists. So there's that.

Craig hodges story is the scary inverse.

If we're talking historical, just listened to the Rick Barry book of Bball pod. 70s racism is quite a thing.

Yeah, I couldn't work it out either. Also lol at starring out bitch.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/gab-hack-neo-nazis-qanon-conspiracy-theories

Bigots aren't real good with tech hey.

Beware: diabetes can make you racist

https://twitter.com/BryanAGraham/status/1370519182387916801?s=19

Or maybe it's passing basketball that does?

what

That is one hell of a face turn! Wasn't it the mail who had all those awful articles and posts when she was pregnant which looked even worse compared to the ones they printed for Kate during her pregnancy?

And why the fuck did I type Kate? I don't know the person ffs. Damn celebrity culture...

Daily Mail being hypocritical, lying cunts? Hardly surprising. Why bother even mentioning? I think left leaning people get more entertainment out of the rag than anyone, tbh.