Attachment:
33139074_10216460489129296_1642795793532321792_n.jpg
MaliA wrote:
Also: David Beckham bloody hell.
He is very smooth, isn't he.
Trooper, I thought the dress was pretty - you could see what they were trying to achieve but it just didn't look well made. It didn't seem to fit properly.
flis wrote:
Trooper, I thought the dress was pretty - you could see what they were trying to achieve but it just didn't look well made. It didn't seem to fit properly.
She probably did that thing where you go to the designer store to try it on, and then get the knock-off equivalent from the internet for a tenth of the price. The quality is never quite as good!
She'll fill into it.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/ ... 7792666624
Lovely.
Duke and Duchess of Sussex release official photographs from their wedding dayhttps://t.co/6yvDshkVs8 #RoyalWedding pic.twitter.com/NlbXy5xMft
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) May 21, 2018
Lovely.
MaliA wrote:
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/998566347792666624
Lovely.
Lovely.
I like this one too
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/ ... 4267231232
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were also photographed on the East Terrace, Windsor Castle. Their Royal Highnesses would like to thank everyone for their kind wishes and sharing in their special day #RoyalWedding pic.twitter.com/8Pu9HXtP4s
— The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) May 21, 2018
flis wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Also: David Beckham bloody hell.
He is very smooth, isn't he.
Trooper, I thought the dress was pretty - you could see what they were trying to achieve but it just didn't look well made. It didn't seem to fit properly.
Exactly that, it could have been elegant, but just looked cheap due to poor tailoring.
Warhead wrote:
Can’t wait for a proper Bad Lip Reading version of the event.
And here it is. I’m crying.
Very good 
Grim... wrote:
Very good
Do YOU feel like the best squirrel in the hole?
Always.
Who the fuck is Princess Eugenie?
And where's my invite? Eh?
And where's my invite? Eh?
We all know this is the real reason behind the 'cottage' meet.
MaliA wrote:
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1050501492376043530?s=09
I'm going to have a reading from 'Watership Down' at mine to ensure there's no dry eyes.
Zardoz wrote:
We all know this is the real reason behind the 'cottage' meet.
Quite.
Wow, GazChap got there early!
Not long now!
Zardoz wrote:
Wow, GazChap got there early!
I wondered what you were on about then... and then I saw it.
You have the power and you chose not to kill baby Hitler!
Maybe he went back and killed baby Colin Jefferson, and we are living in the best case possibility.
GazChap has caused Brexit.
Well, at the moment we're in a GazChap Brexit. Hopefully it'll stay that way.
It's a boy!
Hurrah!
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
It's a boy!
This means he'll be loved 30% more!
MaliA wrote:
Hurrah!
I thought you were Team Kate?
And named after the greatest goal scored in a world cup
Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor
Archie?
Are they planning on having Master, Beeb, and sickly Elec too?
Are they planning on having Master, Beeb, and sickly Elec too?
Danny Baker had not fired from 5 Live for a now-deleted tweet of two people holding a chimp between them with a caption relating to it being these royals and their new baby.
I have liked Danny Baker, but that was a foolish thing to do because of the racist connotations. He seems like a nice chap so I’d *hope* it was unthinking rather than targeted racism, but sheesh, I’d have thought he’d be a bit more thinking and savvy. He said it was a commentary on the similarities between royalty and a circus, or something but urgh.
I have liked Danny Baker, but that was a foolish thing to do because of the racist connotations. He seems like a nice chap so I’d *hope* it was unthinking rather than targeted racism, but sheesh, I’d have thought he’d be a bit more thinking and savvy. He said it was a commentary on the similarities between royalty and a circus, or something but urgh.
He's sincerely apologised and owned the mistake though
https://twitter.com/prodnose/status/1126425849631318018
Oh
No
The
Other
Thing
https://twitter.com/prodnose/status/1126425849631318018
The call to fire me from @bbc5live was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity. Took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah. Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits knees knocking. #Fuckem
— Danny Baker (@prodnose) May 9, 2019
Oh
No
The
Other
Thing
He did apologise and own up to the mistake, though. He just also thinks that they threw him under the bus for his mistake. I don’t think the two statements are mutually exclusive.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
He's sincerely apologised and owned the mistake though
Did he sincerely apologise? Because the tweets I saw were very much "it's all a fuss about nothing, if you're offended it's your own fault".
(Disclaimer: I did not trawl through his timeline - just saw what was retweeted into mine.)
Hard to read the sincerity of anything, but he said he sincerely apologised, said he made a grotesque mistake. I don’t know. Always difficult to gauge both intention and reaction/apology.
It’s disappointing, and very naive/stupid.
It’s disappointing, and very naive/stupid.
Jem wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
He's sincerely apologised and owned the mistake though
Did he sincerely apologise? Because the tweets I saw were very much "it's all a fuss about nothing, if you're offended it's your own fault".
(Disclaimer: I did not trawl through his timeline - just saw what was retweeted into mine.)
And I think DocG was being sarcastic.
He said he didn't realise that it could be taken in a racist context because his brain isn't "diseased".
DavPaz wrote:
He said he didn't realise that it could be taken in a racist context because his brain isn't "diseased".
Yeah, that’s a stupid thing to say.
Mimi wrote:
Jem wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
He's sincerely apologised and owned the mistake though
Did he sincerely apologise? Because the tweets I saw were very much "it's all a fuss about nothing, if you're offended it's your own fault".
(Disclaimer: I did not trawl through his timeline - just saw what was retweeted into mine.)
And I think DocG was being sarcastic.
Oh, might be time for me to have another coffee
Mimi wrote:
Jem wrote:
Did he sincerely apologise? Because the tweets I saw were very much "it's all a fuss about nothing, if you're offended it's your own fault".
And I think DocG was being sarcastic.Aye.
Jem wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Jem wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
He's sincerely apologised and owned the mistake though
Did he sincerely apologise? Because the tweets I saw were very much "it's all a fuss about nothing, if you're offended it's your own fault".
(Disclaimer: I did not trawl through his timeline - just saw what was retweeted into mine.)
And I think DocG was being sarcastic.
Oh, might be time for me to have another coffee
I’ve had a look over it and though I think it’s crass stupidity in Baker’s part (not because I judge him to be morally above the thinking, but because I’d think he was too media savvy to say such things if he’d foreseen a racist connotation as surely he’d know it was career suicide to not only make a racist post, but one directed at a royal. I think the firing was the only correct outcome. People would be rightly outraged if it came from a confirmed right-wing voice.
DavPaz wrote:
He said he didn't realise that it could be taken in a racist context because his brain isn't "diseased".
Yes. That.
"I didn't say a racist thing and if you see racism here it's because you're the racist" is a shitty thing to say.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
He said he didn't realise that it could be taken in a racist context because his brain isn't "diseased".
Yes. That.
"I didn't say a racist thing and if you see racism here it's because you're the racist" is a shitty thing to say.
I thought it was more a ‘I didn’t spot it as being racist as I don’t see colour’, which is equally stupid.
Ah, the old colour-blindness defence.
Mr Chonks wrote:
Ah, the old colour-blindness defence.
It's a crappy one, but I think the education system is partly to blame for that. In highly racially diverse schools growing up the emphasis was to see that we are all the same, and to not look at the colour of someone's skin, etc. I think there's a whole generation of kids that grew up being told that was the right thing, rather than the more honest 'yes, we are different, this is why and lets celebrate those differences and richness of the human race and experience'.
Mimi wrote:
Mr Chonks wrote:
Ah, the old colour-blindness defence.
It's a crappy one, but I think the education system is partly to blame for that. In highly racially diverse schools growing up the emphasis was to see that we are all the same, and to not look at the colour of someone's skin, etc. I think there's a whole generation of kids that grew up being told that was the right thing, rather than the more honest 'yes, we are different, this is why and lets celebrate those differences and richness of the human race and experience'.
Yeah, it was the internet that made me realise this was a terrible approach, and not that long ago tbh.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Jem wrote:
Did he sincerely apologise? Because the tweets I saw were very much "it's all a fuss about nothing, if you're offended it's your own fault".
And I think DocG was being sarcastic.Aye.
Sorry, it's been a long day
Mimi wrote:
Mr Chonks wrote:
Ah, the old colour-blindness defence.
It's a crappy one, but I think the education system is partly to blame for that. In highly racially diverse schools growing up the emphasis was to see that we are all the same, and to not look at the colour of someone's skin, etc. I think there's a whole generation of kids that grew up being told that was the right thing, rather than the more honest 'yes, we are different, this is why and lets celebrate those differences and richness of the human race and experience'.
Isn't one "we should treat everybody the same", and the other "we should treat people differently?"
MaliA wrote:
Isn't one "we should treat everybody the same", and the other "we should treat people differently?"
If you "treat everybody the same" you get equality of treatment, but not equality of outcome: