Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brenda's Wealth Shock

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I dunno about that

    I don't see a lot of sleb fluff in the Grauniad (particularly about the royals), just as I don't see a lot of work investigative long reads in the Express

    Though I can see how that "model" works in Murdochlandia (though from what I know about their corporate structure, each title is supposed to stand on its own bottom).
    Last edited by ursus arctos; 15-02-2021, 16:01.

    Comment


      And just to be clear I'm not complaining (much) about the existence of the occasional story about the royal family, rather a headline about "Meghan" (rather than Meghan Markle or whatever her official title is)

      Comment


        I do wonder how much Search Engine Optimisation drives that kind of thing

        Comment


          So briefly

          (just) Megan: irritating but rare at least in the Guardian

          Her Royal Highness Duchess of Sussex, Baroness Kilkeel* blah blah: infantile and pretty widespread

          * poetically where the Mountains of Mourne sweep down to the sea, prosaically a dreary post Brexit fishing port.My granny called it Kick the Pope Town

          Comment


            It's not rare that's my point. I've seen two headlines on the app in the space of the last few days.

            Look like you say it's minor and trivial in the grand scheme of things and you think it's obviously entirely fine, but it grates on me. That's all.

            Comment


              It seems to be official Grauniad style in a way that I don't really understand

              https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...hess-of-sussex

              https://www.theguardian.com/uk/duchess-of-cambridge

              Comment


                Originally posted by ad hoc View Post
                And just to be clear I'm not complaining (much) about the existence of the occasional story about the royal family, rather a headline about "Meghan" (rather than Meghan Markle or whatever her official title is)
                I think this is actually the problem - no one really knows what her last name is. Is it Markle? I would think becoming a royal required her giving up her last name. Her and Harry gave up Prince and Princess titles, which is the normal way out of using a royal last name. So they have kind of ended up as Meghan and Harry.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Duncan Gardner View Post
                  The sleb fluff stories pay for the long reads (like the one that inspired this thread) and other serious journalism. Or as Cilla Black put it "There's no costume drama without Blind Date"

                  I'm more irritated by media insistence on using their absurd titles, rankings etc
                  Our style guide insists we refer to Lords and Knights as Lord and Sir. FFS. It feels so obsequious, especially since we don’t use Dr. or Prof.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by caja-dglh View Post

                    I think this is actually the problem - no one really knows what her last name is. Is it Markle? I would think becoming a royal required her giving up her last name. Her and Harry gave up Prince and Princess titles, which is the normal way out of using a royal last name. So they have kind of ended up as Meghan and Harry.
                    It’s Windsor-Mountbatten, isn’t it?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Duncan Gardner View Post

                      Ever since seeing 12 Angry Men as a kid I've thought that the jury system is silly. We don't call in random people off the street to sort out our dentistry or accountancy...
                      Serving on a jury gave me a lot more faith in the system. The guy definitely did what he was accused of, but there was a real debate about whether to pronounce him guilty because of the consequences (ie a prison sentence)

                      Comment


                        US juries are generally kept in the dark as to the range of sentences that their verdict may trigger for just that reason

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by caja-dglh View Post

                          I think this is actually the problem - no one really knows what her last name is. Is it Markle? I would think becoming a royal required her giving up her last name. Her and Harry gave up Prince and Princess titles, which is the normal way out of using a royal last name. So they have kind of ended up as Meghan and Harry.
                          There has been a tendency by the royal PR machine to push the younger royals by their first names - Will and Kate, Harry, and now Meghan.

                          But my gut feeling is that Meghan never got the full honorifics because she was black (and to a lesser extent American) and therefore not a 'proper royal' in the eyes of the frightful entitled royalfanz who make football fans look sensible and rational.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                            US juries are generally kept in the dark as to the range of sentences that their verdict may trigger for just that reason
                            Their defence isn't allowed to reference potential sentencing during the trial?

                            Comment


                              Generally not, as it is considered prejudicial to the prosecution

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post

                                Our style guide insists we refer to Lords and Knights as Lord and Sir. FFS. It feels so obsequious, especially since we don’t use Dr. or Prof.
                                How odd, given that the latter will have earned the titles through study and achievement, as opposed to a lot of the former.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                  US juries are generally kept in the dark as to the range of sentences that their verdict may trigger for just that reason
                                  But this would be publicly available information, surely?
                                  Last edited by Sporting; 16-02-2021, 10:06.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post

                                    Serving on a jury gave me a lot more faith in the system. The guy definitely did what he was accused of, but there was a real debate about whether to pronounce him guilty because of the consequences (ie a prison sentence)
                                    Specialist trained and experienced magistrates or judges could do that. I think their expertise outweighs that they're more likely to be golf club bores who are naive about Police failings

                                    Anyway M & H are set to do a confessional with Emily Maitlis (ok, Oprah)

                                    More chart updates. Embryo Tindall set to go straight in to the top 30

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Sporting View Post

                                      But this would be publicly available information, surely?
                                      Yes, but not necessarily easy to find or interpret for the uninitiated, while many judges discourage jurors from doing exactly that kind of research to the point of declaring a mistrial

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X