Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

First Official Portrait of Kate Middleton

If she has been medicated with high dose steroids...she probably wouldn't want to be photographed and she would be vulnerable to infections so would not be mixing much.
Speaking from personal experience of 120mg Prednisolone...my face was massive for a long time..even after doses reduced to maintenance doses. It can take a very long time to slowly wean off high dose steroids and can take a long time for the moonface to go.
Even if she was only on 40mg she would still get the moonface and would need to mind herself as regards mixing with lots of people .. picking up infections etc.

If that's the situation, she could well be out of action for the rest of the year.
 
The last thing I'd ever want to do is to join the conspiracy theory brigade, but a very good friend of many years, in no way a conspiracy nutjob herself, who has worked in the newspaper industry for over twenty years, regularly tells me the word among sub-editors and non-senior manager staff at all the major papers is that D-notices are regularly issued to stop certain unpleasant stories from being published if they concern William.

You might think that is true or bullshit. But the fact remains that the British press, always happy to publish saucy gossip even if not remotely proven, has never, ever once to my knowledge published any headlines, let alone the various photographs available on foreign news outlets, that outright suggest William is having an affair. And it's not as if all the Royals are offlimits about affairs or indiscretions; see Fergie, Diana, etc. And yet, you have media outlets in the US or Continental Europe publishing pics of William seemly kissing his mistress in a nightclub, or widespread reports of them being spotted having dinner on Valentine's Day, and there is litereally not a fucking pip in this country. Nothing whatsoever. Even to this day, the mainstream media only dares to mention Rose Hanbury criptically, and without identifying her as even a possible love interest. Hell, I just googled 'william mistress', and as far as I can see, not a single fucking story in the first page of results comes from a UK-based outlet. Not one.

What the actual fuck??
 
Yes, Yelland in the BBC programme cited above talked about the omertà of the British press wrt certain members of the Firm. (He didn't use the precise term.) There was no mention of what the suppressed stories might be, only that everyone knew they existed. As for That Photo, it was put down to a mixture of naivety, incompetence and panic. That you had to go outside the British press to see how bad the PR disaster actually is. And that the damage to confidence in the institution worldwide is going to be very hard to come back from.

Well, maybe at last it's just being seen for the sham it really is.
 
This country and this obsessive royal gossip/bullshit we have to endure. I wouldn't even care about having a monarchy if Britain could just keep it in check like the Dutch and the Scandi nations, but NO we have to have this constant fucking drivel, week after week. Load of bollocks.
 
bluescreen said:
Yes, Yelland in the BBC programme cited above talked about the omertà of the British press wrt certain members of the Firm. (He didn't use the precise term.) There was no mention of what the suppressed stories might be, only that everyone knew they existed. As for That Photo, it was put down to a mixture of naivety, incompetence and panic. That you had to go outside the British press to see how bad the PR disaster actually is. And that the damage to confidence in the institution worldwide is going to be very hard to come back from.

Well, maybe at last it's just being seen for the sham it really is.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, much as I hate the institution of the monarchy, I couldn't care less about any consensual extramarital activities, and I fucking despise the British press' unchecked privacy intrusions wrapped about the saintly concept of 'Western democracy press freedom' they use as an excuse. I'd rather they didn't or even that they weren't allowed unless there was a genuine public interest reason (which in fact some might argue would apply to the future head of the Church of England and defender of the faith).

But we can't be fucking preaching to anyone whether domestically or to Johnny Foreigner about the wonderful unrestricted free press we have when in fact that's nothing of the sort. Even the likes of the Guardian, Independent or Mirror, which at the least can be described as left of centre and/or no Establishment arse kissers, have never dared to publish anything about it. There fucking is media suppression in this country, whether legally imposed or as a gentlemen's agreement in the industry. Which has long been a laughing stock among every other Western nation on earth, whereas in here the media pretend it's not happenning even in the era of internet communications.
 
T & P said:
But we can't be fucking preaching to anyone whether domestically or to Johnny Foreigner about the wonderful unrestricted free press we have when in fact that's nothing of the sort. Even the likes of the Guardian, Independent or Mirror, which at the least can be described as left of centre and/or no Establishment arse kissers, have never dared to publish anything about it.
Click to expand...

Its a combination of maintaining access on one level (all those pre-arranged photo shoots of little whatshisface going to nursery etc), and unit shifting because the sort of people who still buy newspapers are largely pro-monarchy and can't get enough of it so why kill off what remains of your fledgling print business? Not to mention risk aversion on a legal level to publishing hearsay about affairs and pegging kinks and whatnot. Those papers have a lot to lose from miscalculating their readership.
 
TBF that picture of the kiss (which ive just googled) looks nothing like a kiss, the dinner on valentine's day has zero evidence, the pegging is clearly rumour overdrive...im not sure what you want the press to be reporting here? dont really follow the argument of why oh why arent they publishing airballs. They hack the royals mobiles, hardly a gentlemans agreement is it. If theres any real dirt with substance they will pile in for sure
 
skyscraper101 said:
Its a combination of maintaining access on one level (all those pre-arranged photo shoots of little whatshisface going to nursery etc), and unit shifting because the sort of people who still buy newspapers are largely pro-monarchy and can't get enough of it so why kill off what remains of your fledgling print business? Not to mention risk aversion on a legal level to publishing hearsay about affairs and pegging kinks and whatnot. Those papers have a lot to lose from miscalculating their readership.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree, but it's also pretty well embedded in the fabric of the state. Oaths and ceremonies in parliament, the army? not sure you get many left republican police who last very long either. So the press is tied to that fortress too. Go against it and you make yourself a target and many will compromise more or less enthusiastically on that basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ska invita
A new mass party of the left (Jan 2025 edition)! Collective / Fightback
2
Replies
52
Views
1K
Eric Jarvis
Eric Jarvis
Nigel
First Sikh Court To Be Established In Britain: London
Replies
15
Views
842
tonysingh
tonysingh
NoXion
Porridge and crumpets included on extensive list of foods banned from TV ads before 9pm
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
3K
Happy Tree
Happy Tree
S
How should the non-party political left respond to the rise of the far right?
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
inva
I
editor
Cyber-flasher first to be jailed for new offence after WhatsApp pic
Replies
11
Views
787
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
Back
Top Bottom