|
Hm, namelessone.
I did not say "I [Caroline] must be bias[ed] hence I'm against paying for the security"
(Bias is a noun. Biased is an adjective. This is something I should add to Sharron's "Better Grammar" thread
https://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/general_chat/thread/1381500
as an increasingly widespread error!)
I did not say that being against paying for security was a result of bias. Period. That does not even make sense.
I plainly meant that getting one's news and views from right-wing sources can be dangerous. In this case, there is really no reason to believe that Canada would pay for this couple's security, and really has never been any reason to think that. Off the cuff remarks are just not really the best basis for outrage, particularly when they are reported third-hand and with no credible and reliable confirmation:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/canada-security-bill-harry-meghan-justin-trudeau-a4332906.html
"has privately assured the Queen that Harry, Meghan and Archie’s safety will not be jeopardised while they reside there"
Not exactly an Order in Council.
Anyway, I really have never been able to discuss anything with anybody who puts words in others' mouths, and it does look like this debate has run its course. :-)
|
|
Personally, I find the left wing press as bad as the right wing press.
|
|
There's a left wing newspaper?! ( aside from the Morning star...which I was quite surprised to see the co op here stocks...just noticed it today) . I suppose the Big Issue is fairly left, but it doesn't count as a newspaper, though I find it very interesting...Private Eye? But then they are just as scathing about the left and right :-)
Noticed also The Sun front page "Did Meg try to upstage Kate's Day"...well forgive me but that sentence implies that she did before you even read past it.... Does anyone care?! ( Not that I would ever buy the Sun for obvious reasons!)
|
|
I think it's time postings on this thread cooled down a little bit, and accusations as to who said what or what was meant stop..
We've all seen on TV and/or read in various media reports as to what might/wil/should happen.
We've all seen reports that security costs could/should be shared between te UK and Canada.
None of us knows what the truth is, and won't until an announcement if made from Buckingham Palace, H&M, Trudeau. Metropolitan Police, the Mounties, or whoever
It's not worth us getting all knotted up.
Let's forget and forgive which of us reads right-wing press, who reads only left-wing publications, or those of us who try to read or see both sides.
-------------------------------------------------
FWIW ..................
Most Canadian media are reporting that BC's Privacy Commissioner has said that the media should practise "media civility". The following link is to the Globe and Mail, but CBC, Global TV, CTV, Vancouver Sun, National Post, etc are all reporting the same thing, so I'm pretty certain that it is accurate reporting no matter which side they're on ...........
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-bc-privacy-commissioner-suggests-media-civility-for-prince-harry-and/
The following are quotes that I've taken verbatim from the report in the Globe and Mail.
"Media outlets in Canada should practise civility and self-regulation in respecting the privacy rights of Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, says British Columbia’s privacy commissioner.
Michael McEvoy said Wednesday media freedoms in Canada are vast and paramount to ensure a free press, but the couple’s privacy should be a consideration as they take up residence near Victoria."
.
.
"B.C.’s Personal Information Protection Act restricts private organizations, including corporations, unions and political parties, from disclosing the personal information of individuals, but the act does not apply to the collection of information for a “journalistic or literary purpose,” McEvoy said.
B.C.’s Privacy Act allows individuals who believe their privacy has been invaded to go to court, but the law has not been well tested, he said.
“It’s an open question whether that legislation would provide a remedy to royals or anybody else who wants to exercise it,” said McEvoy."
.
.
"Alfred Hermida, a journalism professor at the University of British Columbia who worked as a reporter in the U.K., said the royal couple are hot news and they should expect to be making headlines when they step out in public.
“It’s really complex, really complicated because the law is not clear cut here,” he said. “Press coverage of this is this thin line of what is in the public interest and whether you’ve breached that just to have photos that are interesting to the public and will sell newspapers or get clicks.”
Hermida said there is a long tradition in the U.K. of media of investigating and exposing the private lives of well-known people, but that approach is not as prevalent in Canada.
“Taking a walk in the park and having their picture plastered across the world’s media, is that an intrusion that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person?” he said. “It might be to a Canadian, might not be to somebody in the U.K., where this is more common.”
Hermida said he finds it difficult to understand that Harry and Meghan believed their recent decision to step back from the Royal Family and move part-time to Canada would not place them in the media spotlight.
“In some ways I would argue by making the decision to step back formally as royals they’ve created more interest in what they are doing,” he said. “There’s the expectation of reasonable interest in them in how they chart a new life in Canada. We’re looking at royals, post royalty, and this is new.”
|
|
Agree they have made their decision if the right one only time will tell. Been interesting reading comments :-) :-D
|
