General Chat

Agree they have made their decision if the right one only time will tell. Been interesting reading comments :-) :-D

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.”

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!)

Personally, I find the left wing press as bad as the right wing press.

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. :-)

I'm pretty sure all on here are old enough to make their own minds up and say their own words I don't need to spoon-fed anyone anything.

Joonie

The use of 'bias' came from my posting on my thread on newspapers.

If you want to blame Caroline for anything then it should be plagersim and not putting words into mouths.

Caroline, "Even the dreaded rightwing press get it right sometimes!! Or because I sited a right wing paper I must be bias hence I'm against paying for the security in which case give me a break!"

You really must stop putting words in other people's mouths! :-D

Especially words like "bias" when I would very certainly have said "biased", although of course I didn't. ;-)

As stated on another post is any paper not bias??

I don't actually read that paper but I used it for a UK reference. I did hear with my own ears Justin say it, can't remember which station and when I did a quick search this one came up. Unless you're saying he didn't say it and then backtracked somewhat when his own finance minister was a tad more concerned?

Even the dreaded rightwing press get it right sometimes!! Or because I sited a right wing paper I must be bias hence I'm against paying for the security in which case give me a break!

Caroline, the Telegraph might seem to be a classy newspaper compared with the Sun and the Mail, but it is just as right wing as they are.

"Come on, Caroline. There has never been any serious claim that Canada would pay for their security. You may be reading too much right-wing press!"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/01/13/canada-says-will-pick-harry-meghans-security-bill-country/

After this statement, his finance minister pointed out nothing was confirmed

".And the idea of the government falling if such payment were made ... I mean seriously."

Umm yeah possible as it's a minority Government and the majority of people don't agree with this it's possible...small...but possible.

RR -- the racist/misogynist "undercurrent" is generally framed as: Just Not British. ;-)

Aargh. I thought I had posted a message ... saying to Ms S that I did say I didn't think we should pay for their security (I was kinda joking about our free ride), and say boo to Ms R too -- and now also a Well met to Lyndi -- but it has gone away.

What I was saying was to come on over to the thread I was about to post for more off-topic chit chat. Then I tried to post that one, and a big long juicy one it was, and it disappeared. So here:

https://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/general_chat/thread/1381521

Come and say hey!

Until we know one way or the other who, if anyone, will be paying for security, at the moment it's all just guess work and rumour.

From one point of view, Harry did not ask to be a target who might need security, it came with his birth whether or not he earned his own money or was doing Royal duties as he has done. Is it fair to expect him to fork out for it? Someone probably will have to because wherever and whatever he is, he is the Queen's grandson, and as such is a target for terrorists, and kidnapping for ransom is not outside the bounds of possibility for his family. Maybe that will be what Charles pays for? ( The security that is not the ransom! bad grammar sorry). I've no idea, and nor has anyone else because it has not been stated or probably settled upon as yet.

I wouldn't expect Canadians to pay, but the same argument that Caroline makes could be made about veterans being homeless here, and underfunded hospitals, mental health care , poor social care for old people etc etc.

It's naive to think that saving a bit on the Royal family here will make those problems better....tackle the politicians who waste the taxpayers money first.

I don't know that anyone on here has said anything about racism in relation to not wanting to pay for H & M's security?

That there is a racist undercurrent in some of the 'feedback' to articles and reports on Meghan is not up for debate, I have seen it. Certainly here in the UK. If you've missed it lucky you! It may be a minority who come out with the worst of it, ( I hope) but they are a vocal minority.

Come on, Caroline. There has never been any serious claim that Canada would pay for their security. You may be reading too much right-wing press!

And the idea of the government falling if such payment were made ... I mean seriously.

What makes you say that a private company would not be allowed? Any number of wealthy people have private security. How on earth would any government prohibit people from hiring private security? Why would any government want to do that?

UK police would have absolutely no jurisdiction in Canada. Heads of state, like US presidents, do tend to travel with their own security, but why UK police would be providing security for minor royals in Canada, I can't imagine.

"I do though hate anyone accusing all of being racist just because they disagree with these payments." That's nice. If I see anyone making that accusation for that reason, I will be sure to wag my finger.

Just so you know, it is a very tired right-wing ploy to accuse someone of calling someone else racist "just because you disagree with them". No one calls someone racist because they disagree with them. I call someone racist when they are very obviously racist, and it is very obvious that most of the ugliness aimed at Meghan in the UK is both racist and, equally, misogynist.

I don't hate the couple as I've already noted, but the principle of the matter is why should we pay for their security when they want to be like private citizens. Yes maybe it would only work out as a dime each person, but as already noted we're all paying more than enough in tax already, we're massively in debt, we're not covering essentials things already like not having people die of cold on the streets or our veterans are told they're asking for more than the Government can give. When we're getting nothing in return for the money there is no real rush to pay for it.
As for the private security, it is highly unlikely a private company would be allowed much less likely armed. It's more likely the UK police will be there and that will be more expensive than it is in the UK as those officers will have to be paid extra for being away from home.
I'm sure many are racist in the general public both in the UK and Canada, I do though hate anyone accusing all of being racist just because they disagree with these payments.

Hello Joonie, loved your balanced view of this situation (and your comment about W&C, W in particular looks sly and devious ;-) ).

The British press and some television presenters (one in particular) have been appalling in their relentless hounding of this couple.

I hope wherever they settle the people are kinder and give them a chance to be the people they want to be. They stand no chance of that in the UK while a certain P. M. (and no, I don't mean Boris!!) draws breath.

How great to see you posting, Joonie. :-D

The only thing I really disagree with you about is that I really do not believe that Canada should pay for their security ...... but then neither should the UK, Australia or any other country.

They want to live as private citizens, and make millions of dollars. They can afford it!

:-D :-D :-D :-D I am SO glad to see you posting Joonie.

My goodness ... and no, I haven't read and I'm not going to read the entire thread. First and last two pages were enough! Glad to see so little taste for the hatefest among our colleagues here, though, that's for sure.

Anybody got an idea what 1 million pounds a year in security would cost Canadians? That would be about 5 cents a year each, give or take a dime.

In any event, it appears unlikely that Canada or a province will volunteer to cover that expense, and I don't really think we should. The Sussexes have quite enough money to cover it, as I understand it. And I do wish people would stop telling the world things that are not true. Private security can indeed be armed here. Permits to carry concealed weapons are very rare (outside of the armoured vehicle trade), but they can be obtained.

Myself, I find it flattering that they would choose Canada to live in, over the UK and over any other Commonwealth or non-Commonwealth country. We're nice and this is a nice place to live. Convenience is probably a big reason: pretty close to the UK/Europe, handy to the US without having to actually live there. Who would, eh? But she is a native USAmerican so it is entirely reasonable she would want to maintain personal and professional ties. She actually is a human being, not a shell to be emptied of everything that makes her what and who she is, and then dressed up and stuffed with proper Britishness only, Britishness of a particular right-wing type, that is.

I am certainly not aware of her having permanent resident status here. Many foreign actors and other film industry workers live and work here temporarily while employed in the industry. She had a normal-sized rental house in a nice area of Toronto.* Not millionaires' row. I would think it quite likely they will settle there now -- Forest Hill in Toronto, in particular, to be close to her good buddy the socialite wife of useless TV personality Ben Mulroney, who is the son of former Progressive Conservative PM Brian Mulroney. I would hope they would expand their horizons a little and not live and travel solely in that circle. They do seem to be rather fond of Vancouver Island at the moment.

I wish them the best in any event. If I were staring down the barrel of a life modeled on Margaret or Andrew, I'd be panicking myself. Neither use nor ornament; basically, no purpose in life and no opportunity to pursue one. While I don't like to pretend to expertise about celebrities' lives, it seems to me that Harry is (as I am) a born introvert who suffered childhood trauma. This would make him ill-suited to and not well able to cope with the kind of incessant prying and ugly attacks he and his wife have been subjected to since the outset. I would simply never begrudge him the opportunity to get away from them.

They're not going to be seniors now; it has been settled. That was probably the only way to effect the separation from bed and board. So we can just treat them like cousins.

Yes, yes, to live in Canada, they should get themselves properly accepted as permanent residents on proof of their potential for making a useful contribution to Canada. ......... Yeah, just like all the mainland and Hong Kong Chinese who have come here with no qualifications at all but bags of money, bought up our residential real estate and removed it from the housing market, laundered their filthy drug money, in some cases dropped their obnoxious children on our schools and streets, and promptly flown back off home, with the security of Canadian citizenship (or sponsorship back to Canada by said children) if things take a turn for the worse over there.

Sorry if I sound like a sycophant, but give me a pleasant couple from the Royal Family any day. I think we should be able to work something out for them. After all, as has been noted, we've had a free ride on the royal coat tails and the UK taxpayer's dime for quite a while, when it comes to our head of state. Our turn. Or maybe Australia would kick in a few bucks. :)

Meanwhile, the racism and misogyny that we all know is behind the great British public's and media's full-on hatefest when the subject of Meghan Markle comes up will continue unabated until some new shiny object riles them up. And meanwhile, the residents of the Vancouver Island community have been telling the British paparazzi where to get off ...

All I can say is thank goodness that it isn't the appalling Catherine and her supercilious husband trying to move here. :-D But just a reminder that a scant 6 or 7 years ago (I've been googling), remarks about her inappropriate behaviour at sombre events, extravagant spending on her wardrobe, skiving off, etc., were legion. The haters will tire of the Sussexes before too long, I would guess.

____________________
* Meghan Markle's house in Toronto: old, on the small side, pretty standard renovation, small private back garden.
https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/meghan-markles-toronto-rental-is-for-sale-253633
Apparently asking price was close to $1.4 million. Toronto houses often sell for well over asking, but this one would certainly not go for double that price!