Prince Charles not bisexual!

[Lanesra]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Awww, so sorry. *Pats Donut on back* I didn't mean to hurt your wittle feewings. Now, get back behind him! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Now I know why you never won it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-11-2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Lanesra ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Awww, so sorry. *Pats Donut on back* I didn't mean to hurt your wittle feewings. Now, get back behind him! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

LOL - you didn't hurt my feelings TL, I'm made of sterner stuff than that.

[Skunk]

Putting the allegations into perspective, Charles stated that:
"There is a particular sadness about this allegation because it was made by a former Royal Household employee who, unfortunately, has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism following active service in the Falklands."

"He has, in the past, made other unrelated allegations, which the police have fully investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.

"The newspaper group that sought to publish this allegation knew this and has described the former employee as 'hardly a reliable witness'. This was why the newspaper concerned agreed to the injunction on Saturday afternoon."
http://www.itv.com/news/1590218.html

All of this is true, and while I certainly don't support the British monarchy (bunch of leeches ), I do think that the newspaper's decision to print the allegations both in the absence of any supporting evidence and in light of the nature of the accuser's poor mental state of health (and history of unfounded accusations) was both irresponsible and reckless. It represents the gutter press at its worst.

[Ramon de Ramon y Ramon]

Damn it! What a crushing blow to my dream of getting into a "ménage à trois" with him and Camilla. Which is especially sad as I am so very fond of horses ...

[Donut]

Wouldn't that make it a ménage à cinq Ramonx3?

[Sir Taliesin]

Not to blast the Brits here, but I have always thought the Brittish (Just for you Donut! ) Press would ever print anything unless it was pure rubbish! At least that's how they are protrayed here in the US.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Not to blast the Brits here, but I have always thought the Brittish (Just for you Donut! ) Press would ever print anything unless it was pure rubbish! At least that's how they are protrayed here in the US.

We have the tabloids which are crap but we also have serious quality papers as well (known as the broadsheets).

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Not to blast the Brits here, but I have always thought the Brittish (Just for you Donut! ) Press would ever print anything unless it was pure rubbish! At least that's how they are protrayed here in the US.

We have the tabloids which are crap but we also have serious quality papers as well (known as the broadsheets). [/QUOTE]Funny but true. One of the first thing that foreigners learn upon reading the newspapers that (generally speaking), the physical size of the newspaper denotes the intended audience by education. Tabloids are for the lower educated, broadsheets for the higher educated.

Thus tabloid newspapers (like, The Sun) compared with broadsheet newspapers (like, The Guardian have a number of distinct differences, the most striking of which are:

• Words printed in tabloids are, on average, shorter than those printed in broadsheets
• Sentences printed in tabloids are, on average, shorter than those printed in broadsheets
• Articles printed in tabloids tend to be shorter than their broadsheet equivilents
• Broadsheets tend to favour analysis of events, tabloids tend to favour editorial opinion of events

Compare the these two articles covering the same event, note the difference in the article titles, length of the opening sentences etc.

TWENTY KILLED IN POLICE HQ BLAST (Daily Mirror, tabloid)
At least 20 people were killed today following a suicide truck bomb attack at the Italian military police headquarters in the southern Iraqi city of Nassiriyah.

An Italian defence ministry spokesman said nine military police and three army officers were killed in the blast.

Hospital officials said eight Iraqis also died, with at least 12 wounded.

A spokesman for the British-led multinational force which controls southern Iraq said the explosion happened at 0750 GMT.

Eye-witnesses accounts say the truck drove into the entrance of the building and exploded causing vehicles parked outside the building to burst into flames.

Secondary explosions from ammunition stored at the police headquarters then followed the main blast.

More officers are still believed to trapped under the rubble of the three-storey building.

Commenting on the attack, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi insisted would not effect his countries assistance to to the coallition forces in the region.

He said: "No intimidation will budge us from our willingness to help that country rise up again and rebuild itself with self-government, security and freedom."

More than 2,300 Italian troops are currently stationed in southern Iraq.


Bush speeds up the exit strategy, Telegraph (broadsheet)

President George W Bush ordered his senior envoy in Iraq last night to speed up the handover of power to local politicians, following warnings from the CIA of impending disaster and a suicide bombing that killed 18 Italian paramilitary police.

A lorry, packed with explosives, was driven into an Italian military police compound in the southern city of Nasiriyah, destroying the building. Nine Iraqis were killed and about 80 injured.

The attack was the bloodiest against a coalition nation since the invasion eight months ago and underscored the need to stop the violence spreading.

Until now, attacks have been concentrated in Baghdad and the "Sunni triangle" to the north and west of the capital. But they have spread dramatically and yesterday a hitherto quiet Shia Muslim city was the target.

It was the deadliest attack suffered by the Italian military since the Second World War and plunged the country into shock and grief.

But Silvio Berlusconi, the prime minister, pledged that Italy would keep its 2,300-strong contingent in Iraq and appealed for politicians not to exploit the tragedy. Tony Blair said Britain would stay the course in Iraq.

"Of course it is difficult," he told Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, during Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons.

"But the implication of some of your questioning is that because Iraq is difficult, we should somehow get out and withdraw."

He added: "That is the worst thing we could possibly do. We have got to stick with this and see it through."

The atmosphere of crisis in Washington was palpable.

Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, was rushed back from Baghdad to plot a new course for American officials who have been forced to use the word "war" for what had been described as mopping-up operations.

Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, had to abandon a planned trip.

The meeting was also attended by Dick Cheney, the vice-president, Colin Powell, the secretary of state, and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser.

Mr Bremer emerged from the White House to say: "The stakes are very high for the war on terrorism and the stakes are very high for moving towards a sovereign Iraqi government. It is a tough situation."

Mr Powell said: "We are looking at all sorts of ideas and we do want to accelerate the pace of reform. We want to accelerate our work with respect to putting a legal basis under the new Iraqi government."

The change in strategy by Mr Bush was a recognition that Mr Bremer's 18-month step-by-step plan was failing.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who was also in Washington yesterday, said the allies might hand over power sooner than planned.

Accompanied by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British envoy in Baghdad, he was expected to back the push for a swifter transfer of authority.

The main proposal was to draw from Afghanistan's experience after the fall of the Taliban and to appoint an interim leader until a constitution can be written and elections held. This would effectively end the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, which has a UN deadline of Dec 15 to draw up a timetable for elections and writing a constitution.

Many in the White House are frustrated with the IGC's infighting and alleged nepotism and argue that it is too slow and inefficient.

The urgency of yesterday's talks was further underlined by a bleak assessment in a leaked CIA report that said a growing number of Iraqis were confident America could be defeated and were joining the insurgents. The report suggested that American policy in Iraq had reached a turning point.

Warning that an escalation of the military campaign could fuel recruitment of the insurgents, it added that none of the post-war Iraqi institutions or politicians had shown any aptitude for governing, or holding an election. White House officials refused to be drawn on a new timetable and indicated that the IGC was still a key part of the strategy. They also insisted that Mr Bush had not lost confidence in Mr Bremer.

British officials believe Mr Bremer's seven-point plan is too slow and cumbersome. They want to demonstrate to the Iraqis that the occupation is quickly coming to an end, partly in the hope that this would reduce support for gunmen who stage daily attacks.

Before leaving for Washington, Mr Straw told BBC Radio 4's Today: "We want to hand over power to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible and it could well be that we hand over more quickly than planned.

"However, the occupying powers have clear responsibilities for security in Iraq and we have to meet those responsibilities."