Harry and Megan

[LP]

Have you read the statement from Ardern's office (not Ardern directly) or just the Sky News headlines?

As PM of a constitutional monarchy, Ardern has to tread a fine line when it comes to matters that may affect her head of state.  Being seen to be neutral in a Royal family dispute is non-negotiable.  Of course, as producers of the series, Harry and Meghan's roles are largely irrelevant when it comes to content, those involved, look and feel, etc.  Ardern's office's statement is aimed at folk who mistakenly think that Harry and Meghan have a more hands on role.

I see, so it suits the Harkle boosters to claim those rules openly known by all commonwealth politicians were largely ignored by Ardern or Ardern's Advisory while making the Documentary, and post-facto are now being used to somehow weirdly explain away / discount Ardern's version of events.

Well, that's a bit arbitrary!

Seriously DJC, you are accusing Ardern of breaking the rules, then crediting Ardern with being prepared to risk that to blowing up in her face to protect a casual acquaintance.

I suggest based on recent statements and activities, it's far more likely Ardern or Ardern's Department has told it as it was, while Harkle has spun things differently to suit their platform.

[Gointocarlton]

Therein lies the problem - the Queen and the Grandmother are two different people - one is an institution, the other the matriarch of a somewhat dysfunctional family.  QEII understood that completely and always went to great lengths to ensure those two 'roles' were separate - her family life could not hold precedence over the Monarchy, and the institution of the Monarchy must be protected in all circumstances (in effect, she thought of herself as the 'caretaker' of the Monarch).

Hence, if the Grandmother wanted to do something that would be counter-productive for the Monarch, it would not be done.

Yes I get all that, the irony for me is that if she had in fact sat with Harry, she would have protected the Monarchy, by not doing so, she effectively destroyed it. After all, at the point, Harry was part of it. Its real simple, If you want popularity in 2022, act human FFS.

[LP]

Yes I get all that, the irony for me is that if she had in fact sat with Harry, she would have protected the Monarchy, by not doing so, she effectively destroyed it. After all, at the point, Harry was part of it. Its real simple, If you want popularity in 2022, act human FFS.

You mean you should care for the little people like The Trump?

There is one side of this debate that is accountable, not just morally but legally accountable, like in as part of the nation's constitution.

While the other side is obligated contractually to a commercial entity.

[LP]

As for Ardern, I see clearly that she is under political pressure at present -- indeed fighting for her political life -- and her distancing from this entire episode is just politics, not wanting to ruffle feathers and potentially lose a section of her supporter base.

It's not just "politics", there are laws involved and breaking them guarantees the end for a political career, what's the motive for Ardern to break the law?

This is not a law that metamorphised after the Documentary, and Ardern is not a newbie!

As for Harkle Boosters, whether you are or are not is irrelevant to me, I'll just presume this debate follows the wider social media / commercial media dialogues and some of my posts reference scope outside of our little corner of the internet. Harkle has never posted on here, nor has Clarkson, Jones, Bolt or Gates, at least not without being incognito!

[DJC]

I see, so it suits the Harkle boosters to claim those rules openly known by all commonwealth politicians were largely ignored by Ardern or Ardern's Advisory while making the Documentary, and post-facto are now being used to somehow weirdly explain away / discount Ardern's version of events.

Well, that's a bit arbitrary!

Seriously DJC, you are accusing Ardern of breaking the rules, then crediting Ardern with being prepared to risk that to blowing up in her face to protect a casual acquaintance.

I suggest based on recent statements and activities, it's far more likely Ardern or Ardern's Department has told it as it was, while Harkle has spun things differently to suit their platform.

Seriously LP, you should read Ardern's office's statement and stop relying on Sky News.  Ardern and others were interviewed for a Mandela Foundation project on leadership years before the Sussexes were engaged to get the program produced and aired.

Ardern simply confirmed the timeline so that she wasn't seen to be taking sides in the Royal family spat.  Harry and Meghan haven't made any comments to the contrary.

This is a fairly typical example of how the Murdoch media will take a straightforward non-event and try use it to attack those that they fear and/or hate, in this case, both Ardern and the Sussexes.

[Baggers]

Yes I get all that, the irony for me is that if she had in fact sat with Harry, she would have protected the Monarchy, by not doing so, she effectively destroyed it. After all, at the point, Harry was part of it. Its real simple, If you want popularity in 2022, act human FFS.

Like the way you carve it to the bone, GTC old son. Sharp stuff. Spot on... be real and the folks will get you. Simple.

[Baggers]

Seriously LP, you should read Ardern's office's statement and stop relying on Sky News.  Ardern and others were interviewed for a Mandela Foundation project on leadership years before the Sussexes were engaged to get the program produced and aired.

Ardern simply confirmed the timeline so that she wasn't seen to be taking sides in the Royal family spat.  Harry and Meghan haven't made any comments to the contrary.

This is a fairly typical example of how the Murdoch media will take a straightforward non-event and try use it to attack those that they fear and/or hate, in this case, both Ardern and the Sussexes.

Murdoch media... skillful year round cherry pickers. Sadly, though, there is enough of a market for their hysterics who want their daily feed of 'who do we hate today?'

[LP]

As much as I deplore News Ltd I can't really blame the Harkle predicament on News Ltd, it's Harkle's own doing.

I'd love to lambast News Ltd, I probably can on dozens of issues in any moment, but I can't justify doing so just because one crooked story is relayed by a crooked messenger. Maybe it is a turd wrapped in dung, but does that really make better?

News Ltd aren't an exclusive source on this issue, and much of the various Harkle statements and behaviours are outside of News Ltd scope.

For all the rubbish coming from News Ltd, slamming of Clarkson or calling out misogyny, not a shred of highlighting News Ltd shortcomings will justify or excuse Harkle Guilding the Lily to paint a specific picture, and that they have done, cleverly I admit but innocently I doubt very much. Maybe Harkle are the royalty of plausible deniability.

I expect any day now to be labelled racist again because I think Phil Egan being investigated for fraud might cast a pall over the Dawks Racism investigation, and yet the facts remain a person investigating an integrity issue might not have any, yet we are bound to receive demands to believe the report is the truth. It's uncomfortable just like the Harkle events.

When the public accepts one lie over another, simply because of the way one of the lies might be packaged, the globe is heading into a very very sorry state.

[PaulP]

The Egan story could potentially be spun off to its own thread at a later date. It's only been reported in the Murdoch press for now, so I can't read anything, but the timing is certainly interesting, to say the least.

[DJC]

The Egan story could potentially be spun off to its own thread at a later date. It's only been reported in the Murdoch press for now, so I can't read anything, but the timing is certainly interesting, to say the least.

The Egan story has been raised in the relevant "Trouble at Hawthorn" thread.  I'm not sure why it was raised here  :-\