Skip to content

He’s allowed to do this, Bubba

Prince Harry: ‘Piers Morgan subjected Meghan and I to horrific personal attacks’
Duke of Sussex accuses ex-Mirror editor of embarking on a personal vendetta against him and the Duchess in retaliation for court case

No, really, this freedom, liberty, shtick.

22 thoughts on “He’s allowed to do this, Bubba”

  1. Now, now Tim. Freedom of speech is something you do to them.

    It’s hate speech if they do it to you.

  2. Geoffers. Quite.
    A plague on both their houses.
    But forced to choose a horrific personal attack, I’d go for Morgan.

  3. He (Morgan) added: “I wish him luck with his privacy campaign. I look forward to reading it in his next book.”

    That’s actually quite funny.

  4. And freedom of speech was traditionally matched by the freedom to give the insulting yobbo a punch on the nose. But journalists claim freedom without responsibility and will scream to high heaven if their victim gives them a well-desrved nosebleed.

  5. Piers Morgan subjected Meghan and I to horrific personal attacks’

    “jgh

    Subjected ****ME***** you illiterate little turd.”

    Quite right. The rule of thumb on using ‘me’ or ‘I’ is to take the other person out of the sentence.

    “Piers Morgan subjected I to horrific personal attacks” hmmm.

  6. The Meissen Bison

    The rule of thumb on using ‘me’ or ‘I’ is to take the other person out of the sentence

    That’s if one hasn’t learnt to distinguish bettwen the subject and the object in a sentence or clause.

  7. Mocking a member of the royal family for unfamiliarity with the accusative case is like mocking a washing machine for lack of facility with calculus.

    He’s ginger, leave him be.

  8. It would serve the ginger twat right if he won against Piers Morgan and that motley crew and then Megain took it all in the divorce.

    Entitled prick.

  9. He’s still defending the honour of a yatch girl who’s had more cock than Bernard Matthews.

    Simping must run in the family.

  10. @The Meissen Bison – “That’s if one hasn’t learnt to distinguish bettwen the subject and the object in a sentence or clause.”

    To a Royal, we’re all subjects.

  11. My cat has got as much royal blood as him.
    I’ve met his father. He was working as a greeter at a Marbella restaurant. Marbella! Second homes for Europe’s third rate criminals. He certainly found his level. And Hal’s following in his footprints.

  12. Here’s an article idea of how up themselves these two are
    Not sure about that one Chernyy. From what I can see, it was an unsolicited gift. From a bling bike seller’s point of view, investing under 300 bucks (retail – so to buy in much less) in the gift & receiving a thankyou letter signed by either of the couple would be a nice little trophy. Not exactly “By Royal Appointment …” but I don’t suppose Yanks would understand the finer points on that one, reading it framed on the shop wall. The help signing it, devalues that somewhat. Style would have seen it returned with a note “We regret we are unable to accept unsolicited gifts…” but the moneygrabbing Prince & Princess of California don’t do style do they?

  13. No, because the ginger twat is not a monarch nor holder of equivalent singular office.

    Neither was St. Margaret of Thatcher.

    The royal we, majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), or royal plural, is the use of a plural pronoun (or corresponding plural-inflected verb forms) used by a single person who is a monarch or holds a high office to refer to themselves

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *