Los Duques de Sussex dejan de ser SAR's pero mantienen el Ducado. Devolverán dinero invertido en Frogmore. La nueva vida en Canadá (7 Visitantes)

¿Quien ha ganado el Megxit?

  • La Reina Isabel

    Votes: 269 43,7%
  • Los Duques de Sussex

    Votes: 155 25,2%
  • Nadie

    Votes: 129 21,0%
  • Otros miembros de la Familia Real

    Votes: 62 10,1%

  • Total voters
    615
Registrado
2 Oct 2007
Mensajes
4.339
Calificaciones
29.577
Porque no estaba en sus planes que la granny les pidiera el retiro total a cambio de no quitarles el titulo.
Ella creia que habia ganado, e iba a obtener solo beneficios de sus jugarretas. Hay gente que sabe mover mejor sus fichas.
Es zorra , no inteligente . Aclaro que le digo zorra por estar siempre al acecho , buscando SUS presas, SUS oportunidades, como una zorra que logró meterse en un gallinero. Es taaan obvia,..
 

Registrado
9 Jul 2012
Mensajes
11.119
Calificaciones
58.873
A estas alturas Charles estará hasta las pelotas de Harry.Desearía que fuera hijo del polista,aunque quedará como un cornudo integral.y darle una patada donde más duele, a ese extravagante Harry.MM se quedaría pensando... que menudo fake, se ha ido a encandilar.El pobre William sería el peor parado al ver como su madre quedaría en el horror de los británicos. Que tengan cuidado los habitantes de Suxess,que lo mismo este par, lo registran como su propiedad y les tienen que rendir tributo:D:D:D:D
 
Registrado
25 Jun 2018
Mensajes
80
Calificaciones
323
No puedo creerlo que lo de MM es un chiste a familia de Kate, por qué ? cual es o problema de esa familia? No lo tiene suficiente con la suya ?

Si es así, que bueno que los padres de Kate no son cirujanos, porque MM se ponía con un bisturí en la mano lo que era más peligroso 😊

Lo cierto es que estos dos no se controlan en el ridículo, estoy casi en el límite de la vergüenza ajena y a dejar de ver lo que sea que les respecte.
 
Registrado
18 Mar 2007
Mensajes
15.252
Calificaciones
59.340
Parece que no voy mal encaminada
(me refiero a que siempre he sostenido y sostengo que tiene a Harry bien atado con el cuento que ella es la víctima y es acosada, así mantiene a Harry de salvador, haciendo lo que quiso hacer por su madre "salvarla")
el perfume sería otro indicio de los que empezaron con aquél numerito que montó contra el periodista

Apuesto mi cabeza a que si Lady Di viviera Petas sería el mismo desastroso ser humano que es, en su partida de la FR su madre también hubiera sido su enemiga, porque Diana hubiera olido a kilómetros de distancia la clase de bicho que es Meghan y se le hubiera plantado enfrente!!!
 

Registrado
26 Ago 2013
Mensajes
23.082
Calificaciones
134.751
The Cost (And Karmic Value) Of Sussex Loyalty
Less than a year ago, when the Sussex duo set up their Instagram account and hired Sara Latham as their PR person in March 2019, I already said Latham would last 6 months or until the end of the year at best. I was pretty close as Latham has lasted less than a year, and probably remained this long only because the duo knew they were leaving and she would be gone anyway. In PR, like many similar fields you are only as good as your last job, and Latham’s CV has always looked sketchy to me, and not because of Clinton. She was rehired by Freuds in August 2018, but things can’t have been that good as she left them 8 months later to work for the duo (or got a good offer, which turned out to be a bad move). Latham has a habit of jumping ship before things get truly bad to try and keep what tatters of her reputation intact. She liquidated her own company (LATHAM STRATEGIES LTD) in 2015, jumping ship back then too. After the debacle over the unsent emails when the ‘baby’ was born in May 2019, one wondered how Latham could stay in her job. Either she was incompetent, or she agreed to look incompetent, but either way what reputation she had has been diminished to a pile of ashes. Who would want to work with dead goods? As she has US citizenship, why haven’t the duo kept her on?
I wonder why they bothered with Fiona Mcilwham, the private secretary that has lasted 6 months at the most (she began in September 2019) when they knew they were going to leave, but I guess they needed to keep up appearances to fool the RF and the public. They had to show willing but in the process they have deliberately used people, people who left good jobs to work with them. It’s not so much an honour or privilege to work for the Sussexes as it is a curse, and with it brings adverse karmic debt. These people chose to leave their jobs (bar the ones already working within the Royal Household) because they were greedy and wanted the prestige and fame that they thought they’d get working for the duo, but ended up being notoriously made redundant while defending and enabling ‘traitors’ that had been plotting all the while to use public funds for their own gains.

When the news that all the staff at Frogmore Cottage were to be reassigned in January 2020, it was very clear that any other staff the Sussexes had would be laid off as well.First of all because without funding the duo can’t pay the salaries of the staff, and secondly if the duo weren’t in the UK then they wouldn’t need a team in the UK to work on their behalf. As it is, it appears that the duo had gone rogue, well since they existed and ignored the advice of their aides, making the BP spokespeople look rather foolish when they issued a statement and the duo went and did the very opposite. MM ignoring people is understandable as she has no respect for anyone, her family or friends, but Harry is a different matter and for him to behave so abominably is unbecoming of his status and upbringing.

The duo deserve no loyalty, and those that were loyal (misguided or through ambition) have been shafted. They wanted privacy, and BP made those statements on their behalf only to see the duo posing for paparazzi shots and setting up their own private photo ops that they posted on Instagram without it seems BP’s knowledge. For example, the embargoed meeting with Archbishop Tutu that the SussexRoyal Instagram posted early on, much to the angst of the Royal Reporters who had respected the embargo, only to be outdone by the Sussexes themselves. Irritated reporters expressed their frustration several times when the SussexRoyal Instagram would post stories they had been forced to sit on. The Sussex duo didn’t care, even when the media respected their wishes they were still attacked by the duo.

David Watkins was the social media expert brought in August 2019, poached from Burberrys for a bargain £30K a year, and he’s lasted 6 months too. However, he probably knew something wasn’t quite right with the Instagram postings being made on Sundays and late at night when normal people in the UK would be asleep or off social media. As an official public servant account, the audience is the UK nation when posts should be made (unless they are sudden announcements) during the waking hours in GMT. He’s young and will survive, but does he look a little stupid? I would say yes, but as he’s only in his late 20s he was impressionable, perhaps his over eagerness and lack of ability to see through a sham can be forgiven? If it’s too good to be true, then it probably is.
The average lifespan of a Sussex staff member is about 3-6 months, ask Melissa Toubati, the PA who quit after 6 months, and the various nannies that lasted mere weeks. Those who chose to work for the Sussex duo should have heeded caution from those who had been burnt and scarred, so in some respects they should have expected the outcome, yet many always think they are different and are special and that it couldn’t happen to them. Well, they have had a huge public lesson thrown in their faces, and I actually have no sympathy because they chose to work for them knowing their reputation.

I imagine many out of misguided loyalty covered up some rather dubious acts too, which I see as enabling. Some of you may think me harsh, but there is a difference between being loyal and doing the right thing, and when someone does something that creates harm to others (using public funding and deceiving The Queen) and you enable it, then it’s clearly the wrong thing and you either resign, or report it. I was a whistleblower when I reported a company that I had worked for who had lied to the Security Services regarding security checks for staff, when in fact it had transpired that they had hired a family member of a suspected terrorist who was later convicted. At times, you must do the right thing irrespective of how it affects you personally. I chose to resign so that I could speak out, but also because I did not agree with lying to the Security Services when it endangers the nation because a company wanted to save money on security checks.

The Sussex duo won’t be winning the ’employer of the year ‘award that’s for sure, and they have probably been recruiting staff and helpers in the USA for the best part of a year. The Canadian company ‘Article’ was hired a year ago to purchase and create the Sussexes websites which many including myself suspected. What makes it worse is that the deception was planned so long ago and these ‘helpers’ sat on this and enabled what many British see as a betrayal, not only to The Queen and her family but for taking the British public for a ride. They have faked and kept up appearances while silently plotting and using public funds to set themselves up elsewhere.
The Sussexes have only been in existence since May 2018, so that’s 20 months before they formally announced that they were stepping down, yet we know that they had planned to leave in February/March 2019 already with the planted ‘People’ magazine story knowing full well her father would publish the letter she had sent him for that purpose to defend himself. How despicable can one get to set up your father not once, but at least twice (the staged paparazzi images where Coleman-Rayner approached Thomas Markle) in less than a year in order to get what you want?
I believe the plan was to either take over Kensington Royal and the Royal Foundation, or to destroy it and set up on their own. The Sussexes lasted 6 months before they were ushered out of KP to Windsor (let’s remember Frogmore Cottage was staff housing), and their ties with the Royal Foundation as a duo lasted a year officially, but unofficially I would suspect only a matter of months. The Sussex Foundation was registered in July 2019, and as a charity in late August of the same year, although the domain names had been purchased in March 2019 already, the same time Sara Latham was hired. It remains to be seen how the foundation will work, and what the directors will actually do and who will risk staying given that those associated with the Sussexes get shafted quite quickly.
It has been reported that some staff who have been let go will have jobs with Travalyst, but these people have been sucker punched once––are they really dim enough to allow it again? A word of advice if they are contemplating the risk, think about it and what does Travalyst actually do, and consider whether you are being used again? Were all the staff hired by the duo knowing full well that there was no future in the role? If so, isn’t that deceptive and a despicable act? Why hire people giving them false hope, knowing that they would be let go soon? That’s using people, but it appears that the duo have no conscience. There was a good reason why Edward Lane-Fox shipped out early, and Amy Pickering made a quiet exit as soon as she could, and future Sussex hirings would be remiss not to take note of their prospective employers track record.

Any job adverts should come with a government health warning, that employment could lead to public ridicule and humiliation. That is the cost of misguided loyalty or the price of risking a job to gain some form of eminence. Then of course Karma comes into it and there are no time limits for Karma, nor boundaries. Being shafted by the Sussexes is nothing to brag about, but once you dance with the devil you will forever be mark(l)ed and branded for life.
Share this:
 
Registrado
24 Feb 2012
Mensajes
20.840
Calificaciones
147.137
Any job adverts should come with a government health warning, that employment could lead to public ridicule and humiliation. That is the cost of misguided loyalty or the price of risking a job to gain some form of eminence. Then of course Karma comes into it and there are no time limits for Karma, nor boundaries. Being shafted by the Sussexes is nothing to brag about, but once you dance with the devil you will forever be mark(l)ed and branded for life.
Traducción.

"Sobre las condiciones de empleo de los Sussex

Cualquier anuncio de trabajo debe venir con una advertencia de salud del gobierno, que el empleo podría conducir al ridículo público y la humillación. Ese es el costo de la lealtad equivocada o el precio de arriesgar un trabajo para obtener alguna forma de eminencia. Entonces, por supuesto, el Karma entra en juego y no hay límites de tiempo para el Karma, ni fronteras. Ser arrastrado por los Sussex no tiene nada de qué presumir, pero una vez que bailes con el diablo, serás marcado (mark-led) y marcado para siempre."
 
Última edición:

Registrado
18 Nov 2019
Mensajes
237
Calificaciones
1.317
El pozo negro, la fosa septica, asi el la prensa tabloide en RU.

La cultura de la prensa buitre en RU, no existe en paises como Francia, Noruega. Tampoco en Estados Unidos, People Magazine, etc. jamas reportan lo que lees en el Daily Mail, etc. Revistas americanas como People son por regla general bien respetuosas con su sujetos, no tienen intencion de hacer daño, ni entran en juicios sociales o de clase como el Hola, son mas bien vehiculos para humanizar a la gente famosa, trayendo sus vidas al publico para que la gente se identifique con ellos, se les empatice, etc.

La cultura de la esta prensa basura en RU mastica las vidas, las penas, los sufrimientos, de otros, y destroza vidas. Aqui un suicidio a consequencia. No os dais cuenta de las consequencias tragicas?

Es todo una locura, esto de cavar en la basura de las vidas ajenas, con mucha razon Harry y Meghan ont foutu le camp, como iban a permitir a su hijo a respirar semejante aire infecto?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/...?action=click&module=Features&pgtype=Homepage

A TV Star’s Suicide Prompts a Blame Game in Britain
Caroline Flack’s death over the weekend is the latest tragedy to highlight Britain’s peculiar tabloid culture.
Alex Marshall
By Alex Marshall
  • Feb. 17, 2020, 11:59 a.m. ET




Image
The suicide of Caroline Flack, a British television personality and tabloid fixture, has renewed calls to strengthen the country’s privacy laws.

The suicide of Caroline Flack, a British television personality and tabloid fixture, has renewed calls to strengthen the country’s privacy laws.Credit...Tolga Akmen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
LONDON — On Saturday night, news broke in Britain that Caroline Flack — the former host of “Love Island,” a wildly popular reality TV show — had killed herself.
Within hours, British social media was flooded with tributes to the star, who died while awaiting trial for assaulting her boyfriend.
But those tributes were soon overtaken by something else: demands for a new law in Flack’s name, to stop Britain’s tabloid newspapers from publishing stories that relentlessly dive into celebrities’ private lives.
Flack had been a tabloid fixture, having had romances with Prince Harry and Harry Styles, among others, and social media users accused the newspapers of harming her mental health.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story


“The British media is the cesspit of our society,” wrote one Twitter user, adding the #carolineslaw hashtag.
On Monday, an online petition calling for a law that would prevent newspapers from “sharing private information that is detrimental to a celebrity, their mental health and those around them,” quickly gained over 400,000 signatures. Politicians also lined up to criticize the tabloids, as well as hate-fueled social media commenters.
The press “have to take responsibility as well,” Keir Starmer, the front-runner to become the next leader of Britain’s Labour Party, told reporters, accusing newspapers of amplifying negative social media chatter.

None of that debate was noticeable to readers of Britain’s tabloids on Monday. The Sun — the newspaper subject to the most criticism, with some social media users calling for a boycott — devoted seven pages to Flack’s death. Its front page led with criticism of the British Crown Prosecution Service for “its pursuit of fragile Caroline Flack” in forcing her to trial.
The authorities had decided to pursue the assault charge despite knowing Flack had self-harmed during the alleged assault, The Sun said.


Last year, The Sun featured blanket overage of the assault allegations against Flack, even calling her “Caroline Whack.”
The rancor around Flack’s suicide is only the latest time British tabloids have come under scrutiny. It comes just weeks after Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, who have complained repeatedly about press intrusion into their lives, again threatened legal action against several British tabloids over invasive photos.
But media commentators said they did not think calls for #carolineslaw would be any more successful than past campaigns to strengthen privacy laws in Britain. Nor did they expect the campaign to dent the British public’s interest in such stories, which tend to be popular on social media.
“This is one of those great hypocrisies of the British public, that they indulge in reading, and often writing, about these celebrities and then when things go wrong, they turn on the media and say it’s all the media’s fault,” Roy Greenslade, a media columnist for The Guardian, said in a telephone interview. Greenslade once worked at The Sun and was also editor of The Daily Mirror, another tabloid.
Greenslade said he lived half of every year in Ireland and there seemed “less of an appetite” there to read about celebrity gossip. That was also the case in other European countries like France and Norway, he said. Gossip rags do exist elsewhere, he said — he cited the National Enquirer as one example — but they are not seen as also being serious newspapers like Britain’s tabloids.
Adrian Bingham, a historian who has written a history of Britain’s tabloid press, said in a telephone interview that British newspapers’ focus on people’s private lives first boomed in the 1930s as the publications competed for scoops. “People would have done anything then,” he said. “If they could have hacked phones in the 1930s, they would have.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story


He didn’t expect anything to come from the calls for a #carolineslaw. The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, while pursued by journalists “didn’t lead to anything meaningful” around press regulation, he said. Flack was not as big a celebrity and the newspapers were already using their platforms to divert blame onto other people, such as the Crown Prosecution Service or the producers of “Love Island,” he added.
On Monday, the Daily Mail’s front page said Flack feared a “a show trial.” Inside, an opinion piece said Flack had been “tried and convicted by the merciless court of social media.”
The Daily Star, another tabloid, focused much of its coverage of Flack’s death on a backlash against ITV, the TV company that broadcasts “Love Island,” with fans asking if it gave her sufficient support after she left the show because of the assault case.



Image
Fans placed flowers outside Flack’s former home in London. An online petition has called for a law that would prevent the press from “sharing private information that is detrimental to a celebrity.”

Fans placed flowers outside Flack’s former home in London. An online petition has called for a law that would prevent the press from “sharing private information that is detrimental to a celebrity.”Credit...Simon Dawson/Reuters
“Did the tabloids kill her?” asked David Yelland, a former editor of The Sun and deputy editor of The New York Post, in an email. “I think the reality is that popular newspapers are now just one part of the toxic ecology the very famous have to cope with.”
Social media and the tabloids “feed off each other in a way which creates a living hell for celebrities in the wrong place at the wrong time" he added. “It seems to be getting worse and there are no easy answers.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story


Flack had a typical rise to fame in Britain, first making her name on children’s television before being involved in popular reality TV shows such as “I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here.”
In 2014, she won “Strictly Come Dancing” — one of the most popular shows on British TV — and the following she year became the host of “Love Island,” a show in which contestants live in couples in a luxury villa. That show has stirred debate in Britain around the ethics of reality television shows, following the suicides of several former contestants. Its latest season didn’t air episodes on Saturday and Sunday nights following Flack’s death, although it was due to return on Monday night.
Throughout her career, Flack was a tabloid fixture. On Monday, The Sun carried a two-page article focusing on how her career highs “coincided with crushing personal lows.” It then listed her failed romances, bouts of depression and use of anti-depressants. “In a pattern often repeated, her career took off while her personal life was in tatters,” it said, after discussing her first public romance.
Last October, around World Mental Health Day, Flack posted on Instagram about her recent struggles. “The last few weeks I’ve been in a really weird place,” she wrote. “I guess it’s anxiety and pressure of life and when I actually reached out to someone they said I was draining,” she added.
“Be nice to people,” she added. “You never know what’s going on. Ever.”
Greenslade said he had read about the message and thought it was “a lovely plea” that he supported. But, he added, “if you’re a celebrity and you have depended on your media profile to make your fame and therefore create your income, it’s very difficult then to turn off the tap.”
More on Britain’s tabloid culture

Prince Harry’s Real Declaration of Independence: From Britain’s Tabloids
Jan. 9, 2020
 
Registrado
11 May 2007
Mensajes
27.924
Calificaciones
109.037
The Cost (And Karmic Value) Of Sussex Loyalty
Less than a year ago, when the Sussex duo set up their Instagram account and hired Sara Latham as their PR person in March 2019, I already said Latham would last 6 months or until the end of the year at best. I was pretty close as Latham has lasted less than a year, and probably remained this long only because the duo knew they were leaving and she would be gone anyway. In PR, like many similar fields you are only as good as your last job, and Latham’s CV has always looked sketchy to me, and not because of Clinton. She was rehired by Freuds in August 2018, but things can’t have been that good as she left them 8 months later to work for the duo (or got a good offer, which turned out to be a bad move). Latham has a habit of jumping ship before things get truly bad to try and keep what tatters of her reputation intact. She liquidated her own company (LATHAM STRATEGIES LTD) in 2015, jumping ship back then too. After the debacle over the unsent emails when the ‘baby’ was born in May 2019, one wondered how Latham could stay in her job. Either she was incompetent, or she agreed to look incompetent, but either way what reputation she had has been diminished to a pile of ashes. Who would want to work with dead goods? As she has US citizenship, why haven’t the duo kept her on?
I wonder why they bothered with Fiona Mcilwham, the private secretary that has lasted 6 months at the most (she began in September 2019) when they knew they were going to leave, but I guess they needed to keep up appearances to fool the RF and the public. They had to show willing but in the process they have deliberately used people, people who left good jobs to work with them. It’s not so much an honour or privilege to work for the Sussexes as it is a curse, and with it brings adverse karmic debt. These people chose to leave their jobs (bar the ones already working within the Royal Household) because they were greedy and wanted the prestige and fame that they thought they’d get working for the duo, but ended up being notoriously made redundant while defending and enabling ‘traitors’ that had been plotting all the while to use public funds for their own gains.

When the news that all the staff at Frogmore Cottage were to be reassigned in January 2020, it was very clear that any other staff the Sussexes had would be laid off as well.First of all because without funding the duo can’t pay the salaries of the staff, and secondly if the duo weren’t in the UK then they wouldn’t need a team in the UK to work on their behalf. As it is, it appears that the duo had gone rogue, well since they existed and ignored the advice of their aides, making the BP spokespeople look rather foolish when they issued a statement and the duo went and did the very opposite. MM ignoring people is understandable as she has no respect for anyone, her family or friends, but Harry is a different matter and for him to behave so abominably is unbecoming of his status and upbringing.

The duo deserve no loyalty, and those that were loyal (misguided or through ambition) have been shafted. They wanted privacy, and BP made those statements on their behalf only to see the duo posing for paparazzi shots and setting up their own private photo ops that they posted on Instagram without it seems BP’s knowledge. For example, the embargoed meeting with Archbishop Tutu that the SussexRoyal Instagram posted early on, much to the angst of the Royal Reporters who had respected the embargo, only to be outdone by the Sussexes themselves. Irritated reporters expressed their frustration several times when the SussexRoyal Instagram would post stories they had been forced to sit on. The Sussex duo didn’t care, even when the media respected their wishes they were still attacked by the duo.

David Watkins was the social media expert brought in August 2019, poached from Burberrys for a bargain £30K a year, and he’s lasted 6 months too. However, he probably knew something wasn’t quite right with the Instagram postings being made on Sundays and late at night when normal people in the UK would be asleep or off social media. As an official public servant account, the audience is the UK nation when posts should be made (unless they are sudden announcements) during the waking hours in GMT. He’s young and will survive, but does he look a little stupid? I would say yes, but as he’s only in his late 20s he was impressionable, perhaps his over eagerness and lack of ability to see through a sham can be forgiven? If it’s too good to be true, then it probably is.
The average lifespan of a Sussex staff member is about 3-6 months, ask Melissa Toubati, the PA who quit after 6 months, and the various nannies that lasted mere weeks. Those who chose to work for the Sussex duo should have heeded caution from those who had been burnt and scarred, so in some respects they should have expected the outcome, yet many always think they are different and are special and that it couldn’t happen to them. Well, they have had a huge public lesson thrown in their faces, and I actually have no sympathy because they chose to work for them knowing their reputation.

I imagine many out of misguided loyalty covered up some rather dubious acts too, which I see as enabling. Some of you may think me harsh, but there is a difference between being loyal and doing the right thing, and when someone does something that creates harm to others (using public funding and deceiving The Queen) and you enable it, then it’s clearly the wrong thing and you either resign, or report it. I was a whistleblower when I reported a company that I had worked for who had lied to the Security Services regarding security checks for staff, when in fact it had transpired that they had hired a family member of a suspected terrorist who was later convicted. At times, you must do the right thing irrespective of how it affects you personally. I chose to resign so that I could speak out, but also because I did not agree with lying to the Security Services when it endangers the nation because a company wanted to save money on security checks.

The Sussex duo won’t be winning the ’employer of the year ‘award that’s for sure, and they have probably been recruiting staff and helpers in the USA for the best part of a year. The Canadian company ‘Article’ was hired a year ago to purchase and create the Sussexes websites which many including myself suspected. What makes it worse is that the deception was planned so long ago and these ‘helpers’ sat on this and enabled what many British see as a betrayal, not only to The Queen and her family but for taking the British public for a ride. They have faked and kept up appearances while silently plotting and using public funds to set themselves up elsewhere.
The Sussexes have only been in existence since May 2018, so that’s 20 months before they formally announced that they were stepping down, yet we know that they had planned to leave in February/March 2019 already with the planted ‘People’ magazine story knowing full well her father would publish the letter she had sent him for that purpose to defend himself. How despicable can one get to set up your father not once, but at least twice (the staged paparazzi images where Coleman-Rayner approached Thomas Markle) in less than a year in order to get what you want?
I believe the plan was to either take over Kensington Royal and the Royal Foundation, or to destroy it and set up on their own. The Sussexes lasted 6 months before they were ushered out of KP to Windsor (let’s remember Frogmore Cottage was staff housing), and their ties with the Royal Foundation as a duo lasted a year officially, but unofficially I would suspect only a matter of months. The Sussex Foundation was registered in July 2019, and as a charity in late August of the same year, although the domain names had been purchased in March 2019 already, the same time Sara Latham was hired. It remains to be seen how the foundation will work, and what the directors will actually do and who will risk staying given that those associated with the Sussexes get shafted quite quickly.
It has been reported that some staff who have been let go will have jobs with Travalyst, but these people have been sucker punched once––are they really dim enough to allow it again? A word of advice if they are contemplating the risk, think about it and what does Travalyst actually do, and consider whether you are being used again? Were all the staff hired by the duo knowing full well that there was no future in the role? If so, isn’t that deceptive and a despicable act? Why hire people giving them false hope, knowing that they would be let go soon? That’s using people, but it appears that the duo have no conscience. There was a good reason why Edward Lane-Fox shipped out early, and Amy Pickering made a quiet exit as soon as she could, and future Sussex hirings would be remiss not to take note of their prospective employers track record.

Any job adverts should come with a government health warning, that employment could lead to public ridicule and humiliation. That is the cost of misguided loyalty or the price of risking a job to gain some form of eminence. Then of course Karma comes into it and there are no time limits for Karma, nor boundaries. Being shafted by the Sussexes is nothing to brag about, but once you dance with the devil you will forever be mark(l)ed and branded for life.
Share this:

Gracias por los artículos. Se retratan los Sussex con la manera como han manejado su salida. Han sido maquiavélicos y no les ha importado si rodaban cabezas en el camino.

Creo que algunas cosas no salieron como esperaban, porque pensaron que la CR cedería a sus demandas (como hacen los secuestradores, chantajistas y criminales varios) y eso no ocurrió.

Es más, aun está por verse como quedarán una vez se cumpla el período de "transición".

Algo queda claro y es que quienes busquen asociaciones con este par, que no crean en lealtades o en trato justo, porque si han sido capaces de traicionar a sus familias y amistades, no tendrán ningún miramiento en seguir con su costumbre de uso-y-desecho.
 
Registrado
29 Sep 2017
Mensajes
6.168
Calificaciones
33.026
P
El pozo negro, la fosa septica, asi el la prensa tabloide en RU.

La cultura de la prensa buitre en RU, no existe en paises como Francia, Noruega. Tampoco en Estados Unidos, People Magazine, etc. jamas reportan lo que lees en el Daily Mail, etc. Revistas americanas como People son por regla general bien respetuosas con su sujetos, no tienen intencion de hacer daño, ni entran en juicios sociales o de clase como el Hola, son mas bien vehiculos para humanizar a la gente famosa, trayendo sus vidas al publico para que la gente se identifique con ellos, se les empatice, etc.

La cultura de la esta prensa basura en RU mastica las vidas, las penas, los sufrimientos, de otros, y destroza vidas. Aqui un suicidio a consequencia. No os dais cuenta de las consequencias tragicas?

Es todo una locura, esto de cavar en la basura de las vidas ajenas, con mucha razon Harry y Meghan ont foutu le camp, como iban a permitir a su hijo a respirar semejante aire infecto?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/...?action=click&module=Features&pgtype=Homepage

A TV Star’s Suicide Prompts a Blame Game in Britain
Caroline Flack’s death over the weekend is the latest tragedy to highlight Britain’s peculiar tabloid culture.
Alex Marshall
By Alex Marshall
  • Feb. 17, 2020, 11:59 a.m. ET




Image
The suicide of Caroline Flack, a British television personality and tabloid fixture, has renewed calls to strengthen the country’s privacy laws.

The suicide of Caroline Flack, a British television personality and tabloid fixture, has renewed calls to strengthen the country’s privacy laws.Credit...Tolga Akmen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
LONDON — On Saturday night, news broke in Britain that Caroline Flack — the former host of “Love Island,” a wildly popular reality TV show — had killed herself.
Within hours, British social media was flooded with tributes to the star, who died while awaiting trial for assaulting her boyfriend.
But those tributes were soon overtaken by something else: demands for a new law in Flack’s name, to stop Britain’s tabloid newspapers from publishing stories that relentlessly dive into celebrities’ private lives.
Flack had been a tabloid fixture, having had romances with Prince Harry and Harry Styles, among others, and social media users accused the newspapers of harming her mental health.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story


“The British media is the cesspit of our society,” wrote one Twitter user, adding the #carolineslaw hashtag.
On Monday, an online petition calling for a law that would prevent newspapers from “sharing private information that is detrimental to a celebrity, their mental health and those around them,” quickly gained over 400,000 signatures. Politicians also lined up to criticize the tabloids, as well as hate-fueled social media commenters.
The press “have to take responsibility as well,” Keir Starmer, the front-runner to become the next leader of Britain’s Labour Party, told reporters, accusing newspapers of amplifying negative social media chatter.

None of that debate was noticeable to readers of Britain’s tabloids on Monday. The Sun — the newspaper subject to the most criticism, with some social media users calling for a boycott — devoted seven pages to Flack’s death. Its front page led with criticism of the British Crown Prosecution Service for “its pursuit of fragile Caroline Flack” in forcing her to trial.
The authorities had decided to pursue the assault charge despite knowing Flack had self-harmed during the alleged assault, The Sun said.


Last year, The Sun featured blanket overage of the assault allegations against Flack, even calling her “Caroline Whack.”
The rancor around Flack’s suicide is only the latest time British tabloids have come under scrutiny. It comes just weeks after Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, who have complained repeatedly about press intrusion into their lives, again threatened legal action against several British tabloids over invasive photos.
But media commentators said they did not think calls for #carolineslaw would be any more successful than past campaigns to strengthen privacy laws in Britain. Nor did they expect the campaign to dent the British public’s interest in such stories, which tend to be popular on social media.
“This is one of those great hypocrisies of the British public, that they indulge in reading, and often writing, about these celebrities and then when things go wrong, they turn on the media and say it’s all the media’s fault,” Roy Greenslade, a media columnist for The Guardian, said in a telephone interview. Greenslade once worked at The Sun and was also editor of The Daily Mirror, another tabloid.
Greenslade said he lived half of every year in Ireland and there seemed “less of an appetite” there to read about celebrity gossip. That was also the case in other European countries like France and Norway, he said. Gossip rags do exist elsewhere, he said — he cited the National Enquirer as one example — but they are not seen as also being serious newspapers like Britain’s tabloids.
Adrian Bingham, a historian who has written a history of Britain’s tabloid press, said in a telephone interview that British newspapers’ focus on people’s private lives first boomed in the 1930s as the publications competed for scoops. “People would have done anything then,” he said. “If they could have hacked phones in the 1930s, they would have.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story


He didn’t expect anything to come from the calls for a #carolineslaw. The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, while pursued by journalists “didn’t lead to anything meaningful” around press regulation, he said. Flack was not as big a celebrity and the newspapers were already using their platforms to divert blame onto other people, such as the Crown Prosecution Service or the producers of “Love Island,” he added.
On Monday, the Daily Mail’s front page said Flack feared a “a show trial.” Inside, an opinion piece said Flack had been “tried and convicted by the merciless court of social media.”
The Daily Star, another tabloid, focused much of its coverage of Flack’s death on a backlash against ITV, the TV company that broadcasts “Love Island,” with fans asking if it gave her sufficient support after she left the show because of the assault case.



Image
Fans placed flowers outside Flack’s former home in London. An online petition has called for a law that would prevent the press from “sharing private information that is detrimental to a celebrity.”

Fans placed flowers outside Flack’s former home in London. An online petition has called for a law that would prevent the press from “sharing private information that is detrimental to a celebrity.”Credit...Simon Dawson/Reuters
“Did the tabloids kill her?” asked David Yelland, a former editor of The Sun and deputy editor of The New York Post, in an email. “I think the reality is that popular newspapers are now just one part of the toxic ecology the very famous have to cope with.”
Social media and the tabloids “feed off each other in a way which creates a living hell for celebrities in the wrong place at the wrong time" he added. “It seems to be getting worse and there are no easy answers.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story


Flack had a typical rise to fame in Britain, first making her name on children’s television before being involved in popular reality TV shows such as “I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here.”
In 2014, she won “Strictly Come Dancing” — one of the most popular shows on British TV — and the following she year became the host of “Love Island,” a show in which contestants live in couples in a luxury villa. That show has stirred debate in Britain around the ethics of reality television shows, following the suicides of several former contestants. Its latest season didn’t air episodes on Saturday and Sunday nights following Flack’s death, although it was due to return on Monday night.
Throughout her career, Flack was a tabloid fixture. On Monday, The Sun carried a two-page article focusing on how her career highs “coincided with crushing personal lows.” It then listed her failed romances, bouts of depression and use of anti-depressants. “In a pattern often repeated, her career took off while her personal life was in tatters,” it said, after discussing her first public romance.
Last October, around World Mental Health Day, Flack posted on Instagram about her recent struggles. “The last few weeks I’ve been in a really weird place,” she wrote. “I guess it’s anxiety and pressure of life and when I actually reached out to someone they said I was draining,” she added.
“Be nice to people,” she added. “You never know what’s going on. Ever.”
Greenslade said he had read about the message and thought it was “a lovely plea” that he supported. But, he added, “if you’re a celebrity and you have depended on your media profile to make your fame and therefore create your income, it’s very difficult then to turn off the tap.”
More on Britain’s tabloid culture

Prince Harry’s Real Declaration of Independence: From Britain’s Tabloids
Jan. 9, 2020
Carolina Flack (que por cierto, tuvo una breve relación con el príncipe Harry en 2009) se suicidó porque iba a ser llevada a juicio por agredir a su novio y no podía soportar semejante cosa. Al parecer era una chica muy inestable y no era la primera vez que se pasaba. Cuando ocurrió la agresión la policía fue a su casa, llamada por los vecinos, y se lo encontró a él sangrando y a ella bastante exaltada, estaba todo grabado e iba a salir en el juicio. Es una memez decir que la mató la prensa británica. Por cierto, el novio retiró la denuncia, pero la fiscalía siguió el proceso de oficio, como pasa en episodios de violencia doméstica.

Por cierto, un caso similar le ocurrió a Boris Johnson y a su novia, eso sí que fue un escandalazo. Y míralos, juntos y en Downing Street, ni muertos ni matados.
 
Registrado
18 Nov 2019
Mensajes
237
Calificaciones
1.317
Pues el mismo aire que respira tooooda la familia real del Reino unido que muy bonito esto de los privilegios pero no las cosas malas. Venga a llorarle s otros.

De verdad todo lo malo que tienen en la vida es aguantar una prensa que si es amarillista y tremenda pero que ha captado toda la familia, pues vaya.

Que hay tragedias pues como en los colegios con el bullying y no sacamos a nuestros hijos de la educación reglada chica. Estos quieren la comodidad y ninguna molestia.



Carretas lo que han aguantado camilla o fergie o hasta Kate y no se fueron con la llorandera.

Se fueron porque en la familia real británica se trabaja de lo lindo. Un acto día sí y otro no y el del medio. Y hay disciplina y obligaciones y estos quieren pasta y vivir la vida. Los lloros a otro lado.

No compares con famosos sin protección. En la familia real aguantan críticas pero luego se van a su palacio y su seguridad donde hay una distancia física insalvable para los periodistas.

Anda que si hubieran tenido una agenda en plan un acto cada dos semanas o fueran los herederos se hubieran largado. Simplemente creen que demasiado esfuerzo.

Venga ya y no nos venda la pena. Pena da un currantes que para comer tiene que aguantar un jefe despótico no estos flojos que no pueden aguantar lo que han aguantado toda la familia de harry
Defiendes una sociedad dura, brutal, donde todos tenemos derecho a tirar mierda entre clases sociales, etc. Tenemos casa, comida, educcion, salud, tiempo libre, porque la necesidad de brutalizarnos uno contra otro?
 
Registrado
11 Nov 2012
Mensajes
10.879
Calificaciones
58.370
Gracias por los artículos. Se retratan los Sussex con la manera como han manejado su salida. Han sido maquiavélicos y no les ha importado si rodaban cabezas en el camino.

Creo que algunas cosas no salieron como esperaban, porque pensaron que la CR cedería a sus demandas (como hacen los secuestradores, chantajistas y criminales varios) y eso no ocurrió.

Es más, aun está por verse como quedarán una vez se cumpla el período de "transición".

Algo queda claro y es que quienes busquen asociaciones con este par, que no crean en lealtades o en trato justo, porque si han sido capaces de traicionar a sus familias y amistades, no tendrán ningún miramiento en seguir con su costumbre de uso-y-desecho.
Han actuado como terroristas.
 
Registrado
20 Oct 2009
Mensajes
11.302
Calificaciones
30.694
Defiendes una sociedad dura, brutal, donde todos tenemos derecho a tirar mierda entre clases sociales, etc. Tenemos casa, comida, educcion, salud, tiempo libre, porque la necesidad de brutalizarnos uno contra otro?
Lo que no es de recibo es que uses dicha sociedad donde vivimos TODOS, en gran Bretaña están los tabloides y en USA la competitividad bestial o en España la desigualdad para echarte la llorandera y vender pena cuando lo único que quieren esos dos es forrarse a costa del nombre de la familia de Harry pero sin las obligaciones que ella conlleva.

La sociedad o su dureza no son excusa para los jetas vividores
 
Registrado
20 Oct 2009
Mensajes
11.302
Calificaciones
30.694
Ni he leido tres lineas, pero te contesto. EL BULLYING en los colegios es UNA TRAGEDIA, que tiene consequencia que perduran mas alla, en TODA la sociedad. Teneis la responsibilidad como madre, padre, cuidadano de poner un gran PARO al bullying en vuestros colegios. La respuesta desde luego no es anadir al problema con mas bullying, nivel adulto!!!! Desde luego que no.
Te voy a decir un secreto. No vivimos en el paraíso de Adán y Eva

Nadie lo hace. Pero todos peleamos por un mundo mejor y lo hacemos enfrentándonos al mundo no huyendo para conseguir dinero amparandonos en las tragedias de los otros

Estos dos no se tan ido para luchar contra el mundo sino para forrarse trabajando lo justo

Lo siento me arece deiznable usar cosas tan serias para justificar dos vividores.
 
Registrado
18 Nov 2019
Mensajes
237
Calificaciones
1.317
Cuando empiezas a atacar personas que no conoces para justificar dos famosos es que estás traspasando el límite del fanático.

Para comenzar deja en paz a esta pobre mujer que no te importaría un carajo de no ser por tu defensa a los Sussex.

De verdad que utilizar a los muertos para defender dos tipos que se han ido única y llanamente para ganar dinero trabajando poco tiene tela.
Te equivocas, llevo muchos anos, mas de 10, hablando y escribiendo contra el bullying, incluso aqui, muchos anos antes de la aparicion de Meghan Markle. Estuve en el escenario del colegio de mis hijos guiando un meeting contra esto, estuve en comites en sus colegios contra esto y otras tema de la salud mental, he defendido a muchas mujeres contra ataques aqui en cotilleando, asi que poco tiene que ver con Meghan Markle. Y aparte, mi trabajo diario es defender y proteger a los mas vulnerables de nuestra sociedad, gente sin techo. Asi que mientras dejas escapar vapor aqui contra gente que deprecias, yo estoy ayudanda a la gente callejera. Y no tienes razon sobre Harry y Meghan, son gente buena, se escapan de un mundo brutal, un mundo que no hace bien a nadie, y en el que no estan dispuestos a criar a su familia.
 
Registrado
19 Abr 2017
Mensajes
26
Calificaciones
211
Te equivocas, llevo muchos anos, mas de 10, hablando y escribiendo contra el bullying, incluso aqui, muchos anos antes de la aparicion de Meghan Markle. Estuve en el escenario del colegio de mis hijos guiando un meeting contra esto, estuve en comites en sus colegios contra esto y otras tema de la salud mental, he defendido a muchas mujeres contra ataques aqui en cotilleando, asi que poco tiene que ver con Meghan Markle. Y aparte, mi trabajo diario es defender y proteger a los mas vulnerables de nuestra sociedad, gente sin techo. Asi que mientras dejas escapar vapor aqui contra gente que deprecias, yo estoy ayudanda a la gente callejera. Y no tienes razon sobre Harry y Meghan, son gente buena, se escapan de un mundo brutal, un mundo que no hace bien a nadie, y en el que no estan dispuestos a criar a su familia.
Pero nadie puede escapar del mundo a menos que fallezcas. El mundo sigue ahi, y seguirá igual de brutal, frio y despidadado como siempre, y mira tu que este par tenia la oportunidad de luchar contra ese mundo brutal del cual ellos estan protegidos, porque vamos que no son dos simples mortales no?

Hubieran podido luchar desde su trinchera para hacer des este mundo, empezando por su país, un lugar mejor. Porque no serán reyes, no tienen las obligaciones que el hermano y la cuñada; entonces tenian muchos privilegios que les permitian abogar y respaldar causas, supongamos que no todas, proque también en eso les dirigen, pero habia que hacer, por donde trabajar, habia mucho que mejorar.

Sin embargo, este par no es trabajador, no es humanista, no es luchador de causa social, no es royal de verdad... ellos estan a vivir la vida lo mejor que se pueda sin entrar en obligaciones, a disfrutar de todos los beneficios de ser, y a quitarse de encima las cargas. Bueno pues cada quien su vida, y sus decisiones, pero eres o no eres... la integridad ante todo. O te quedas y tomas al toro por los cuernos, o te vas y vives en congruencia con lo que pregones. Eso de abusar de sus titulos y su posición para vivir como celebridades, llevandose entre las patas lo que a generaciones de sus antepasados les toco mantener, es todo, menos honesto y correcto.

Y felicidades por luchar por un mundo mejor.
 

Mirando este Tema (Miembros: 2, Invitados: 5)