In the news

Blimey.
I've read The Kite Runner, but that was an eye-opener.

20 years for grooming but what about the nonce !

He’s safe, mum will drag herself away from amending laws in secret to benefit herself and have his back

Is all this negative news about Charles just stuff the Tory press have had in there back pocket and are now sending a couple of warning shots that he should stfu about Rwanda.

Charlie boy has had "negative" stuff thrown at him his whole life....it's water of a duck's back. Tories are fucked, hence their feral /illegal nonsense.

yeh is weird how much focus it is, especially when it isn't clear he has actually done anything illegal, just uncoventional

It's also not new news - this came out a few years ago in relation to leases on the Dutchy estate

yeh is weird how much focus it is, especially when it isn't clear he has actually done anything illegal, just uncoventional

Was going to say just this. The press reporting of political meddling by the Queen and Prince Charles when its perfectly legal and has been happening, well, basically forever, does smell a little bit like a deliberately timed attack.

I get the feeling that the papers have been saving a big pile of anti-monarchy stuff. They haven't dared used it forcefully because of the Queen's popularity. But with Charles taking over, the gloves are coming off. Because of the huge success of films and TV about the monarchy, the public will lap up more royal scandal than ever. It's a big seller for the papers. We're going to have endless stuff about Charles abusing his position, Charles falling out with his sons, Charles' charities being out of step with Britain and the public wanting him to abdicate so we can have Queen Kate instead of Queen Camilla-Tampax.

when its perfectly legal

Well it's perfectly legal but that's because they (or their ancestors) made the laws.

We done BlowJo in the private eye?
https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1542181048330719233

R Kelly sentenced to 30yrs.
‘Bout fucking time
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/r-kelly-trial-live-sentencing-sex-abuse-b2112173.html

I would strongly suggest not linking to that tweet but linking to this one instead:
https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1542181048330719233

Seeing as it's ripped off their exclusive with zero regard for copyright or actually keeping the Eye going so it can continue to produce such exclusives...

Aren't they ^, ^^ the same link?

I assume the original was updated to show the suggested link

Ah, gotcha

in another blow for the horseshoe theorists it looks like macron is cobbling together a parliamentary alliance including le pen and her merry band of fascists

not that long ago the French left were being berated by Sensible Moderates across the land for enabling le pen with their insufficient enthusiasm for Macron, despite Mélenchon and co pressing their voters to vote for Macron over le pen (a favour that Macron and co pointedly did not return, weird that). Almost like the your average centrist pundit is a witless fucking clown, and almost like the centre prefers the far right over the left. Not that we’ve seen that dynamic play out anywhere closer to home in recent years.

Yes but this is so vague that I don't understand it. What's the actual story?

'Psycho seagulls' force family to be prisoners in their own home
Even their Staffordshire Bull Terrier crossbreed is petrified of the swooping birds

State of that fucking garden.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/30/family-of-captain-sir-tom-moore-face-formal-inquiry-into-charity-setup

insert guillotine GIF

What's wrong with it it's just a paved front yard? Looks a little sad with no plants but it ain't that bad.

There were people on here calling his family thieving scumbags about six months ago. Maybe the extrajudicial mob got this one right. We're about to find out.

Edit: they were exonerated for the last round of concerns so this is something new it seems.

The commission revealed that it had stepped in last year to prevent Hannah Ingram-Moore, a trustee of the charity, from being appointed as its chief executive on a six-figure salary.

.

What does this even mean though? What were the grounds for objection? What percentage of the chairities income was spent on salaries? (The answer is less than 1% for that time window). Why jump to conclusions and assume wrongdoing without knowing the details?