The DM can’t even quality check their own work, let alone anyone else’s.
appears to of been
appears to of been
Was that Dave or Vikki arse wise?Yes there should be a trail. Even back in the late 80s/early 90s when I worked in medical records the computer system was sophisticated enough to log visits to a person’s page.
Also your own file and your immediate family’s were removed from general access. I imagine royal family files are treated similarly. It just occurred to me that the hospital I worked at had many royal patients, including the Queen when she was alive. It didn’t occur to me to try to look at any of their files.
There was a rumour about a celebrity of the foreign object in arse variety that was confirmed as true by someone in another section to me. That was about as out of order as we ever got.
Hardly barking mad to gossip about an affair or to question why the palace has chosen to act as they have.Gossip, not barking mad conspiracy theories!
The issue is not and never will be that they release pictures with vanity edits. The issue was that the photo could not be verified. In a world where fake news is such an issue, it should be clear why news agencies would respond as they have.Are we surprised? Is anyone since the 2000s really believing in pictures? Of course they are edited in minor or major ways. Letting people disappear, putting people in, manipulating skin and body forms…. That shit has been going on ever since photography was invented. I mean, I have left school a long time ago now but we most definitely learned about the manipulation of iconic historic paintings and photographs. My parents generation knows about photoshop as well and what it can do and does. It’s funny though how a lot of those photos fell through the crack but the second one gets detected with massive publicity suddenly they realise more need to be flagged if you actually exercise the agreed standard.
I have no problem rejecting something that doesn’t fit the standard and that this is ridiculing KP is on them. But people acting as if the BRF, of all, needs to be on a higher standard and are usually putting out trustworthy images is delusional. Monarchies have been in this game for centuries. I would argue that non of their official pictures is showing a real image of them nor have they ever.
Except when that gossip about an affair has been debunked many times. And there was never any evidence for it in the first place.Hardly barking mad to gossip about an affair or to question why the palace has chosen to act as they have.
There’s quite a wide range of theories and not all are “barking mad”. There’s no way people can claim this has been handled normally by the palace. Compare it to Charles for an infinitely better example.
The palace denying it is hardly debunking it. Official statements in the 80s would have portrayed Charles and Diana as perfectly happy.Except when that gossip about an affair has been debunked many times. And there was never any evidence for it in the first place.
I get the problem agencies have with the photo. They took it out of their selection. That’s right and fine. KP was stupid not to read the specifications or thought they could still submit it without repercussions. That’s my biggest problem here. They act stupid and entitled at times, but what else is new.Hardly barking mad to gossip about an affair or to question why the palace has chosen to act as they have.
There’s quite a wide range of theories and not all are “barking mad”. There’s no way people can claim this has been handled normally by the palace. Compare it to Charles for an infinitely better example.
---
The issue is not and never will be that they release pictures with vanity edits. The issue was that the photo could not be verified. In a world where fake news is such an issue, it should be clear why news agencies would respond as they have.
The issue isn’t that a wrinkle was edited out. The issue is they have not responded with an original photo and can’t verify that all were present at the same time.
---
There’s no problem with a photo with alterations. The problem is they couldn’t and didn’t verify it was an actual photo.I just don’t see the issue with having a photo with alterations, that doesn’t fit the standard, being rejected and not giving out the original/s. People can believe it’s a recent one or not. It’s not as if it’s a proof of life with todays newspaper.
I am not sure Rose Hanbury and her family share your view. It's not a harmless rumour when it repeatedly points to real people even though there is no proof. It's one thing to speculate whether William is having affairs or not, it's another when it targets a child - in this case Rose Hanbury's youngest son - without any evidence. Harry has suffered from the same allegations for years. It wasn't fair too and clearly impacted his mental health. Imagine how William's kids will feel (or maybe they already know that rumour) when they will be facing those allegations?The palace denying it is hardly debunking it. Official statements in the 80s would have portrayed Charles and Diana as perfectly happy.
It’s not “wild” to gossip about an heir to the throne having an affair. Someone else said he would be the first Prince of Wales to not have a mistress if he didn’t. They are hardly going to put a statement out saying he’s like a rabbit going from hole to hole.
A wild theory involves daft stuff about murder. An affair is pretty standard gossip.
Have copied this from another forum. Rose is fed up and upset..
View attachment 2826130View attachment 2826134
I'm sure roses millions in the bank can console herI am very sorry for Rose and her family. Some crazies even go as far as claiming Wiliam is the father of her youngest child. That’s just cruel for the child. Hope they can laugh about it when they are grown up.
I get the problem agencies have with the photo. They took it out of their selection. That’s right and fine. KP was stupid not to read the specifications or thought they could still submit it without repercussions. That’s my biggest problem here. They act stupid and entitled at times, but what else is new.
I just don’t see the issue with having a photo with alterations, that doesn’t fit the standard, being rejected and not giving out the original/s. People can believe it’s a recent one or not. It’s not as if it’s a proof of life with todays newspaper.
Not her, it was a dude and very much zleb level. That’s all I’m saying thoughThey deserve to lose their job and I hope they never work in a healthcare environment again. Not only for the gross misconduct, but also the sheer stupidity of risking their livelihood for a bit of gossip.
Anyone with access to public records is made well aware of the consequences of seeking out information they are not privy to. They would also have known for sure that high profile clients would have extra levels of security attached to their files.
I have access to DWP/HMRC/Home Office files. You have a little fob which generates a password everytime you access the system. We are on something like an 8% test check setting, so even if you are doing a legitimate search on Joe Bloggs, the screen will turn orange to advise you are being checked. If you don't complete a test check form within 24 hours, giving valid reasons for accessing the file, you are in trouble.
Celebs, notorious criminals and royalty have higher levels of security and will be on a 100% test check setting, so every single attempt to look at them would trigger a check. I have known colleagues to be dismissed just for checking up on their friends DWP records.
---
Vicky Beckham?!
What has money got to do with it. She is a mother who has three young children. And that Colbert guy repeated gossip from a tabloid about HER child to millions of people. Of course she is going to protect her child. I am glad she finally did.I'm sure roses millions in the bank can console her
That’s a really naive outlook to have when she has to send her kids to school who could be getting asked if their dad is really their dad. Harry is a wealthy prince who is nearly 40 and has spoken about how those same rumours have affected him his whole life.I'm sure roses millions in the bank can console her
Do you believe all rumours? According to the kate rumours… she had a bbl, facelift, victim of dv, William made her have a termination, William murdered Thomas Kinston because he was having an affair with kate… kate donated a kidney to king charlessurely the rumour wouldn't come out of nowhere?
Do you believe all rumours? According to the kate rumours… she had a bbl, facelift, victim of dv, William made her have a termination, William murdered Thomas Kinston because he was having an affair with kate… kate donated a kidney to king charlesetc etc rumours start from jealousy - Our friends girlfriend got a text xmas eve saying “ Oh jack congratulations on the birth of baby Eve she’s beautiful) …. they have no kids- he never cheated- they got a big new contract and someone was stupid enough to send a text - name obvious- trying to plant seeds of doubt… on bloody xmas eve.
Rose has made a statement through lawyers - you can bet no one with a genuine user name who can be sued will repeat this rumour… but if you want to know where it started I’m not sure but Giles Coren certainly repeated it and then deleted his tweet- it turns up on here now and then.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that it is the subject of a rumour that is wild theory or standard gossip, rather than the source and plausibility of it. An affair is a wild theory if there is no evidence, as we see here, even if it is not as dramatic a subject as murder. And previous Princes of Wales having mistresses is neither evidence nor a plausible indicator of an affair.It’s not “wild” to gossip about an heir to the throne having an affair. Someone else said he would be the first Prince of Wales to not have a mistress if he didn’t. They are hardly going to put a statement out saying he’s like a rabbit going from hole to hole.
A wild theory involves daft stuff about murder. An affair is pretty standard gossip.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?