Re: Princess Kate battling cancer
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2024 7:51 pm
Feels to me like Kensington Palace are getting pelters across social media by a whole bunch of posters trying to excuse being nosey banana splits.
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Eesh. Can't help but feel a bit of a banana split now for enjoying the speculation/rumours.
Hope the treatment works and she makes a full recovery.
Imrahil wrote:Robbo-92 wrote:Terrible news for them, Charles and now Kate having treatment for cancer, seriously just strawberry float cancer.
It’s been handheld poorly throughout though, just say she’s ill? Rather than let everyone dissect an image to the pixel and create rumours.
To be fair they had already told the public she'd had major abdominal surgery that would require a recovery period. It wasn't exactly a big mystery why she was away from the public eye initially.
The bizarre desire - especially from the press - for her to 'show herself' shortly after she came out of hospital may have even contributed to that rushed family photo in the first place. Yeah, it was poorly handled by them obviously, but I don't think the press and elements of social media can get away scott-free with any of this.
It goes both ways I think.
False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
Moggy wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.
still wrote:Moggy wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.
You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that to prove lies or misinformation I’m afraid.
still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
Moggy wrote:still wrote:Moggy wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.
You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that to prove lies or misinformation I’m afraid.
You don't think a photoshopped photo is misinformation?
Ok.
Tomous wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
What.
They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.
still wrote:Moggy wrote:still wrote:Moggy wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.
You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that to prove lies or misinformation I’m afraid.
You don't think a photoshopped photo is misinformation?
Ok.
Hang on, everybody photoshops their photos and she has explained why. Clumsy but not criminal.
still wrote:Tomous wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
What.
They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.
Factually incorrect. As stated she went in for abdominal surgery with the presumption that it wasn’t cancerous. The diagnosis of cancer came as a result of the operation. Like I’ve said I am not remotely a monarchist but I would prefer it if we stuck to the facts.
still wrote:Moggy wrote:still wrote:Moggy wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.
You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that to prove lies or misinformation I’m afraid.
You don't think a photoshopped photo is misinformation?
Ok.
Hang on, everybody photoshops their photos and she has explained why. Clumsy but not criminal.
Hexx wrote:And you actually believe she photoshopped herself ?
Tomous wrote:still wrote:Tomous wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
What.
They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.
Factually incorrect. As stated she went in for abdominal surgery with the presumption that it wasn’t cancerous. The diagnosis of cancer came as a result of the operation. Like I’ve said I am not remotely a monarchist but I would prefer it if we stuck to the facts.
Do you think she just got the result back today or something?
They've known for 3 months and she started chemotherapy at the end of February but the whole time they've said she was at home recovering from the surgery only.
As people expected, they weren't telling the whole story and there was more going on.
still wrote:Tomous wrote:still wrote:Tomous wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
What.
They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.
Factually incorrect. As stated she went in for abdominal surgery with the presumption that it wasn’t cancerous. The diagnosis of cancer came as a result of the operation. Like I’ve said I am not remotely a monarchist but I would prefer it if we stuck to the facts.
Do you think she just got the result back today or something?
They've known for 3 months and she started chemotherapy at the end of February but the whole time they've said she was at home recovering from the surgery only.
As people expected, they weren't telling the whole story and there was more going on.
Prove ‘they’ve known this for three months’ please. They have not said she was only recovering from surgery just recovering. Keeping information back is not yet, as far as I know it, in this country a criminal offence.