Princess Kate battling cancer

Moggy wrote:

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.

No, a lot of people do not photoshop their photos.

And even if they did, they are not the future Queen who released a photo to prove all is well.

And nobody has said it was criminal.

They do.

That’s nothing more than your take/opinion.

Maybe not. But also not espousing misinformation.

Tomous wrote:

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.

No one is saying they committed a criminal offence, why are you arguing this

You are stating that ‘they’ve known this for three months’. Really? Exactly how do you know this? Do you have access to her medical records?

PS Going to bed now so no more from me. Like I’ve said, I’m a staunch republican, I’ve actually no time for the royal family. But I’d prefer not to just rely on my predujices in forming my opinions. Assumptions are anathema to me.

I guess it's where they say it was found as a result of the surgery she had. Presumably very shortly after that as she won't have been hanging around on a waiting list. So more like 2 months, maybe.

still wrote:

Hexx wrote:And you actually believe she photoshopped herself ?

And exactly where tdid I say this?! Of course I don’t. Your point is?

Well you’re arguing there’s no misinformation .
Now you’ve just admitted there was.

It’s very hard to keep up with.

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

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.

No one is saying they committed a criminal offence, why are you arguing this

You are stating that ‘they’ve known this for three months’. Really? Exactly how do you know this? Do you have access to her medical records?

Because medical biopsies like that don't take months and months to return.

I thought she had surgery in December but seems it was mid January and she was discharged at the end of January. She would most likely have known at this point and they'd have started preparing for her chemotherapy starting at end of Feb. So 3 months was an exaggeration but they've no doubt known for well over a month.

Hexx wrote:

still wrote:

Hexx wrote:And you actually believe she photoshopped herself ?

And exactly where tdid I say this?! Of course I don’t. Your point is?

Well you’re arguing there’s no misinformation .
Now you’ve just admitted there was.

It’s very hard to keep up with.

Lol. I really am going to bed now but… Where exactly have I admitted there was misinformation?? No, holding things back, is not the same as issuing misinformation.

Misleading omissions are essentially that.

still wrote:

Hexx wrote:

still wrote:

Hexx wrote:And you actually believe she photoshopped herself ?

And exactly where tdid I say this?! Of course I don’t. Your point is?

Well you’re arguing there’s no misinformation .
Now you’ve just admitted there was.

It’s very hard to keep up with.

Lol. I really am going to bed now but… Where exactly have I admitted there was misinformation?? No, holding things back, is not the same as issuing misinformation.

They said Kate Photoshopped the photo.

You don’t believe that.

You are literally disagreeing with yourself

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

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.

No one is saying they committed a criminal offence, why are you arguing this

You are stating that ‘they’ve known this for three months’. Really? Exactly how do you know this? Do you have access to her medical records?

Because medical biopsies like that don't take months and months to return.

I thought she had surgery in December but seems it was mid January and she was discharged at the end of January. She would most likely have known at this point and they'd have started preparing for her chemotherapy starting at end of Feb. So 3 months was an exaggeration but they've no doubt known for well over a month.

I thought, most likely…. Would that stand up in court do you think?

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

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.

No one is saying they committed a criminal offence, why are you arguing this

You are stating that ‘they’ve known this for three months’. Really? Exactly how do you know this? Do you have access to her medical records?

Because medical biopsies like that don't take months and months to return.

I thought she had surgery in December but seems it was mid January and she was discharged at the end of January. She would most likely have known at this point and they'd have started preparing for her chemotherapy starting at end of Feb. So 3 months was an exaggeration but they've no doubt known for well over a month.

I thought, most likely…. Would that stand up in court do you think?

I reckon so, because I could get a medical expert on the stand to agree with my timeline you dipstick

Hexx wrote:

still wrote:

Hexx wrote:

still wrote:

Hexx wrote:And you actually believe she photoshopped herself ?

And exactly where tdid I say this?! Of course I don’t. Your point is?

Well you’re arguing there’s no misinformation .
Now you’ve just admitted there was.

It’s very hard to keep up with.

Lol. I really am going to bed now but… Where exactly have I admitted there was misinformation?? No, holding things back, is not the same as issuing misinformation.

They said Kate Photoshopped the photo.

You don’t believe that.

You are literally disagreeing with yourself

Nope. She knew what was done. Her ownership. Good god you’ll have to think way harder than that. Seems I’m arguing with my fellow republicans but not ones who exactly advance the cause.. Stick to facts. When they don’t fit your narrative have the guts to admit it and think a bit harder. Feeling something is not remotely the same as it being true I’m afraid.

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

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.

No one is saying they committed a criminal offence, why are you arguing this

You are stating that ‘they’ve known this for three months’. Really? Exactly how do you know this? Do you have access to her medical records?

Because medical biopsies like that don't take months and months to return.

I thought she had surgery in December but seems it was mid January and she was discharged at the end of January. She would most likely have known at this point and they'd have started preparing for her chemotherapy starting at end of Feb. So 3 months was an exaggeration but they've no doubt known for well over a month.

I thought, most likely…. Would that stand up in court do you think?

I reckon so, because I could get a medical expert on the stand to agree with my timeline you dipstick

Ah, abuse as a result of your own illogicality. I’m not entirely sure I’m the dipstick here! Goodnight though, you keep making assumptions that fit your own believes. Or, heaven forbid, open your mind to the thought that you may just be making non-factual assumptions.

So they said something that wasn’t true but that’s not misinformation.

Kinda of like when you said you were going to bed?

You should go to bed. This is embarrassing. The attempts to haughtily claim the moral high ground stopped being funny 4 stupids ago..

It's a weird hill to die on, seems obvious they've been avoiding announcing it.

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

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.

No one is saying they committed a criminal offence, why are you arguing this

You are stating that ‘they’ve known this for three months’. Really? Exactly how do you know this? Do you have access to her medical records?

Because medical biopsies like that don't take months and months to return.

I thought she had surgery in December but seems it was mid January and she was discharged at the end of January. She would most likely have known at this point and they'd have started preparing for her chemotherapy starting at end of Feb. So 3 months was an exaggeration but they've no doubt known for well over a month.

I thought, most likely…. Would that stand up in court do you think?

I reckon so, because I could get a medical expert on the stand to agree with my timeline you dipstick

Ah, abuse as a result of your own illogicality. I’m not entirely sure I’m the dipstick here! Goodnight though, you keep making assumptions that fit your own believes. Or, heaven forbid, open your mind to the thought that you may just be making non-factual assumptions.

They've literally confirmed she started chemotherapy late February. It's March 22nd. When do you think she found out? After she started chemo?

Red wrote:It's a weird hill to die on, seems obvious they've been avoiding announcing it.

Getting real leave Britney Kate alone vibes

Also William has still cheated on Kate.

I don't understand why still keeps on about republicanism. Whatever her health status and whether she told the truth/lied/misrepresented/hid health information/wanted privacy (delete as appropriate), it'll make no difference to anybodys views on the monarchy.

Moggy wrote:I don't understand why still keeps on about republicanism. Whatever her health status and whether she told the truth/lied/misrepresented/hid health information/wanted privacy (delete as appropriate), it'll make no difference to anybodys views on the monarchy.

I’m not so sure. I don’t think I can carry on being a staunch monarchist now I know they can get cancer like the plebs.