bennett Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 51 minutes ago, 101 said: I thought the daily mail called anyone in hospital for 2 weeks "a bed blocker" nice to see them change the record. Has anyone who works for the NHS ever challenged the royals when they show up to smile why they aren't trusted with their care? If they used a normal nhs place they'd probably get stick for not going private. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 11 minutes ago, bennett said: If they used a normal nhs place they'd probably get stick for not going private. Don't think I'd have a problem either way, but with them fairly regularly rocking up at hospitals to thanks the NHS seems pretty false when they clearly aren't trusted or deemed capable to deliver a high level of care that the Royals are seeking. No one was pissed when Johnson was dying in an NHS hospital, rather folk thought it gave him a good insight to the problems of dealing with it in a NHS hospital. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Jesus wept. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Visiting my mum today, she gave my daughter a 50p coin with Charles's face on it. Mum then said, "if the news is right, we might get a coronation soon. The king isn't well." My daughter replied "It's fine. He's old, like in his nineties anyway." Lack of empathy for the royals from my youngest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 I'm assuming Kate's had an appendicitis or hysterectomy which most of us would be chucked out after couple days. But royalty and that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 21 minutes ago, RH33 said: I'm assuming Kate's had an appendicitis or hysterectomy which most of us would be chucked out after couple days. But royalty and that. Presumably Rose Hanbury will be taking care of Baldy Wullie's pegging requirements whilst the Blessed Saint Kate is having her tubes tied. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 32 minutes ago, RH33 said: I'm assuming Kate's had an appendicitis or hysterectomy which most of us would be chucked out after couple days. But royalty and that. My wife thinks it's her bladder. Fragrant Kate probably stinks of pish. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, RH33 said: I'm assuming Kate's had an appendicitis or hysterectomy which most of us would be chucked out after couple days. But royalty and that. Clitoris enlargement, for improved pegging experience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said: "The speed of light" Aye, right you are Edited January 20 by DA Baracus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Wills probably gave Kate a dose. That or an unwanted pregnancy due to the risk of the offspring looking like her bodyguard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Florentine_Pogen said: Presumably Rose Hanbury will be taking care of Baldy Wullie's pegging requirements whilst the Blessed Saint Kate is having her tubes tied. He's too busy looking after the kids, or so the papers would have their readers believe, conveniently not mentioning that the family are nannied oot their nuts under normal conditions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, Shotgun said: Wills probably gave Kate a dose. That or an unwanted pregnancy due to the risk of the offspring looking like her bodyguard. You don’t think they’d just brass it out given his wee brother’s the spitting image of Jim Hewitt? (And also more than a passing resemblance to Kevin de Bruyne if anyone fancies starting a new conspiracy theory) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Miguel Sanchez said: I think they should have stuck the laser in a certain famous BBC prop (to the left in the picture) just to make the rest of the world shit itself: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 minute ago, tamthebam said: I think they should have stuck the laser in a certain famous BBC prop (to the left in the picture) just to make the rest of the world shit itself: I’d be fine, I live on the third floor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 4 hours ago, scottsdad said: Jesus wept. Lehs. Jesus doesn't give a f**k. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 21 hours ago, DA Baracus said: "The speed of light" Aye, right you are That surprised me too. Why mention it? A beam of light travels at the speed of light. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 30 minutes ago, scottsdad said: That surprised me too. Why mention it? A beam of light travels at the speed of light. To be pedantic, light travels very slightly slower through an atmosphere (around 50,000 metrs per second slower) The speed of light is defined by its speed in vacuum 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said: To be pedantic, light travels very slightly slower through an atmosphere (around 50,000 metrs per second slower) The speed of light is defined by its speed in vacuum Let me up the pedantry stakes... You are correct in that light in a vacuum is the measured and fastest "Speed of light". But the light in the atmosphere, whilst slower, is still the speed of light. Also underwater - a different speed but still the speed of light. It's like the speed of Usain Bolt. He's been measured doing 100 metres in ideal conditions. Make him wear an oodie and flip flops and run it again, it would be slower but would still be his speed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.