advertisement


Prince Andrew allegations not going away...

Woodface said:
I think that is the male view of it, it is probably more complicated than that. I find the whole idea of female student hooking to be a pretty grim inditement of society & the attitudes of certain males. I am really not at all 'right on' but can see how this can have massive repurcussions for those involved.

I am pretty sure people don't just wake up one morning & say, "think I'll try a bit of prostitution today". It is just a simple abuse of power, society should see it as wholly unacceptable & no apologies should be made.
Click to expand...

Think of all the "toy boys" on the beaches of tropical resorts catering to the needs of older women, or the "toy girls" for that matter. Or beautiful young women who marry rich men 40 years their senior. Or rich women who are "going out" with much younger men. Or very normal wives who, after a few decades of marriage, would be much happier without sex but do it to stop their husbands divorcing or having sex elsewhere. This is reality, like it or not, and reality is not regulated by the moral rules that in a perfect world would keep everyone happily smiling. Also, bear in mind that the relationship between the thing called "love" and actual sex is very tenuous. In fact I've often suspected that, church and cinema notwithstanding, they have little to do with each other. Sex is sex and love is love.
 
PaulMB said:
Think of all the "toy boys" on the beaches of tropical resorts catering to the needs of older women, or the "toy girls" for that matter. Or beautiful young women who marry rich men 40 years their senior. Or rich women who are "going out" with much younger men. Or very normal wives who, after a few decades of marriage, would be much happier without sex but do it to stop their husbands divorcing or having sex elsewhere. This is reality, like it or not, and reality is not regulated by the moral rules that in a perfect world would keep everyone happily smiling. Also, bear in mind that the relationship between the thing called "love" and actual sex is very tenuous. In fact I've often suspected that, church and cinema notwithstanding, they have little to do with each other. Sex is sex and love is love.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see there is nuance but let's think that any of the above are particularly positive. It's not about morality just a recognition that 'choices' are not made on a level playing field. Most of the above examples are based upon a disparity of wealth & are probably not consequence free for those involved. I don't believe the world is perfect but it is good to recognise that rather than just 'shit happens'.
 
tones said:
Not in the UK, Downunder. Sir John Kerr, Governor-General and therefore the Queen's official representative, dismissed Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

I'm not sure that the Queen had anything to do with it. It caused quite a furore at the time, because nobody knew that Governors-General had this sort of power.
Click to expand...

I am quite certain that the Privy Council would have been well involved in the situation. The GG may have the 'pwer' but is unlikely to have wielded it without considerable consultation.
 
JensenHealey said:
I am quite certain that the Privy Council would have been well involved in the situation. The GG may have the 'pwer' but is unlikely to have wielded it without considerable consultation.
Click to expand...
I was an Oz resident at the time, and I don't recall the Privy Council being involved. This was the shock of the whole thing, that Sir John Kerr had taken this step unilaterally. I can still remember a furious Gough Whitlam saying something along the lines of "God save the Queen, but God will not save the Governor-General!" Such was the stink that Sir John left the post early and spent most of the rest of his life overseas (he was a Sydneysider by birth).
 
Woodface said:
I think that is the male view of it
Click to expand...
I'd rather call it hard fact. A now deceased friend used to be a car mechanic in his younger years (at an age when you often do things for free) and, being young and naive, it took him some time to understand the frequent correlation between women interested in going to bed with him, and those who had a problem with their car. Funny, they were often the same person.

Next time you see a group composed of many people meeting on a regular basis (a choir, for instance), have a look at who talks to whom. Then inquire about the occupation people have or had. You can quite exactly tell which members have money and who don't. You'll also see that handsomeness is only second priority, and being retired doesn't change anything at all at that behaviour.
 
Cheese said:
it took him some time to understand the frequent correlation between women interested in going to bed with him, and those who had a problem with their car
Click to expand...

if HBO made a TV show out of that, i'd watch it.
 
why is there still no news about epstein's bottom b*tch (that's actually the correct technical term) ghislaine maxwell? isn't she the next logical step with the investigation?

rick sanchez seems to be the only significant american news person asking the question:

 
Cheese said:
I won't go as far as liking your post, Vuk, but I wouldn't dislike it either if there were such a button. The only problem I have with it is the 'take them down' bit. Does the average Briton want this ?
Click to expand...

since i posted that, i've now come across this:



#1 - notice the framing of the issue. "How much trouble is Jeffrey Epstein's death for the Royal Family?" how much trouble "prince" may have been for victims of sexual abuse/trafficking is clearly not the main issue here.

#2 - the guest is supposed to be presenting an adversarial view of some kind, but seems entirely on the side of the royals, though with enough finger-wagging about trivialities to confirm he understands the necessity of maintaining appearances. the informal advice to "prince" is to cooperate with american lawyers because it may otherwise appear as a cover-up, which most of the time (according to expert guest) is the thing that gets you in trouble, as opposed to an actual crime -- which obviously could not have happened (see #3).

#3- the guest explicitly invokes the notion of "royal blood" as part of his impression management strategy that rejects the possibility of impropriety. so, you can deduct a few points from my claim that nobody would rely on this sort of reasoning in the past century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top