advertisement


Prince Andrew allegations not going away...

Cheese said:
Andrew has never been a teacher as far as I know
Click to expand...

cheese, you seem to be stuck in a child-like, authoritarian conception of morality. the laws that we have do not come from a perfect deity but are constructed by man and often seriously flawed. the fact that someone's reprehensible behaviour does not check off all the tick-boxes on a legal form does not make it less reprehensible.

as tony pointed out, what we know already is not in dispute and, by the very standards of the monarchy -- which is supposed to be the highest ground here -- it is something that should make a person an outcast or worse in their superior world. we are kinder than that, but we still demand some kind of punishment, even if doesn't take place in a courtroom. that said, there seems to be more than enough to warrant a criminal investigation or inquiry.

btw -- interestningly bill clinton is facing even less scrutiny. i imagine because everyone in the media hates trump and are deliberately side-stepping this for political reasons.
 
That's cleared up then. My point wasn't originally about legality just about abuse of power. I also posted a later example of lecturer/student which would not be illegal but rather unethical. The 'Me Too' movement has been quite a thing of late & would exactly cover this particular topic but I fear some on here probably don't give a stuff about it.
 
I’m afraid I start by asking why a 17 year old girl would even be present at a social gathering of 40+ year old men. The answer, it seems to me, is likely to be ‘not by choice’.
 
vuk said:
cheese, you seem to be stuck in a child-like, authoritarian conception of morality. the laws that we have do not come from a perfect deity but are constructed by man and often seriously flawed. the fact that someone's reprehensible behaviour does not check off all the tick-boxes on a legal form does not make it less reprehensible.

as tony pointed out, what we know already is not in dispute and, by the very standards of the monarchy -- which is supposed to be the highest ground here -- it is something that should make a person an outcast or worse in their superior world. we are kinder than that, but we still demand some kind of punishment, even if doesn't take place in a courtroom. that said, there seems to be more than enough to warrant a criminal investigation or inquiry.

btw -- interestningly bill clinton is facing even less scrutiny. i imagine because everyone in the media hates trump and are deliberately side-stepping this for political reasons.
Click to expand...
Clinton appears to be fully reformed in the court of public opinion. I listened to the recent Slate podcast on the Clinton/Lewinski affair & it made me sick how she was treated. The Clinton's are no higher on the turd scale than the Bushes IMHO. Trump is an obvious shit though
 
I don’t understand, what connection has the ancient Clinton/Lewinsky thing got to do with any of this? I can’t remember much about it beyond to my mind it being a lot of fuss largely about nothing, she certainly wasn’t an underage girl being 22 in 1995, and I don’t think there was ever any suggestion that Clinton was a child rapist. Not the most dignified behaviour for a president for sure, but this was never in the same category as Epstein & by connection “Prince” Andrew (sorry, I just don’t accept or acknowledge royal titles!).
 
tony -- i was referring to clinton's 24 trips on epstein's "lolita express", not the lewinsky affair.
 
vuk said:
tony -- i was referring to clinton's 24 trips on epstein's "lolita express", not the lewinsky affair.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, I haven’t been following that in any detail. I didn’t realise he was even involved. The UK media/the idiot end of the population are so royal obsessed we are really only hearing about it through that filter. Clinton is very old news and I guess comes pre-discredited so doesn’t get the headlines.
 
Tony L said:
I don’t understand, what connection has the ancient Clinton/Lewinsky thing got to do with any of this? I can’t remember much about it beyond to my mind it being a lot of fuss largely about nothing, she certainly wasn’t an underage girl being 22 in 1995, and I don’t think there was ever any suggestion that Clinton was a child rapist. Not the most dignified behaviour for a president for sure, but this was never in the same category as Epstein & by connection “Prince” Andrew (sorry, I just don’t accept or acknowledge royal titles!).
Click to expand...
It is a classic example of abuse of power Tony, I wasn't across the Clinton/Lewinski affair until a recent podcast which I linked to earlier. The whole saga was incredibly sordid & harmful to Lewinski, it also set a train of events in motion which ended at Trump.

Shitty men in power using their influence to exploit young girls is not very nice. Try telling Lewinski that it was a lot of fuss about nothing, it basically ruined her life as, unlike Clinton, she was never able to move on from it.
 
vuk said:
....................what we know already is not in dispute and, by the very standards of the monarchy -- which is supposed to be the highest ground here -- it is something that should make a person an outcast or worse in their superior world........
Click to expand...

We need to keep a sense of proportion here. By historical standards of the monarchy, Andrew's alleged behaviour pales into insignificance.
 
Probably true.
It isn’t that long ago that press barons fell over themselves to keep uncomplimentary stories about the royals out of the UK papers.
 
vuk said:
cheese, you seem to be stuck in a child-like, authoritarian conception of morality. the laws that we have do not come from a perfect deity but are constructed by man and often seriously flawed. the fact that someone's reprehensible behaviour does not check off all the tick-boxes on a legal form does not make it less reprehensible.
Click to expand...
I don't know whether I've got your point, Vuk, all I want to say is that I (like probably all other fishies) am/are not in a position to judge what is right or wrong on a moral ground. What we can do is choose the people we want to interact with in our lives but that's pretty much it. Our grandparents had a totally different vision of morality from the one we do, but it was their time and their situation, we are not going to teach them anything.

Again, my point remains that we have evolved since the days when justice meant that a village mob came to burn down the house of a supposed criminal. I fear that we are returning exactly there with our social media platforms and the way they are ruled.

vuk said:
what we know already is not in dispute
Click to expand...
I confess I haven't read the entire press from left to right about that 17 year old woman, but as far as I know she hasn't filed a lawsuit. Correct me if I'm wrong but if she hasn't, why should we old hifi farts be in a position to judge anyone involved ?

vuk said:
by the very standards of the monarchy -- which is supposed to be the highest ground here
Click to expand...
Are they supposed to be any different from the law applied on the common man ? Such people tend to be treated with favours indeed, but would it then be right to treat them any harsher than you and I ? No.

vuk said:
we still demand some kind of punishment, even if doesn't take place in a courtroom. that said, there seems to be more than enough to warrant a criminal investigation or inquiry.
Click to expand...
No matter what I say about your last sentence, who is 'we' ? On what grounds would we [the people] have any right to punish any other person ?
 
MikeMA said:
We need to keep a sense of proportion here. By historical standards of the monarchy, Andrew's alleged behaviour pales into insignificance.
Click to expand...
Like jus primae noctis? Or should we just be grateful Andrew didn’t cut her head off?
 
Tony L said:
I don’t understand, what connection has the ancient Clinton/Lewinsky thing got to do with any of this? I can’t remember much about it beyond to my mind it being a lot of fuss largely about nothing, she certainly wasn’t an underage girl being 22 in 1995, and I don’t think there was ever any suggestion that Clinton was a child rapist. Not the most dignified behaviour for a president for sure, but this was never in the same category as Epstein & by connection “Prince” Andrew (sorry, I just don’t accept or acknowledge royal titles!).
Click to expand...

It is funny how many people who have no titles love having people around with titles. Here in Italy the 1946 Constitution that changed Italy from a monarchy into a republic clearly states "All titles of nobility area abolished." Yet people go on calling themselves "baron", "count, "prince", etc, and putting little crowns on their visiting cards and even over the initials on their shirts. But what is even weirder, is that other people so often insist on using a (non-valid) title when addressing or talking about them. The press, gutter and non-gutter, never fails to use a (non-valid) title when there is a story regarding even people who, in respect of the Constitution, would not themselves make any reference to a family title, considering it relegated to the past.
Consequently, I doubt that Britain's becoming a republic would take princes and duchesses off the front pages. They have entertainment value and people are inordinately fascinated by what they do in bed, which is exactly the same as what your plumber or dentist does.
 
Woodface said:
The basic subtext from some on here is that it was all the girls fault. I did see an Audi Quattro the other day but didn't realise we had gone back in time.
Click to expand...
Yes. There also appears to be a subtext that goes along the lines of, it’s about Royals and Royals only doing what Royals do and always have done, get over it. Andrew’s behaviour, if it’s what it seems (and the evidence suggests it is) is not acceptable now, then or ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top