With regard to people acquainted with paedophiles, so many people turn a blind eye and then plead ignorance. The Catholic church is a good example, but not the only one. If you turn a blind eye, you are complicit in that activity and therefore guilty. In this case, only complete ignorance of the crime is a defence.
Quite so. I think when you knowingly stay at the home of a convicted sex offender because it was 'convenient', rather than checking into a hotel or staying with one of the other plentiful 'friends' [ie brown nosers] he must have, then you deserve all the subsequent negative attention you get, regardless of your own involvement. The action taken should have been a phone call to say 'goodbye, and don't darken my door again'. Or an even shorter version - with the second word being 'off'. The fact that that didn't happen suggests it was a damage limitation exercise. After all, he can't claim all the photos were doctored....
I have no real problem with the handful at the top of the monarchy @steveTu. It's the hangers on and parasites I have a problem with.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
@B3 - totally, but in my case (and Andrew's) the person being 'accused' is completely denying the accusation. In those versions, nothing happened and neither party was aware of the actions of the person who was found to be guilty and was awaiting trial for further charges.
@Fairygirl how different people react and what people do always amazes me - and it obviously does you too. Surely you can't then apply how you'd react to any given situation, unless you are in that situation can you? I totally agree A's actions seem very strange (and there was a lot in the interview that didn't make sense at all to me - ie how he emphasised a dozen times that he wasn't really friends with E, but with G, but then had a compelling feeling that he had to confront him (E) face-to-face...how he hadn't been upstairs in G's place, but recognised the photo as being upstairs in G's place...blah blah). The fact he gave an interview at all like that has to be up there in the order of strangeness. But lots of things people do are strange (I've seen parents hanging their kids over Beachy Head so they can get a better look) - there's nowt so strange as folk.
People like Jimmy Saville and prince Angrew's "friend" get away with their crimes because pople turn a blind eye or think it doesn't concern them and are thus complicit. In the Ctaholic church, and others too no doubt, they actively protect and hide the misdeeds and their perpetrators.
Prince Andrew did not need to aplogise for t'other chap's sins but he should have shown some emptathy for the known victims and some concern that there are so many and it went on so long. However, he clearly showed himself to be concerned only with his image and his problems and no understanding at all of life outside his bubble. It is not his fault he is a royal, born to all sorts of priveleges and certain constraints too, one of which is to be very careful with whom and with what he associates himself and never, ever to play the "poor little me" card. He isn't poor in anything except judgement.
Vendée - 20kms from Atlantic coast.
"The price good men (and women) pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men (and women)."
I agree, Obs. I don't think he should be apologising for what his 'friend' did, but he should realise that this story isn't about him. If he had said, "I knew nothing, I saw nothing, I did nothing but I feel desperately sorry for those women" and if, instead of the BBC he had gone to the FBI and offered to tell them everything he saw or heard, even though he doesn't think there's anything significant or useful, then the story would be running differently.
He's acting as though it's all a witch hunt, made up to trap him. But his 'friend' was convicted, therefore we have to believe that girls were actually abused. Regardless of whether that particular girl is telling the truth about that particular accusation, people have suffered genuine harm. He seems to be trying to make it sound like the Westminster paedophile case where there was absolutely no substance to any of the accusations, which infers that all the women accusing his 'friend' are lying. And that is why people are getting angry.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
No - not his fault he's royal by birth, but he should have shut his mouth and then it might just have gone away - if he was lucky. Not that I'm approving of that either. However- he was arrogant enough to assume he could fluff his way out of it, despite apparently being advised otherwise. For me - the worst bit was when he dismissively laughed while saying I kick myself every day for letting the side down. I don't care who you are, or what you are - that beggars belief. He's not a nine year old schoolboy who's been caught nicking a bar of chocolate from a corner shop.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Am I the only person who sees great irony in all the talk from across the pond about the FBI want him to answer questions, even if means he is "forced" to return to the usa, however a woman , allegedly , responsible for the death of a young man then ,allegedly illegally , claiming diplomatic immunity to flee the uk to usa is not compelled to return here to answer any questions.
Totally agree @Hostafan1. Apparently they [her and husband ] didn't have immunity to start with either. She reportedly changed her story as well. The family have no option but to bring a civil case. The only 'winners' will be the lawyers involved.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
'..Prince Andrew did not need to aplogise for t'other chap's sins but he
should have shown some emptathy for the known victims and some concern
that there are so many and it went on so long. However, he clearly
showed himself to be concerned only with his image and his problems and
no understanding at all of life outside his bubble. It is not his fault
he is a royal, born to all sorts of priveleges and certain constraints
too, one of which is to be very careful with whom and with what he
associates himself and never, ever to play the "poor little me" card.
He isn't poor in anything except judgement....'
I'm not sure. Imagine now it was you being accused of something, and you are completely innocent (as A is claiming) - you have no knowledge whatsoever of the crime and were not complicit in any way shape or form. On top of that, the victims are the ones falsely accusing you. Are you saying that you would have empathy with someone who is ruining your life and that that would be what you were trying to get across rather than your utter and complete innocence? That is where it stands. A is adamant that he's innocent.
Don't you automatically take it for granted that generally people have the same views on crime and that they condemn theft, sexual offences, offences against kids, murder, war crimes, fraud and banking crimes....blah blah. What is the current trend that everyone has to apologise/empathise for things that are obviously just simply wrong? Isn't that a given - or do I, every time I talk to a woman, empathise and apologise for a pig like Weinstein? Do I have to apologise and empathise with two thirds of the world for the crimes of the British Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun - I particularly 'like' the section title 'problems with the method' as if the act wasn't the problem in itself)?
Now, turn it round. Imagine that A is lying - he was involved and knew exactly what was going on over the year. Imagine that A then did acknowledge the horrendous nature of the crime in the interview. Can he mean that? Can someone who actually knew what was going on over that protracted period, just give an empathetic response and all is well in the world? Doesn't it actually make it worse? Claiming complete innocence yet still empathising with the victims?
What I found most objectionable in the interview was the implication by A that if the authorities did ask to speak to him, he (and his 'team') would weigh up the situation and decide if they would respond. What? No one is above the law (or at least shouldn't be). Not A, not Queenie, not Trump, not me, not you. There is no decision for A to make - if he is legally requested to account for his actions and provide proof (as his bodyguard will have rotas and diaries to prove the what/when/where's) then he has to comply. The only bugbear is that this is outside UK law at the moment - so he can still avoid the issue legally.
Posts
Or an even shorter version - with the second word being 'off'.
The fact that that didn't happen suggests it was a damage limitation exercise. After all, he can't claim all the photos were doctored....
I have no real problem with the handful at the top of the monarchy @steveTu. It's the hangers on and parasites I have a problem with.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
My thoughts exactly @Fairygirl. 🙄
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Prince Andrew did not need to aplogise for t'other chap's sins but he should have shown some emptathy for the known victims and some concern that there are so many and it went on so long. However, he clearly showed himself to be concerned only with his image and his problems and no understanding at all of life outside his bubble. It is not his fault he is a royal, born to all sorts of priveleges and certain constraints too, one of which is to be very careful with whom and with what he associates himself and never, ever to play the "poor little me" card. He isn't poor in anything except judgement.
I don't think he should be apologising for what his 'friend' did, but he should realise that this story isn't about him. If he had said, "I knew nothing, I saw nothing, I did nothing but I feel desperately sorry for those women" and if, instead of the BBC he had gone to the FBI and offered to tell them everything he saw or heard, even though he doesn't think there's anything significant or useful, then the story would be running differently.
He's acting as though it's all a witch hunt, made up to trap him. But his 'friend' was convicted, therefore we have to believe that girls were actually abused. Regardless of whether that particular girl is telling the truth about that particular accusation, people have suffered genuine harm. He seems to be trying to make it sound like the Westminster paedophile case where there was absolutely no substance to any of the accusations, which infers that all the women accusing his 'friend' are lying. And that is why people are getting angry.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
However- he was arrogant enough to assume he could fluff his way out of it, despite apparently being advised otherwise.
For me - the worst bit was when he dismissively laughed while saying I kick myself every day for letting the side down.
I don't care who you are, or what you are - that beggars belief. He's not a nine year old schoolboy who's been caught nicking a bar of chocolate from a corner shop.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
I think Prince Charles had the luckiest escape , friends with Saville all those years and didn’t know what was going on, yeah right.
The family have no option but to bring a civil case. The only 'winners' will be the lawyers involved.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...