Exactly - no understanding of normal life, no understanding or empathy for the girls who were abused - and this from a man wiith two daughters! - and no judgement about suitable friends and associates and surely not short of a bob or two to pay for a hotel.
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)."
In A's account he wasn't sticking by anybody - he didn't know about anything - was totally unaware - so couldn't be 'sticking by' anyone. As in my case. And in A's version, he went to J's place to terminate the friendship. Isn't that what he said?
I'm not sure you can say someone doesn't empathise because they don't express empathy - that isn't the same thing is it? And that's still the question - when should someone express that 'empathy'? Is it now encumbent on everyone to express disgust to everyone on everything?
I still feel here (in this thread), that the problem is that no one believes A's account and the statements and judgements are based on a sense that A is guilty. But that isn't (or wasn't) the question that I asked. If - IF (a big IF) - a person is innocent and totally innocent without any knowledge of a crime, is it now expected of them to state their empathy and apologies for/to the victim - even when (assuming the person is completely innocent) they then are in fact a victim as well - a victim of a false accusation. Who then should empathise with A? Who then should express empathy for him?
What happened to beer? I don't drink much these days but every now and then on a cold autumn evening I get a craving for a pint of stout or similar dark beer. All 'craft' beer now though seems to be fruity IPAs served up in child-sized portions for the same money as a bottle of half-decent wine. The stuff tastes like it should be served with an umbrella stuck in it.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
@Steve Tu - why are you flogging thi shorse? Prince Andrew is clearly a man in a position way beyond his intellectual capacities and has either not had or has ignored sound advice to keep his head down. He has simply deined knowledge and involvement which, increasingly, are ebing shown not to be teh case given the evidence leaking out from several sources. He has never once expressed any sumpathy or sorrow for what happened to those girls. He's a selfish, self-centred prat.
I do believe a titular royal head of country is a far better system than an electable president - loads of evidence for that - but they need to know their place and his is now at home, out of the way and never more to have any public position.
@wild edges - dunno. Don't like beer except for the occasional Belgian "brune" for a beef casserole maybe once every 2 or 3 years and a Guiness for a chocolate cake.
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)."
Does nobody think that young girls have always flocked of their own volition around older men with money/prestige/power and sometimes they must share a proportion of blame - they are not always innocents or 'victims'. The kudos of sleeping with a prince (if that's what they did) must have seemed worth it at the time? I'm now ducking under the parapet!
I think ALL people do stuff that is done for their own 'image' - and that they sometimes regret later. We're all susceptible to charm, bribery and the persuasion of power - I'm happy if someone buys me a pint up the pub....
Edited to add: I'm not certain that this is the case here with the 'alleged' girls iunvolved with A though...it does seem that J had a preference (predilection?) for 'young' girls and hence the charges - and no matter what the girls themselves thought of the 'opportunity' of mixing with such esteemed (read rich) people, the adults had (and have) a duty of care. What is also peculiar, is that the age of 'minority' then varies - so A in this country, if he did do anything, did nothing wrong as long as the girl was over 16 (and not being 'trafficked') - but he would have committed a crime in the US (and doesn't the age vary from State to State over there? - they have peculiar State/Federal systems in most things). But still the question I was trying to get across was not if A is guilty or not - just that if it is accepted that he's telling the truth and is totally innocent, should he be apologising to anyone?
That takes me back to politics - how many will now fall foul of B's bribe of a cut in NI? I see half of you wavering from here..... I always thought he was a nice, genuine man - thinks I.
He did - snuggling up to lovely people like the Saudis to generate business for Weapons UK. Let's hope he's never allowed out without a minder now and certainly not sent to the USA where the potential for further embarrasment is huge - unless they extradite that military wife who can't drive on the left.
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)."
Posts
I do believe a titular royal head of country is a far better system than an electable president - loads of evidence for that - but they need to know their place and his is now at home, out of the way and never more to have any public position.
@wild edges - dunno. Don't like beer except for the occasional Belgian "brune" for a beef casserole maybe once every 2 or 3 years and a Guiness for a chocolate cake.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I'm now ducking under the parapet!
rofl
As if he had a public role these days