In A's account he wasn't sticking by anybody - he didn't know about anything - was totally unaware - so couldn'tĀ 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?
When I referred to 'sticking by' I wasn't referring specifically to that situation.Ā I was meaning more that it's not unreasonable to assume innocence until guilt is proven.Ā As for going to J's place to terminate the friendship - there are phones, he has 'his people' do plenty of other things for him and, probably most damaging, he stayed there for 4 days.Ā Does it really take 4 days to tell a convicted paedophile you want nothing more to do with them?
All academic now as I doubt any of Prince Andrews 'friends' will be bothering much about him in the future.
I think A. should not have apologised for anything. And he has become a bit of a scapegoat. Feel quite sorry for him actually. He has got a thankless 'job' and we should appreciate that. And this 'sacked' scenario is just ridiculous. While I believe in a free press, sometimes they just go too far and try people by newsprint. We are all too ready these days to vilify people just to create scandal and tittle-tattle. Ā
'Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement' - Helen Keller
I agree that the news media can sometimes take it into their collective head to 'get' someone and when you are the target, there is nothing you can do to get away from them - whatever you say will be spun or edited or rephrased to say something you never said and didn't mean. But A - and his team - must be very familiar with that scenario. His father, older brother (and his younger brother and his sister to a lesser extent) and even his mother on one famous occasion have all been on the wrong end of it. He has been there before himself. He should have known better than to think going 'on the record' would do anything other than make matters worse once he was in their sights. It was a stupid thing to do - and unnecessary as the 'pack' had largely moved on. Instead he got in the way of the election coverage which gave the rest of the 'Firm' little option but to put him back in the box he really should have stayed in of his own accord.
And 'sacked' in this context means he loses a chunk of income
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
āIt's still magic even if you know how it's done.āĀ
I hoped I had managed to get across that I was not talking about the issue of his innocence per se. I repeat - he is maintaining his innocence - so talking that as 'the given' - the question then was (in precis) '...should it be encumbant on ANY innocent person to (publicly) express empathy with/acknowledge the victims..' - I'm not convinced it should be.
I really still feel, going by the replies here, that those replies are premised on and are motivated by a feeling of his guilt. That wasn't the question - in fact the original question didn't even involve A.
I really still feel, going by the replies here, that those replies are premised on and are motivated by a feeling of his guilt. That wasn't the question - in fact the original question didn't even involve A.
Mine isn't. I don't trust the press and won't form a conclusion with so little actual information. The media do invent stuff out of thin air. I maintain my view that he seems to think it's about him. It isn't, or it wasn't, but he's made himself the subject of the discussion and he really should have recognised sooner that it's his friend's victims that should be the centre of the conversation, not him. In your example, you should be concerned for the little old ladies that were menaced and stop trying to convince everyone that whether or not you still speak to him makes any difference whatsoever to them. Unless and until you are charged as an accessory, your guilt or innocence is beside the point. To frame yourself as a victim alongside those who have been terrorised and robbed, when the worst you've suffered is some unpleasant gossip, is insulting to those who may never be able to sleep soundly in their homes again
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
āIt's still magic even if you know how it's done.āĀ
@steve Tu get a grip.Ā Ā If you read these boards widely there's plenty of evidence of sympathy from people expressing concern/support etc for posters with health probems, car accidents, flooding, bushfires.Ā Ā When something like Grenfell happens or a lorryload of immigrants is found dead or there's a child abuse/grroming scandal there is plenty of sympathy and empathy and outrage despite our not having any direct connection.
Prince Andrew is a member of a "firm" with firsthand experience of trial by media/instagram/FB/public opinion.Ā Ā Part of his remit is surely not to do anything that jeopardises the future security of the "firm" and that means exercising judgement, caution, restraint and intelligence when making choices about associates, friends, business dealings.Ā Ā The same applies to lesser mortals if we are to live in a decent society but we are not on display till we do something extraordinarly good/bad/stupid that gets attention.Ā Ā Any prominent personality in any walk of life who knew the paedophile and trafficker will be clapping their hands with glee that P A has taken the focus from them.
Again - not sure. I think if you spoke to anyone who has been victim of 'unpleasant gossip' - even just sit and think about some of the 'innocents' caught up in the stuff after Savile - then it is not trivial - far, far from it (try googling 'suicides after savile false accusations'). But again that's getting away from the question somewhat.
Again, slightly off. I totally agree that people sympathise and empathise all the time. As I stated, I think that goes without saying. MostĀ people see/hear/read something bad and react with pity/empathy/sympathy- it goes without saying (why did that expression come into being?). The question was if you are accused and you are innocent (even though you feel empathy blah ..blah) is it now encumbent on you to voice it? Why? I also repeat - that taking A at his word - he is also a victim. Who is feeling empathy/sympathy for him and vocalising it? I haven't read one post saying '...it must be awful being falsely accused of something like that...'.
I think there's a heck of a difference empathising with some remote person where there is no causal connection, and the situation where, although you aren't involved, you are being accused of being part of the problem - part of the cause. Do you see the difference?
The bit about A's remit is outside the scope of what I was asking. A's innocence or A's thought processes behind the interview .. .. not a scooby.
I am not condoning or supporting A's stance - why this started was simply that I heard a radio broadcast after A's interview where the person said that A'd shown/expressed no empathy or concern for the victims. When I abstracted the issue - I think one person said that I had nothing to apologise for.
So, I think all the posts do answer my question in a way - I am out of step. I'm not part of this 'heart on sleeve bit'. I don't think that I, or anyone else, has to go around apologising/empathising (even if they feel empathy) for things they were not in any way involved.
Posts
And 'sacked' in this context means he loses a chunk of income
āIt's still magic even if you know how it's done.āĀ
In your example, you should be concerned for the little old ladies that were menaced and stop trying to convince everyone that whether or not you still speak to him makes any difference whatsoever to them. Unless and until you are charged as an accessory, your guilt or innocence is beside the point. To frame yourself as a victim alongside those who have been terrorised and robbed, when the worst you've suffered is some unpleasant gossip, is insulting to those who may never be able to sleep soundly in their homes again
āIt's still magic even if you know how it's done.āĀ
Gardening in Central NorfolkĀ on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Prince Andrew is a member of a "firm" with firsthand experience of trial by media/instagram/FB/public opinion.Ā Ā Part of his remit is surely not to do anything that jeopardises the future security of the "firm" and that means exercising judgement, caution, restraint and intelligence when making choices about associates, friends, business dealings.Ā Ā The same applies to lesser mortals if we are to live in a decent society but we are not on display till we do something extraordinarly good/bad/stupid that gets attention.Ā Ā Any prominent personality in any walk of life who knew the paedophile and trafficker will be clapping their hands with glee that P A has taken the focus from them.