Hereās something to be curmudgeonly about. I went to the dentists this morning - and I have a serious phobia about dental treatment - so was feeling very pleased with myself when I came out with a temporary filling in one tooth.
Then driving home and eating a packet of peanuts, being very careful to avoid the filled tooth, I cracked a tooth on the other side. Back again on Tuesday.
'...I may be wrong but I don't recall any of them inviting the press/media
to their houses to do interviews. The most egregious cases were those
who were arrested and never charged but A hasn't even been spoken to by
authorities. I have a great deal of sympathy for members of the general
public who have been caught up in the media witch hunt frenzies. They
don't have any experience or advisors to help them...'
Again, I don't see that that is really anything to do with the question...But A's position is. His standpoint is that he's completely innocent (and you seem to agree that he hasn't even been spoken to by the authorities).
'....But I was
referring to your abstract case - being accused of hiding or even
fencing stolen goods doesn't carry the same opprobrium as paedophilia....'
OK - totally clumsy. So I'll reduce it down to its essence:
Is it now expected that if a person is accused of an offenceĀ - or of being complicit in an offence - of which they are totally and completely innocent,Ā that they are obliged to express empathy for or to apologise to the victims of the offence?
'...I
think you're missing the central point. You can't make a general rule
for 'people' and then apply it to the Royal Family. They may like to
think of themselves as being the same as the rest of us. They are not
and different rules will always apply to them. This isn't the first time
A's personal misjudgements have ended up pushing a general election off
the front pages, he should have known better. If he really HAD to do
his interview, he should have waited until after December 12th. That
would be a complete irrelevance to anyone who isn't Royal but it is
paramount for them....'
I'm not sure I missed the point as I thought I raised the point in the first place. I was not trying to talk about a specific instance - the pointĀ I was trying to make was about a general principle - although I raised the point BECAUSE of a specific instance that had come to my attention on the radio. Much the same as the law, I'm not sure that a general principle doesn't (or at least shouldn't) apply to all. If you differentiate between people because of class or station or...then what are your 'lines'Ā - how do you define your subjectrive boundaries?
@Ben Cotto - peanuts can be dangerous.Ā I once crunched on a rogue on that broke 2 molars to the extent that I needed 2 crowns to fix them.Ā Good luck with yours.
Am I the only person who actually has no idea what Black Friday is, when it started and why?Ā Yet another band wagon which has passed me by I'm glad to say.
Posts
Then driving home and eating a packet of peanuts, being very careful to avoid the filled tooth, I cracked a tooth on the other side. Back again on Tuesday.
@Ben Cotto - peanuts can be dangerous.Ā I once crunched on a rogue on that broke 2 molars to the extent that I needed 2 crowns to fix them.Ā Good luck with yours.
Yet another band wagon which has passed me by I'm glad to say.
Gardening in Central NorfolkĀ on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Gardening in Central NorfolkĀ on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.