Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

ps the Best leaders surround themselves with the best people.   Not so good leaders surround themselves with those that are not going to challenge them.  So maybe the reason why it appears that there is a poor selection of candidates is partly due to Boris Johnson.  Another reason may be that the leadership qualities and the general competence levels of elected mps has declined.

This might be a good time to consider dissolving the United Kingdom as well as the British Commonwealth (now called the Commonwealth of Nations) given that the Monarchy played a key part in their creation as well as their continuation.

I guess Liz Truss is going to announce a period of mourning for the Queen, with the dead monarch lying in state so the public can pay their respects, followed by a funeral procession, funeral service, burial and then at some point there is going to be a coronation of the heir, presumably Charles, followed by a period of rejoicing and celebration.  

Liz Truss may have been the last person to see the Queen alive or in reasonable health, which makes you wonder about that speech Liz Truss gave when she was a Lib Dem about getting rid of the monarchy.   It looks like we have motive and opportunity.

I hope that that footage of her libdem speech, where she disses the royals,and her face and hands are made out of spam, is widely circulated.

Interesting factoid: party that doesn't allow the nation to have a 21st century, fit-for-purpose electoral system uses a form of PR to elect new PM that wouldn't be in position if FPTP was used in its leadership election. Only in the UK.

No name Bertie wrote:...Liz Truss may have been the last person to see the Queen alive or in reasonable health, which makes you wonder about that speech Liz Truss gave when she was a Lib Dem about getting rid of the monarchy.   It looks like we have motive and opportunity.

Polling for the Monarchy v a Republic in the UK is quite scarce, but it is conducted. YouGov have done four such polls so far this year and support for the Monarchy has been between 59-62%, with support for a Republic at 22-27%. Also in 2022, Ipsos Mori had it 68-22% in favour of a Monarch, while ComRes had it low as 57-29.

It'll be interesting to see if the support grows for Republicanism in the UK with the accession of King Charles III and, if so, to what extent.

I certainly expect all other nations that have the Monarch as head of state to become Republics in the near future. Australia had a referendum on this in 1999 and it was a narrow 55-45% in favour of the Monarchy, in large part due to the popularity of, and respect for, Queen Elizabeth II. In fact, since then I see Australian opinion polls on the question of Republic v Monarchy have been dominated by a Republican majority for years, so with the end of Queen Elizabeth II it just seems a question of when Australia will be a Republic.

Duty281 wrote:Polling for the Monarchy v a Republic in the UK is quite scarce, but it is conducted. YouGov have done four such polls so far this year and support for the Monarchy has been between 59-62%, with support for a Republic at 22-27%. Also in 2022, Ipsos Mori had it 68-22% in favour of a Monarch, while ComRes had it low as 57-29.

It'll be interesting to see if the support grows for Republicanism in the UK with the accession of King Charles III and, if so, to what extent.

I certainly expect all other nations that have the Monarch as head of state to become Republics in the near future. Australia had a referendum on this in 1999 and it was a narrow 55-45% in favour of the Monarchy, in large part due to the popularity of, and respect for, Queen Elizabeth II. In fact, since then I see Australian opinion polls on the question of Republic v Monarchy have been dominated by a Republican majority for years, so with the end of Queen Elizabeth II it just seems a question of when Australia will be a Republic.

Re. Commonwealth countries - yep, good luck to them. No surprise if they all go that way.

Re. UK, personally and despite some of the obvious theoretical issues w/ the monarchy, I don't want another rubbish election of a waste of space greasy pole climber in order to get a 'President'. Elections in this country are Poopie enough as it is, without yet another one. Certainly, I think the wider Royal Family needs reducing re. any patronage from us citizens etc, but on balance think things as they are re. the monarch work just fine. Decent soft power as far as I can see and he/she has little real political power AFAIK.

Duty281 wrote:It'll be interesting to see if the support grows for Republicanism in the UK with the accession of King Charles III and, if so, to what extent.

Never really got the appeal personally. Not a fan of the US/French 'make everything about one individual' system, and think a royal family is generally a better version of the German/Irish style symbolic figurehead.

Duty281 wrote:Polling for the Monarchy v a Republic in the UK is quite scarce, but it is conducted. YouGov have done four such polls so far this year and support for the Monarchy has been between 59-62%, with support for a Republic at 22-27%. Also in 2022, Ipsos Mori had it 68-22% in favour of a Monarch, while ComRes had it low as 57-29.

It'll be interesting to see if the support grows for Republicanism in the UK with the accession of King Charles III and, if so, to what extent.

I certainly expect all other nations that have the Monarch as head of state to become Republics in the near future. Australia had a referendum on this in 1999 and it was a narrow 55-45% in favour of the Monarchy, in large part due to the popularity of, and respect for, Queen Elizabeth II. In fact, since then I see Australian opinion polls on the question of Republic v Monarchy have been dominated by a Republican majority for years, so with the end of Queen Elizabeth II it just seems a question of when Australia will be a Republic.

Duty, those more recent opinion polls in favour of Australia becoming a Republic have waned a bit over the last 20 years or so - or at least since the 1999 referendum. Maybe, there has been a slight uptick (only in recent years) but the message still appears confused and disorganised - to my mind.

Although there has been more pro-republican 'noise' thanks to the growing popularity of social media in particular, the 'movement' itself has been poorly headed by unappealing and divisive figures who have trouble getting a clear and concise definition of what a Republican model might actually look like and how it would function - effectively through to the people. So the whole 'movement' has been a big fail in that respect. It's so poorly communicated.

The really obvious and important questions have either been avoided or obfuscated by petty bickering between the advocates for a Republic (and these same people want to run the show!?) and we've heard of many opinions which say: 'well... if this is what they're proposing; then we're better off with the stability of the status quo of the Monarchy.'

To get a better picture of where Australia stands today, we have have articles like the following in which author is already saying things which wouldn't have been said in the same way only last week.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/dismantling-our-castles-in-the-air-20220909-p5bgtn.html

Or this one... which I think is poorly written (note only 2 comments) and designed to stir up emotional responses in some (not all) of our immigrants.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/it-is-perfectly-ok-to-hate-the-empire-and-love-the-queen-20220912-p5bhd9.html

To me, articles like these (and there have been quite a few of them since last week) make it all even more confusing and all we're now getting is torrents of comments - some with good happy memories of the Queen and others which just seem so downright nasty and reflect more on the person making the comment.

Just look at some of the (purposely repeated) comments below the first article above - mostly from 'the usual suspects' who were also out in force in the run up to the recent Election here in May. To me, some of them show a great lack of compassion and humanity and an ignorance of history... let alone a willingness to listen to other people's points of view and the whole idea of 'shared values' and 'creating an inclusive society' seems to have been conveniently forgotten in some cases.

For the time being, particularly during the coming weeks, I think we need to get through all of the planned ceremony, rituals and memories with some degree of courteous respect and reflection, etc... and I think most people are willing enough to give the new King a chance to fulfil his duties at least. That seems to be the general consensus here right now... but don't quote me on it!

It's also worth noting that in the result of the last Census (2021) there's only about 28% of the population who were born in either the Interwar (Silent Generation) or post-war (Baby Boomer) years still alive today. Think it's only 14% born before QE II's Coronation still around... so most of the real 'pro-Monarchists' are indeed dwindling in their numbers. Gen Z is also already nipping at Gen Y (Millennials) heels at the other end of the demographic spectrum (Gen X is now 3rd) - so the influence of a much younger political mindset will naturally come to the fore in the coming years.

However, I do feel that there will inevitably be a growing call for Australia to become a Republic - but not as hasty as some other nations. Closer to a decade or a bit more rather than the next few years I'd say. There are far too many questions to ask first and not enough 'groundwork' explanation has been done. Even the new ALP leader (a Republican) has stated that "there will be no republican referendum during my (first) term as PM." Recognition of the National Voice is more important to him... but even that may not get up during this term since there are also so many unanswered questions there too and a lot of people (including many Indigenous people) are not sold on the idea either.

As for the Republic question; I think countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand will persist with a Constitutional Monarchy because it works so well. There may be, however, smaller countries - as is happening already (i.e. more Caribbean, African and some Pacific nations) who will feel under increasing pressure (or have the China carrot dangling in front of their noses) and they could well think they are 'big enough' to have a go on their own - but we all know what usually happens when the carpet is pulled out from under their feet. Very few are successful in transitioning and it often opens up older and deeper wounds from the past as the grab for new political power commences.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Duty281 wrote:It'll be interesting to see if the support grows for Republicanism in the UK with the accession of King Charles III and, if so, to what extent.

Never really got the appeal personally. Not a fan of the US/French 'make everything about one individual' system, and think a royal family is generally a better version of the German/Irish style symbolic figurehead.

Surely the best pro-Monarchy argument is to point at Trump (need I say more) and Biden (dubiously competent and of poor mental sharpness) and say look at the alternative. Imagine if Boris had been President, and so even harder to get rid of?

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Duty281 wrote:It'll be interesting to see if the support grows for Republicanism in the UK with the accession of King Charles III and, if so, to what extent.

Never really got the appeal personally. Not a fan of the US/French 'make everything about one individual' system, and think a royal family is generally a better version of the German/Irish style symbolic figurehead.

While I respected QEII, I remain to be convinced that Charles will have the self-discipline to be an effective modern Monarch. However, if he wants to make a good argument for continued existence of the Monarchy, he just needs to point at the US and the absurdities of their Presidential system over the last half dozen or so years - elected one wholly unsuitable President based on name recognition and him being on a TV show a decade previously, and then replaced by one so far over the hill there are questions over his mental capacity. Is that really the best that a Country like the US can do?

Pal Joey wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Polling for the Monarchy v a Republic in the UK is quite scarce, but it is conducted. YouGov have done four such polls so far this year and support for the Monarchy has been between 59-62%, with support for a Republic at 22-27%. Also in 2022, Ipsos Mori had it 68-22% in favour of a Monarch, while ComRes had it low as 57-29.

It'll be interesting to see if the support grows for Republicanism in the UK with the accession of King Charles III and, if so, to what extent.

I certainly expect all other nations that have the Monarch as head of state to become Republics in the near future. Australia had a referendum on this in 1999 and it was a narrow 55-45% in favour of the Monarchy, in large part due to the popularity of, and respect for, Queen Elizabeth II. In fact, since then I see Australian opinion polls on the question of Republic v Monarchy have been dominated by a Republican majority for years, so with the end of Queen Elizabeth II it just seems a question of when Australia will be a Republic.

Spoiler:

Very informative post, thank you.

I agree with Navy's post above. I like to "soft power" that the monarchy has, but the funding in this day and age is ridiculous. They're already fabulously wealthy and to receive almost £85m for simply being alive, especially in the current economic climate, is simply awful.

The system desperately needs modernising.

My 2p. I'm generally in favour of the monarchy, kinda hard to pinpoint exactly why but I think overall they are a positive for the UK, bring in a lot of tourist money etc and I think they do get a lot of respect from other nations. Downside is likes of Andrew who if he was anyone else would have been highly likely charged with child sex offences but due to being a Royal got away with it. Then the utter farce that is Harry and Meghan, wanting privacy hence out of public duties etc but sell themselves to every media outlet there is.
Charles? In fairness he got ahead of curve with enviromental issues long before a lot did, be interesting to see how involved in politics he becomes. Royals supposed to be apolitical and ER certainly appeared to be but I suspect Charles at some stage will let something slip.
So, overall I'm happy for monarchy to continue but I am a bit puzzled by the British need to go into all out professional mourner mode. Seems a bit OTT along with blanket BBC coverage.

I think the royals are an increasingly antique establishment as time goes on and theres probably a bit of a generational gap in terms of how this news hit you.

I was fine with the idea that they're largely ceremonial in our democracy until Andrew was protected at no doubt great expense. Even if it was the queen's personal funds, he allegedly carried out and escaped punishment for it thanks only to his royal status.

mountain man wrote:.... I am a bit puzzled by the British need to go into all out professional mourner mode. Seems a bit OTT along with blanket BBC coverage.

Media + institutionally led.   Maybe someone will poll the public.

GSC wrote:I think the royals are an increasingly antique establishment as time goes on and theres probably a bit of a generational gap in terms of how this news hit you.

I was fine with the idea that they're largely ceremonial in our democracy until Andrew was protected at no doubt great expense. Even if it was the queen's personal funds, he allegedly carried out and escaped punishment for it thanks only to his royal status.

And your evidence for this is? IMO, this is a biased assumption based on the fact that a) he's a Royal and b) he's clearly got a track record as a bit of a plum. It's sadly a modern and social media-driven load of toss that someone can be accused, not found guilty of anything, but have their reputation trashed by the oh so righteous public.

I think the court of public opinion can be at least skeptical when a reported 12m is paid to make it go away before he testifies.

Well I'm a firm believer in innocent until proved guilty and in cases of sexual harassment etc the accused should be anonymous until charged(see cases of Cliff Richard, Paul Gambocini etc to see utter devastation caused to lives when falsely accused). In saying that, the Andrew case stinks and it's not his sweat...

I have to say that my opinion of modern journalism is so low that I only tend to take note of the headlines and if I am interested in something try to identify what is actually known. With the Prince Andrew thingy I have stayed well clear in delving into that story - just noting the headlines and the attention it is given.

Well, he did stay over at Epstein's house way after he was convicted of multiple sexual misdemeanors, he lied about his alibi re Pizza Express, his interview with Newsnight was a masterclass in prompted misdirection, and he had a reputation for younger ladies since the 80s.
His ex wife sold her access to the Royals to the highest bidder, and Philip gave Jimi Saville free reign to come and go at the Palace. Philip also asks Saville to mediate on his sons marriage,and Charles' handwritten notes to Saville are on record whereby he to talks to him with much affection.
There's something rotten in the state of Windsor. If the public was really aware of how much of our tax goes to the holidaying of minor royals they don't know about, there would be more calls for a properly slimmed down monarchy, for example the Scandinavian model.

GSC wrote:I think the court of public opinion can be at least skeptical when a reported 12m is paid to make it go away before he testifies.

It can if it's dense, yes. He couldn't win, could he? Still, no smoke without fire, eh? Judgemental, thick, biased, self-righteous pillocks.

mountain man wrote:Well I'm a firm believer in innocent until proved guilty and in cases of sexual harassment etc the accused should be anonymous until charged(see cases of Cliff Richard, Paul Gambocini etc to see utter devastation caused to lives when falsely accused). In saying that, the Andrew case stinks and it's not his sweat...

Ah, shame. You were doing so well until the last sentence. Agree w/ what you said prior, though.

Derek Smalls wrote:Well, he did stay over at Epstein's house way after he was convicted of multiple sexual misdemeanors, he lied about his alibi re Pizza Express,  his interview with Newsnight was a masterclass in prompted misdirection, and he had a reputation for younger ladies since the 80s.
His ex wife sold her access to the Royals to the highest bidder, and Philip gave Jimi Saville free reign to come and go at the Palace. Philip also asks Saville to mediate on his sons marriage,and Charles' handwritten notes to Saville are on record whereby he to talks to him with much affection.
There's something rotten in the state of Windsor. If the public was really aware of how much of our tax goes to the holidaying of minor royals they don't know about, there would be more calls for a properly slimmed down monarchy, for example the Scandinavian model.

Yep, and the Covid vaccines inject microchips that will kill those foolish enough to have had them once the 5G masts are all switched on.

Prince Andrew is undoubtedly a bit dim and has friendships that he probably now regrets. He's undoubtedly someone who may well have felt entitled by virtue of him being a member of the Royal Family, but it's a big leap from that to him being a known kiddie r4pist. It doesn't follow that he knowingly sexually abused a minor whom he knew had been trafficked/groomed etc. Your Savile logic doesn't really stand up. I presume you're not suggesting that Charles wrote to Savile, or did Philip extended him favours etc, once it was known what Savile actually was? You do know how many Savile fooled, don't you? You're somehow conflating the suggestion that Andrew's reputation (yet another 'fact' for which you have evidence?) with younger ladies was frequently (always?) for legal minors and therefore amounted to statutory r4pe? Really?

Conflating money the royals get "to go holidaying", or Ferguson selling access, with the issue around Andrew and what you mention re. Savile is irrelevant.

Basically, we know chuff all about what happened between Andrew and Giuffre, if anything. Still, what's done, is done and no doubt that people will still profess that they know that Andrew did whatever it was that Giuffre implied. No doubt that people will look at the payout and understand that 2 + 2 = 5.

N/A

YouGov have done some polling - Britons support the Monarchy by 64%-21%, though there is a sharp age divide with 65+ year olds supporting it by 84%-10%, while 18-24 year olds are only 40%-29% in favour.

King Charles has seen an upsurge in popularity, with 73% saying he's provided good leadership and 63% (up from 33% in May) think he'll make a good King - though 45% think he'll reign in a 'different way' to Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Elizabeth II is remembered well, at least for now. 87% think she'll be remembered as one of our nation's greatest monarchs, and 85% say she was good for our nation.

Away from the Monarchy, though it is overshadowed for now, 80% support Truss' cap on energy bills at £2,500 a year (though will they be so supportive in a couple of years is another question), so she may win a polling boost when normal politics resume. However, 68% (including a majority of Tory voters) want a windfall tax, which isn't forthcoming.

Duty281 wrote:.... 80% support Truss' cap on energy bills at £2,500 a year ...

Doesn't help low earners whose energy bill will never reach £2,500. Wonder what about those that use so much energy that their bill already exceeds the cap.

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:.... 80% support Truss' cap on energy bills at £2,500 a year ...

Doesn't help low earners whose energy bill will never reach £2,500.  Wonder what about those that use so much energy that their bill already exceeds the cap.

That isn't how the price cap works. It's a cap on the typical household so those who use less pay less and those who use more pay more.

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:.... 80% support Truss' cap on energy bills at £2,500 a year ...

Doesn't help low earners whose energy bill will never reach £2,500.  Wonder what about those that use so much energy that their bill already exceeds the cap.

That isn't how the price cap works. It's a cap on the typical household so those who use less pay less and those who use more pay more.

I guess the way in which it doesn't help low earners is that the typical household will still pay about 300% more than they were paying this time last year. The cap is welcome, but there are still going to be a lot of people in real difficulty.

superflyweight wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:.... 80% support Truss' cap on energy bills at £2,500 a year ...

Doesn't help low earners whose energy bill will never reach £2,500.  Wonder what about those that use so much energy that their bill already exceeds the cap.

That isn't how the price cap works. It's a cap on the typical household so those who use less pay less and those who use more pay more.

I guess the way in which it doesn't help low earners is that the typical household will still pay about 300% more than they were paying this time last year.  The cap is welcome, but there are still going to be a lot of people in real difficulty.  

The thing I do disagree with is the £400 energy rebate being for everyone, not sure where i'd have made the cut off but those on £50,000+ a year do not need it whereas those on far less need more.

Soul Requiem wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:.... 80% support Truss' cap on energy bills at £2,500 a year ...

Doesn't help low earners whose energy bill will never reach £2,500.  Wonder what about those that use so much energy that their bill already exceeds the cap.

That isn't how the price cap works. It's a cap on the typical household so those who use less pay less and those who use more pay more.

I guess the way in which it doesn't help low earners is that the typical household will still pay about 300% more than they were paying this time last year.  The cap is welcome, but there are still going to be a lot of people in real difficulty.  

The thing I do disagree with is the £400 energy rebate being for everyone, not sure where i'd have made the cut off but those on £50,000+ a year do not need it whereas those on far less need more.

Yep, but that's what you get when successive Governments can't be arsed/don't want to pay for the resources in HMRC etc to properly means test etc.

Soul Requiem wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:.... 80% support Truss' cap on energy bills at £2,500 a year ...

Doesn't help low earners whose energy bill will never reach £2,500.  Wonder what about those that use so much energy that their bill already exceeds the cap.

That isn't how the price cap works. It's a cap on the typical household so those who use less pay less and those who use more pay more.

I guess the way in which it doesn't help low earners is that the typical household will still pay about 300% more than they were paying this time last year.  The cap is welcome, but there are still going to be a lot of people in real difficulty.  

The thing I do disagree with is the £400 energy rebate being for everyone, not sure where i'd have made the cut off but those on £50,000+ a year do not need it whereas those on far less need more.

Agreed. I'd much prefer it was a higher rebate for people who earn less. Must be a relatively easy to apply cut-off using tax bandings.

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:.... 80% support Truss' cap on energy bills at £2,500 a year ...

Doesn't help low earners whose energy bill will never reach £2,500.  Wonder what about those that use so much energy that their bill already exceeds the cap.

That isn't how the price cap works. It's a cap on the typical household so those who use less pay less and those who use more pay more.

Except it's not quite as simple as that, is it?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62882964

Yet another Tory plan which helps those who need it least far more than those who need it most.

navyblueshorts wrote:

GSC wrote:I think the court of public opinion can be at least skeptical when a reported 12m is paid to make it go away before he testifies.

It can if it's dense, yes. He couldn't win, could he? Still, no smoke without fire, eh? Judgemental, thick, biased, self-righteous pillocks.

Are you referring to the other members of the Royal Family who cast him out?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

GSC wrote:I think the court of public opinion can be at least skeptical when a reported 12m is paid to make it go away before he testifies.

It can if it's dense, yes. He couldn't win, could he? Still, no smoke without fire, eh? Judgemental, thick, biased, self-righteous pillocks.

Are you referring to the other members of the Royal Family who cast him out?

The guy's clearly a misanthrope with a serious habit of reading the Daily Fail, Julius. Look at that list of insults in one sentence.

You'd think the forelock tugger would be happy seeing as we live in a society where you are allowed to openly hate on dissenters but no, his type are the angriest of all.

[quote="navyblueshorts"]

mountain man wrote:
Ah, shame. You were doing so well until the last sentence. Agree w/ what you said prior, though.

Thanks for the patronising reply. So I take it you think Andrew totally fine and nothing to answer? He says he doesn't remember Guiffre despite photos? You don't think that is a bit suspicious?

mountain man wrote:


Thanks for the patronising reply.

I wouldn't let yourself get wound up by navytrainingpants. This is his "style". Thinks he is a little bit smarter, a little more informed and a little more perceptive than the rest of us. Reality is, he is slightly more pompous and a lot angrier than the rest of us!

He is also a bit needy. He flounced off the forum once, threatening never to return. But he is back, clipboard in hand like that kid at school you just knew would end up a local councillor.

Just enjoy his increasingly angry ramblings, I certainly do. The world forum needs all sorts.

And old Andy is definitely a nonce.

Lol, fair enough.

To be honest it's hard to gauge someones true reaction/feeling from just the written word anyway.

And yes there's a place for everyone even those we don't necessarily agree with.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

GSC wrote:I think the court of public opinion can be at least skeptical when a reported 12m is paid to make it go away before he testifies.

It can if it's dense, yes. He couldn't win, could he? Still, no smoke without fire, eh? Judgemental, thick, biased, self-righteous pillocks.

Are you referring to the other members of the Royal Family who cast him out?

Not as such, but I don't think they've served him well, either. Understandable, perhaps, given public-facing institution that it is and relying on pubic goodwill to remain in any way relevant.

Derek Smalls wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

GSC wrote:I think the court of public opinion can be at least skeptical when a reported 12m is paid to make it go away before he testifies.

It can if it's dense, yes. He couldn't win, could he? Still, no smoke without fire, eh? Judgemental, thick, biased, self-righteous pillocks.

Are you referring to the other members of the Royal Family who cast him out?

The guy's clearly a misanthrope with a serious habit  of reading the Daily Fail, Julius. Look at that list of insults in one sentence.

You'd think the forelock tugger would be happy seeing as we live in a society where you are allowed to openly hate on dissenters but no, his type are the angriest of all.

You have no clue what I read, whether I'm any sort of 'forelock tugger', but don't let that stop you. OK; just for you, let me remove the 'thick' and 'pillocks', but 'judgemental' and 'biased' are absolutely on the money.

mountain man wrote:

mountain man wrote:

Thanks for the patronising reply. So I take it you think Andrew totally fine and nothing to answer? He says he doesn't remember Guiffre despite photos? You don't think that is a bit suspicious?

I have no idea what Andrew did, or didn't do. He may not remember photos; I don't know. But that's the point, isn't it? We don't know.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

mountain man wrote:


Thanks for the patronising reply.

I wouldn't let yourself get wound up by navytrainingpants. This is his "style". Thinks he is a little bit smarter, a little more informed and a little more perceptive than the rest of us. Reality is, he is slightly more pompous and a lot angrier than the rest of us!

He is also a bit needy. He flounced off the forum once, threatening never to return. But he is back, clipboard in hand like that kid at school you just knew would end up a local councillor.

Just enjoy his increasingly angry ramblings, I certainly do. The world forum needs all sorts.

And old Andy is definitely a nonce.

Well, there's someone who knows the meaning of the word 'patronising'. Good to know it's not just me .

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

mountain man wrote:


Thanks for the patronising reply.

I wouldn't let yourself get wound up by navytrainingpants. This is his "style". Thinks he is a little bit smarter, a little more informed and a little more perceptive than the rest of us. Reality is, he is slightly more pompous and a lot angrier than the rest of us!

He is also a bit needy. He flounced off the forum once, threatening never to return. But he is back, clipboard in hand like that kid at school you just knew would end up a local councillor.

Just enjoy his increasingly angry ramblings, I certainly do. The world forum needs all sorts.

And old Andy is definitely a nonce.

Well, there's someone who knows the meaning of the word 'patronising'. Good to know it's not just me .

Dunno, I'd say you don't. I'd have said that poster was more insulting than patronising.

To a degree I actually agree. But innocent until proven guilty in an informal setting falls down when it becomes increasingly clear that silence has been bought, coerced and/or threatened from accusers by people with the kind of resources to do so.

Also kinda think when the opportunity to do what was alleged came by way of his status and resources as a British royal, and his settlement was reportedly paid for by the Queen, that there needs to be some kind of public clarity beyond him being sent to go sit on the naughty step. Fair or otherwise I feel we bear some kind of national responsibility

navyblueshorts wrote: [Re: casting out of Mr A. Windsor] ... Understandable, perhaps, given public-facing institution that it is and relying on pubic goodwill to remain in any way relevant.

This I feel is a very good point and extends far beyond the Prince Andrew thingy.  Well known or ordinary people losing their jobs or not getting jobs they apply for because of them being accused of something - even if it is not proved or even if they are later acquitted - or out of context social media comments.  The story of Fatty Arbuckle is a well noted case and even when he was finally acquitted and received an apology he was already seen as a tarnished product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Arbuckle

GSC wrote:To a degree I actually agree. But innocent until proven guilty in an informal setting falls down when it becomes increasingly clear that silence has been bought, coerced and/or threatened from accusers by people with the kind of resources to do so....

I would say this is a good general point too.  Taking things to court is extremely expensive and people with resources are at an advantage.  It is all about finding a balance as well as context.  As to the specifics of the Mr A. Windsor case - I am still staying well clear of it.  If there is a public interest in clearing the matter up - then maybe there should be an enquiry.  I assume that Mr A Windsor is on the public payroll?

mountain man wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

mountain man wrote:


Thanks for the patronising reply.

I wouldn't let yourself get wound up by navytrainingpants. This is his "style". Thinks he is a little bit smarter, a little more informed and a little more perceptive than the rest of us. Reality is, he is slightly more pompous and a lot angrier than the rest of us!

He is also a bit needy. He flounced off the forum once, threatening never to return. But he is back, clipboard in hand like that kid at school you just knew would end up a local councillor.

Just enjoy his increasingly angry ramblings, I certainly do. The world forum needs all sorts.

And old Andy is definitely a nonce.

Well, there's someone who knows the meaning of the word 'patronising'. Good to know it's not just me .

Dunno, I'd say you don't. I'd have said that poster was more insulting than patronising.

If you say so. Not fussed. Main issue now is if I 'flounce off' and leave you all to your own devices, it'll appear as if I'm doing so in response to Tino. Bugger...

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

mountain man wrote:


Thanks for the patronising reply.

I wouldn't let yourself get wound up by navytrainingpants. This is his "style". Thinks he is a little bit smarter, a little more informed and a little more perceptive than the rest of us. Reality is, he is slightly more pompous and a lot angrier than the rest of us!

He is also a bit needy. He flounced off the forum once, threatening never to return. But he is back, clipboard in hand like that kid at school you just knew would end up a local councillor.

Just enjoy his increasingly angry ramblings, I certainly do. The world forum needs all sorts.

And old Andy is definitely a nonce.

Well, there's someone who knows the meaning of the word 'patronising'. Good to know it's not just me .

Dunno, I'd say you don't. I'd have said that poster was more insulting than patronising.

If you say so. Not fussed. Main issue now is if I 'flounce off' and leave you all to your own devices, it'll appear as if I'm doing so in response to Tino. Bugger...

Thanks for coming...don't let the door hit you on the way out...

I'd just like to say that I have no interest whatsoever in hearing what random people in the queue to see the Queen lying in state have to say about it. Why on earth are broadcasters interviewing them? As if there isn't already enough airtime being taken up by the whole thing!

No name Bertie wrote:

GSC wrote:To a degree I actually agree. But innocent until proven guilty in an informal setting falls down when it becomes increasingly clear that silence has been bought, coerced and/or threatened from accusers by people with the kind of resources to do so....

I would say this is a good general point too.  Taking things to court is extremely expensive and people with resources are at an advantage.  It is all about finding a balance as well as context.  As to the specifics of the Mr A. Windsor case - I am still staying well clear of it.  If there is a public interest in clearing the matter up - then maybe there should be an enquiry.  I assume that Mr A Windsor is on the public payroll?

As I understood it the royals don't receive a "salary" officially (probably because of stuff like this they aren't treated as employees)

There won't be an enquiry because it benefits nobody involved to call one