Posts by casablanca

    This lengthy ramble must have something to do with the topic, aka Prince Andrew, but it escapes me

    I'm not at all surprised

    Are you moderating or just making what you imagine is a contribution?

    Epstein and Prince Andrew is a topic that raises moral and social precepts that are worth discussing, which takes the thread to a higher plane. Why would you want to be a wet blanket about that?.

    Your lively trip through the ages demonstrates that the fundamentals haven't changed, just the veneer and trappings of what we think is the advancement of mankind. I adored that opening scene in Kubrick's 2001 when the caveman hurled his club at an imposing stone monolith and, as it spun towards the monolith, it segued into a space satellite spinning in orbit around the earth

    Wealth and power usually amount to the same thing, used humanely or savagely, as a means of gentle or brutal persuasion. Today, there are still many parts of the globe where savage or brutal expressions of power and money are extant. One might argue that it isn't much different in Western Capitalism, it's just cosmetically concealed. But not concealed well enough. We all see examples of The Ugly Face of Capitalism. I think it's the nature of mankind.

    Paddy Chayefsky (one of the all time great screenwriters) got it right in this scene from a movie that was made over 40 years ago:

    Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it!! Is that clear?! You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immense, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

    Beale: But why me?

    Jensen: Because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

    Beale: I have seen the face of God.

    Jensen: You just might be right, Mr. Beale.

    Acquaintances - leave the EU - spout disdain at my wife and I, as if never been friends.

    But I never, neither does my wife, feel it wrong or bad or out of order for any of them to freely express

    Why is it they feel OK to shut down our stance on EU?

    I mentioned Trump, not with attitude, just mentioned him ... the response from 2 of them #@!&#!

    Wife and I who respect all opinions - substantial chunk of society try to shut down opinions with anger.
    I change gear go full throttle - their attitude to freedom of expression - they get stumped.

    You're not alone!

    I will take it as read that the unpleasantness you experience arises after a reasonable attempt to discuss the detailed pros & cons of Leave vs Remain rather than just chucking labels and slogans at one another. For example, I have yet to find in any dinner party someone willing or able to discuss the long term consequences of, say, increased EU federalism, whether the UK is tolerated rather than wanted as an EU member simply because it is a financial net contributor, whether EU membership prevents trade competition among members or just makes it internecine - but ultimately just as competitive as between separate sovereign nations who are just as willing to have entente cordial relationships with one another ...... and so and so forth. As for Trump, I guess the best and toughest questions to throw into the ring is whether a person is more concerned with reality or image, believes perception is the new reality, prefers someone who acts presidential to someone who actually makes makes effective presidential decisions, and why it thought wrong for a president to undertake to put his country first.

    Depending on the company one keeps, it's usually either heated argument rather than discussion, or an unwillingness to venture beyond social chitchat. Either way, one has to ask oneself the rhetorical question: do you change your opinions or change your friends? Already you described them as "acquaintances", so maybe you are heading along that second pathway!

    If you are at all in my position, the problem is that the friends one is looking for are not in great supply.

    There is a third way and it's one that provides me with intellectual stimulation, without raw edges: it is to be a questioner; pose as someone who is still in the process of weighing up Leave vs Remain, who seeks help, knowledge, enlightenment to weigh the pros & cons. The tactic is to appear to be in agreement with their view but where you seek their help, their thoughts and knowledge. They will love to proselytise! The questions that you can ask while sitting at the feet of these self-righteous or close-minded "acquaintances" will cause them to explain and justify their position without even realising you are challenging it. The downside of this approach is disillusionment, where you discover that behind all the shouty rhetoric lies an empty vessel. But at least that will help you decide whether you can bear socialising with such people.

    To adopt this approach you first have to come to terms with the fact that you are not in a contest, that you are not trying to convert them to your opinion; because there lies argument, confrontation, hostility. And to what avail? After all, you're surely not trying to win them over to your side of argument, are you? You're not a Jehova's Witness or Mormon!

    This third way that I'm recommending will have the side effect of enabling you to infiltrate into their circle of viewpoints that might lie beyond such riveting topics as house prices, compost heaps, private medical insurance, electric cars, Waitrose vs Sainsbury's etc. The question is whether you want to be in that circle. Better to reject than be rejected. I think the worst kind of loneliness is that which is felt when in the company of people you don't like, especially if the feeling is mutual. The last thing I want in a social gathering is to be tolerated.

    This third way is designed to address the frequent situation where the only time social chit-chat develops into talking about political or current affairs is when everyone in the group discovers or knows they are all have the same opinions. This of course deadens debate. This is similar to what I found when conducting market research discussion groups and I called it GAS (Group Accepted Sentiments). My solution was either to conduct individual 1-to-1 depth interviews or plant 1-2 of my staff in the group as respondents to slip in some devil's advocate "views" and break through the GAS barrier.

    There is a fourth way, which is to compartmentalise the various facets of people one socialises with, refraining from flicking the switch that will expose the very things one most despise about them. Personally I have great difficulty with that. I can't cope with the knowledge of what I know they are really like. In that regard, I'm no Prince Andrew!

    Don't you think it a bit like a real life version of that movie Twelve Angry Men? The unfair and often unconscious biases that citizens bring into their deliberations.

    In the case of Andrew I think the public criticism goes beyond just the ruined reputation that comes from lying down with dogs and waking up with fleas. I find it hard to believe that Andrew didn't know what Epstein was or had been up to. As you know, I've fought against the lynch mob mentality and the mindless mantra of no smoke without fire, as a matter of civilized principle. But there isn't much about Andrew that wins admiration (British understatement!).

    In the back of my mind I'm also wondering if Andrew did have sex with Virginia. But then, so what? One year under age? Gimme a break! But then again, when the legal eagles become legal vultures, who in their right mind is going to admit to that, let alone even remembering the girl. That would be a perilous thin end of the wedge to a bunch of America legal eagles/vultures. Especially those who smell money in Epstein's estatewhere they get one third of the spoils of a class action, a Virgina plus a string of Me-Too's. After the civil case victory, the path is clearer for a criminal legal vulture to get a sizeable trophy scalp for career promotion; not as big a prize as the late Epstein but then again, a Royal Prince, wow!

    Andrew's interview has helped along that scenario by resembling a rabbit caught in a car's headlights, which was no great surprise when even in relaxed carefree moments he is the standard chip off an inarticulate Royal block.

    Bottom line: Andrew was never going to land in the clink. He might find America off-limits from here on but there's always the Caribbean sunshine. He's rich enough not to need to line his pockets with further under-the-counter bribes or commissions from being a British trade envoy.

    Definitely persona non grata with the Brits - toxic for nobs, despised by slobs. That said, a comfortable pleasurable low profile from here on isn't exactly purgatory. Fergie might keep him company, if she has nothing better to do with her life or nothing better than she can afford.

    These days every time I think of travel, I remind myself of how tourism kills the experience. It's sad to have run out of motivation to travel (especially when semi-retired and having more time) but we count ourselves lucky to done so much before tourists and, in the case of East Africa, also before mosquitoes were a major hazard

    Glad you enjoyed the speech(es)

    Don't you think it a bit like a real life version of that movie Twelve Angry Men? The unfair and often unconscious biases that citizens bring into their deliberations.

    In the case of Andrew I think the public criticism goes beyond just the ruined reputation that comes from lying down with dogs and waking up with fleas. I find it hard to believe that Andrew didn't know what Epstein was or had been up to. As you know, I've fought against the lynch mob mentality and the mindless mantra of no smoke without fire, as a matter of civilized principle. But there isn't much about Andrew that wins admiration (British understatement!).

    In the back of my mind I'm also wondering if Andrew did have sex with Virginia. But then, so bloody what? One year under age - gimme a break! But when the legal eagles become legal vultures, who in their right mind is going to admit to that, let alone even remembering the girl - which would be a perilous thin end of the wedge to a bunch of America legal eagles/vultures, especially those who smell money in Epstein's estate and getting one third of the spoils of what could become a class action, a Virgina-Plus action. Because after the civil case, the criminal legal vultures will have a sizeable trophy scalp to pursue for career promotion; a consolation prize now that Epstein has gone in search of new angels.

    Against that possible scenario Andrew's interview was almost bound to resemble a rabbit caught in a car's headlights, especially when even in relaxed carefree moments he is a standard chip off an inarticulate uncommunicative Royal block.

    Bottom line: Andrew was never going to land in the clink. He might find America off limits from here on. He's rich enough not to need to further line his pockets with any more under-the-counter bribes or commissions from being a British trade envoy. So he's out of favour with British citizens - toxic among the nobs, despised among the slobs. A comfortable pleasurable low profile from here on isn't exactly a hellish way to live. Fergie might keep him company, if she has nothing better to do with her life - or nothing better than she can afford.

    OK... but what if I claim.. predictive speech?? LOL

    Good example. I recognise one dimensional publishing whereby we do not see body language, eye contact, mood, intonation etc.

    The Irish will say.. "thats grand" meaning thats lovely, nice, very good, fine. The English know "grand" as big, large as in Grand Piano. Massive landscape.

    It takes more energy to explain a word via typing the explanation than a more natural spoken word over a pint of beer. So the word "grand" is hanging there.

    Then there is varying understanding of the meaning of words. Assault for example? Most people I know 99.9% do not know you can assault a person without touching them. So when the word is used in a comment the actual word as understood by people has a serious context when in fact that may bot be the case. Basically ignorance is one thing and deliberate intention to deceive is another.

    I'm paying more emphasis on communication that encompasses nuance, feelings, sentiments, attitude, to achieve rapport, sympathy, empathy. You're paying more emphasis on on the problems arising from ambiguity or a failure to appreciate the broader meaning of a particular word that might only have be seen in a negative light (eg elite). Both are a problem.

    I remember testing a slogan for a brand of whisky where it's primary market was Scotland (phase 2 would then promote it in the South). So the slogan was "Now your talking Scotch!" It got a shrugging dismissal. Because Scottish people don't think about any other type of whisky. So the slogan became seen as the invention of an English ad agency or worse, a Scottish distillery proprietor who had spent too many young formative years in public boarding schools in England!

    1 Thanks for calling it comprehensive rather than tediously long!

    2 When MP's try to hold on to power, perhaps it's slightly forgivable and can be blamed on the system, in which the dichotomy of a left wing versus rightwing government coupled with an MP's 5 year employment contract, can leave him on a scrapheap even when he has performed well and relatively deceitfully, with nothing better to do than be a howling spectator. We don't need 650 MP's and we certainly don't need that turned into the mindless tribalism of partisanship, which ends up being an excuse for lying for one's party generally and for one's self-preservation particularly.

    3 British Steel will be better managed .... I agree with your justifiable cynicism. I can think of no better way to comment on this particular point than to invite you to be stimulated by a speech in a movie on a specialist steel company in decline, primarily the speech by the man who want to close it down and liquidate its assets, then the counter speech by the owner who is trying to defend his failure to come to terms with commercial reality. Do let me know what you think. The name of the film is called Other People's Money

    4 It's so sad that Trump, one of the most straight talking politicians, paints such a crass image of a US President. The sadness is that we live in a world where image or perception is more important than fact and reality. Fortunately for Trump - and maybe, fortunately for America, the Democrats have lost the plot and maybe, hopefully, all Trump has to do is carry on being Trump (just like "Let Bartlett Be Bartlett"). Trump's letter to Erdogan was brilliant ....... and did the job ...... mostly muzzled by media.…-tough-guy-dont-be-a-fool.

    For me that's like a dream come true on how, when necessary, to exercise relationships between countries.

    5 Clegg lost his seat, following his "No tuition fees" big lie farce. But look where is now? Talk about garbage rising to the top.

    6 Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" is a classic example use of the deliberate and stupid mis-use of semantics. It says everything about the calibre of advisers (and the desperation and hopeless judgement of Clinton at that moment of personal reckoning) that he and his advisers thought it was a verbal weasel that would take him near-unscathed through the gantlet of media and congress. (It's like a clever political satire, eg Being There). Similarly, dd Prince Andrew's advisers think it was a brilliant rebuttal when he told them he had a temporary inability to sweat? You can just hear the second adviser asking "how come?" and Andrew saying it was as a result of being shot at in the Falklands and both advisers screaming "fan-fu#$ing- tastic! We make the slut a liar and we make Andrew a war hero at the same time - a win-win". "And don't forget Andrew that when you say "shot at", give more emphasis to 'shot' than 'at' ".

    7 You feel good in knowing people are not fooled and can hold the liars to account. I'd feel more good if the people had a better candidates to choose in the election and were better equipped to make that choice. But because it's a choice of party at least of not more than a choice of candidate, it become a sad necessity that I'd rather vote for a Tory plonker than a bright centre-positioned Labour candidate. That's why I think partisanship gets in the way of the fairness and integrity of democracy. And I'd feel better still if the people could differentiate between a complete con artist and someone who feels compelled because of voters and the media to accentuate the positive and de-accentuate the negative. That said, I think Boris's consuming ambition has let him become over-handled by his minders and he is in danger of becoming a blubbering version of Theresa May, just mouthing slogans rather than thoughtful comment. It's still likely he'll win because the alternative is a duet of Darth Vader and Trotsky; but against that kind of competition the Boris I once knew would turn that into a landslide. Maybe he's saving his best shots until the 11th hour when there is no time for a comeback from Labour or Lib-Dem.

    PS: While burbling on in my earlier posting I noticed what a might have been a good example of semantics screwing up communication:

    Little Wing: "Farage has just announced that a political revolution is coming. I hope he's right".
    Bryanluc: "Why do you say that as you don't live here?"
    Little Wing: "I am going to ignore you from now on. You're as irritating as a fecking mosquito".

    Bryanluc's question either meant "as you're not a UK resident, why do you feel it's any of your business?" or, just possibly meant "what parallels do you think there might be between Labour's intended revolution and what been happening in SA?"

    I was all set to use this as an example of the casual, unclear, ambiguous communication that pervades across social media, often stunted by the continual use of that killer of semantics, the smartphone. But the more I thought about it, the stronger the conclusion that my second interpretation was unlikely. Which is disappointing really. Because it's easy to come to terms with someone who is a bit vacuous than someone who is so narrow minded, mean-spirited and hurtful.

    Anyway, the matter is concluded by Bryanluc's follow-up email to Little Wing, which amply confirmed her initial interpretation

    Fascinating subject. Branches off in so many directions.

    Sensitivity vs receptivity

    You, M99, are so very right in highlighting it as something to be concerned about. Consider that very last sentence of mine. It sounds patronising, where I've assumed I am the master giving you high marks and you are my developing pupil. To avoid this (it's not true, honest!) I have to tread carefully, altering my sentence to something along the lines of "I hadn't thought of it like that before but I'm sure you're right that it's all to do with the meaning behind the words". Or I could be one of those tediously humble pedants who prefaces everything they dare to think with "IMHO" (aaaarrrrgh!).

    In short, semantics may be affected by who one is talking to. Are they well educated? Touchy? Prejudiced? Disbelieving?

    Message sent vs message received

    It is one of the reasons I have always maintained to clients preoccupied with communication, that a message doesn't exist until it is received. All too often the so-called communicator presumes "mission accomplished" once the letter or notice or advertisement has been posted or broadcast to its intended audience but in fact the message withers on the vine, fails to be "received" until it is understood by its target recipient. (Heathrow ground control to Air India pilot on final approach: "How high are you?" Reply: "five foot eight")

    Communication vs Persuasion

    Now here's where I think it gets interesting, as we move from simple factual communication to attitudes to deeply held motivations and ultimately to persuasion. I offer a fun but true example which travels from anti-semantic to antisemitic:

    1) Jeffrey Epstein (as in teen)?

    2) Jeffrey Epstine (as in tine)?

    3) Jeffrey Epschtein (as in shteen)?

    4) Jeffrey Epschtine (as in shtine)?

    The first is the correct English (and American) pronunciation. But Jeremy Corbyn used (4). Why?

    1) Is it because Corbyn is antisemitic or simply semi-literate or just a schmuck?

    2) Jews think any deviation from correct pronunciation reveals antisemitism. Primarily "sht" rather than "st" but also "ine" rather than"een"

    3) Such thoughts are not just espoused by David Baddeil, who's a bit of a schmuck or schmartarse

    4) But also by Lord Daniel Finklestein, who insists pronouncing "scht" rather than "st" is the litmus test of antisemitism. At least the first syllable of his name sounds about right. It just takes a Baddeil or Finklestein to start off a media brushfire.

    5) The irony is Corbyn might want the right "original" pronunciation just to avoid possible disrespect that would be misconstrued as antisemitic.
    6) Or maybe Corbyn is trying to separate out Jeffrey Epstein as the bad Jew, where the other 99% are beyond reproach

    7) The Labour Party is treading on eggs (or matzo). Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

    8] Let's face it: the majority of Jews are terribly "touchy". "Remember the Holocaust" remains their trump card for being "touchy"

    So when you, M99, talk about "the use of semantics", I imagine you include the accidental or deliberate misuse of semantics, as well as the its well-meaning use to provide clarity and nuance.

    I reckon there is a 2-dimensional map (North-South and East-West) where one can broadly segment people in their use of semantics

    Capability: North = articulate/clarity/wide vocabulary /communicative, literate versus South = Inarticulate/vague/muddled/illiterate

    Personality: West = candid/straight-talking/transparent/honest versus East = evasive/oblique/repressive/calculating/dishonest

    Prince Andrew falls into the extreme South-East corner of this map. More sadly so does most of Royalty, due to presumption of superiority and privilege, maintained and reinforced by inbreeding, as does Parliament - but with inbreeding replaced by greed and personal ambition.

    I think it is regrettable when the use of words to convey an intrinsic goodness is suppressed, sabotaged or annihilated by sheer weight of outmoded tradition plus an army of minders, campaign managers, courtiers and perhaps worst of all, a feral media.


    As usual, I've gone on and on and on - no wonder I don't get many invites to dinner parties! - but I hope the above offers scraps of food for thought.

    Oh gawd, the semantics of fake self-effacement! ....... Royalty, here I come!

    A poll showed a surprising high percentage (still not high enough) believed what Andrew said or at the very least gave him the benefit of the doubt.

    I think there are a lot of people who view royalty as inherently unable to "say it the way it is", which is not deliberate lying, it's simply evading embarrassment. (Okay, Andrew as an envoy from Britain has accumulated an obscenely suspicious unaccounted amount of wealth - I'd sure like to hear his explanation about that - if anything can cure his inability to sweat s,. that would be it!).

    But returning to the matter of chronic royal reticence, it is deeply unattractive. The mountain of euphemisms, obfuscations and understatements become a slippery slope into downright lying, misleading or evasion.

    The Queen's annual speech in Parliament is a horrific example of a decent person can become a prisoner in a velvet lined ivory tower. I hope and believe the Queen has a genuine moral compass and yet as a matter of convention, she is press ganged by the government to read out a string of lies or implausibles or over-ambitious promises that have been written for her to speak to the nation. What would happen if Her Majesty refused to read out such a speech without first altering or editing out all the political fabrications and false promises? I think most citizens are crying out for a Government that doesn't lie or mislead or over-exaggerate . If no such political party is able or willing to be that way, then let it be Royalty. Which means cleaning the stables. Then when we say "God Bless The Queen" we will better know why we say that. For all Prince Charles' faults I can't see him peddling such bullshit in the Royal speech to the nation on behalf of the Government.

    1 All the Middle Eastern jollies when he's supposed to be our trade envoy, yet just lines his own pockets.

    2 My outlook is the same as yours. Tomorrow's another day and we all start anew.

    1 re: the Prince of Brown Envelopes: As a typical up-market British trade envoy (aka Mr Two Percent) he's flogging his Royal connection. What did you expect him to do with the fat brown envelope? Give it to his mum?

    2 re: Malignant99: Wrong phrase. Scarlett kept saying tomorrow is another day and she always let tomorrow be the same as yesterday! M99 couldn't hold it back for a day! Probably best to regard it as a good comic turn/a crazy mixed-up court jester

    1 I dont like people who are happy to associate with known pedophiles.

    2 I do not accept it is OK for any person to whom my wages/tax facilitates their lifestyle should/does KNOWINGLY mix with and regard a convicted pedophile as OK and when challenged deems it to be some sort of small error.

    3 Thats my stance, always has been and always will be. I am happy I have such high standards. I find it extraordinary many people do not. Some even defending the rotten prince.

    4 As i said, I do NOT seek approval for my opinions but some on here appear to append their views to mine expecting me to thank them for saving me. As a free speech absolutist, within the law, I am indifferent to your comments.

    Re police scenario: I love it! It's a clever creative entertaining way of conveying an essential truth. Thanks

    Re: your postscript about your stance:

    1 Who could possibly like or approve of such a person? It's a vacuous comment, rather like saying "I don't like bad people and I don't like people who like bad people and I don't like people who are friends with bad people. Gee, thanks for that insight!

    2 Again, who would accept that as okay? But do you need to invent the Prince's attitude just to air your disapproval of it? BTW: are you saying that if your wages and tax did not help to support that person's sexually debauched lifestyle, you'd suspend your disapproval?

    3 Not everyone is compelled to let it all hang out or parade their standards on their sleeve. Once a person starts telling me how satisfied they are with their high standards, they begin to resemble your police chief superintendent Phil Da Blanks. Whata you can't to get to mental grips with is that I'm defending a moral principle and, to the extent that I might be mistakenly viewed as defending the prince, I am only defending him against people like you.

    4 You "do not seek approval for your opinions" and are "indifferent" to replies which challenge your views? Who are you kidding? Yours is a childishly sulky position. If it was true, then why bother espousing your views on a forum? To be a rabble rouser? That too is childish. Maybe you're just seeking approval from your alter ego. In which case why not just write your opinions into a personal diary or notebook and read them from time to time. For my part, I'm not trying to "save" or "cure" or "influence" you. I was just using your posted comments as material for debating, an exchange of views with anyone reading my reply to your comments. It's a forum thing, don't you know that? Whether that exchange of views came from you or someone else doesn't matter; although on reflection it does now seem futile if the response is from you. After all, If the best response you can muster to someone who disagrees with your views and tries to explain why, is to say you are "indifferent", then you are out of your depth anywhere except on Facebook or Twitter or with young protesters against whatever is the flavour of the month.

    I don't think there's any doubt that he knew her otherwise she wouldn't have allowed him to put his arm around her waist, and more importantly, be so relaxed about such intimacy, so he knew her alright. But the crux is that nobody will ever know the truth, because with wealth, social power and celebrity comes influence, and that means there are those who are willing to lie for personal favours or monetary enrichment, whichever they choose. And it's pointless that anybody should defend him unless they can prove they witnessed the offence, so apart from cctv evidence, that too is impossible. Therefore Buckingham Palace's rebuttals and his mother's denials are meaningless and irrelevant. In short, although nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors, very often demeanor and body language can strongly suggest that something did go on? Additionally there's no point whatever in the FBI interviewing him, because like the claims of Russian interference into the presidential election, they'll never be able to prove it, and it will just be a waste of everybody's time.

    I don't think there should be any accusations of paedophilia (I'm talking about Andrew here, not Epstein - I don't know what he got up to) because there has been no child involvement: the main case is abuse of fame/celebrity to procure sex with young females, and at 17 years of age, this woman also knew what she was doing.

    You: I don't think there's any doubt that he knew her otherwise she wouldn't have allowed him to put his arm around her waist

    Mme: Presumably nor do you have any doubt that the photograph is real, that, although hard to tell, his left arm seems longer than his right arm (and he is not a left handed professional tennis player)

    You: ..... and more importantly, be so relaxed about such intimacy

    Me: Unless of course intimacy is her stock in trade, one which for she gets quite paid well. As for being relaxed, she wasn’t exactly dressed for a funeral or boardroom meeting

    You: But the crux is that nobody will ever know the truth because with wealth, social power and celebrity comes influence, and that means there are those who are willing to lie for personal favours or monetary enrichment, whichever they choose.

    Me: That’s a pretty funny way of describing a scenario where nobody knows the truth. If a judge summed up the evidence that way before asking the jury to retire and deliberate it would be a mistrial and he’d be removed from the bench.

    You: And it's pointless that anybody should defend him unless they can prove they witnessed the offence, so apart from cctv evidence, that too is impossible.

    Me: It’s not a matter of defending him but rather of defending the right to a presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. Do you still not get that? Let me try it a different way. Someone falsely accuses you of rape. You have no prior convictions but you look a bit of an upper-class twit and creep and when questioned and tape recorded by the police you are so frightened by the accusation that your replies seem hesitant and cautious. Your biggest problem is that you have no proof that you didn’t do it. Do you know why you don’t have that proof? …….. forgive me for trying to explain this to you ……. it’s because you can’t prove that something didn’t happen if it didn’t happen. It’s easy to prove he is a tight arsed twit and a bit of a poseur and has the usual air of royalty which we assume comes from a presumption of rightful privilege. But this might come as a bit of a shock to you: that is not a criminal offence any more than is the pig-ignorance that comes from a lynch-party mentality. Actually, I’m not even sure you quite know what he is being accused of. It seems his crime is that you and most of the country don’t like him. With the way Brits are these days one might regard that as a point in his favour!

    You: Therefore Buckingham Palace's rebuttals and his mother's denials are meaningless and irrelevant.

    Me: I agree entirely. But since you are such a fiend for evidence (joke), tell me about his mother’s denials? I’m pretty sure you’re lying. Do you have any royal blood?! But I know what you’re saying: the actual or implied denials from the various brown-nosed courtiers and advisors that infest the Royal household can actually make matters worse. But it’s a lose-lose situation because if they say nothing, their lack of support, their dissociation becomes construed as a condemnation.

    You: In short, although nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors, very often demeanor and body language can strongly suggest that something did go on?

    Me: OMG, you’re a criminal psychologist too? And of course, you mix a lot with Royals, so you know how to judge whether he is deviating from the usual royal demeanor and body language. Here I am taking the pi55 and it transpires you’re an “Expert Witness”. Oops, mega apologies!

    You: Additionally, there's no point whatever in the FBI interviewing him, because like the claims of Russian interference into the presidential election, they'll never be able to prove it, and it will just be a waste of everybody's time.

    Me: Agreed. Far better to rely on your impeccable intuition and acute observation of the accused’s demeanor and body language (joke)

    You: I don't think there should be any accusations of paedophilia (I'm talking about Andrew here, not Epstein - I don't know what he got up to) because there has been no child involvement: the main case is abuse of fame/celebrity to procure sex with young females, and at 17 years of age, this woman also knew what she was doing

    Me: I’ve written my somewhat antagonistic reply to your posting without paying enough attention to this, your last paragraph. Because in your final analysis you seem to be saying “what’s the big deal?”. And on that I am with you 100%. Fame and celebrity and, one assumes, wealth, is a fairly effective way of pulling birds at a party. Something to despise or resentfully envy but not a crime, right? Okay, Virginia was 1 year below age but, for Chrissakes, look at her! And look at her wallet afterwards! And check her track record! And as for Andrew relying on his fame, celebrity and wealth and the people he is rubbing shoulders with socially, don’t despise him. Instead pity him. To be that high up on the royal establishment pyramid and be such a dreary colourless non-entity – I meant, what on earth is there to envy? To look at yourself and know that without those connections you’d never get invited to anything, again I ask, what’s to envy? But if it could be proven that, like Epstein, Andrew was operating in that alleged other part of Epstein’s house, engaging with early teens and sub-teens, then if you’ll forgive this way of putting it, that’s a whole different ball game, and I’d more than content to see him hounded into court and, if proven guilty, that would be something, the first royal to land in jail for pedophilia. For those who hanker for a royal free democracy, that ought to do it!

    And, your point is?? You dont make sense.

    I see the media are publishing photos of Andrew being a stupid idiot at parties. What does this have to do with anything except entrench the fact that Andrew is a bit of a stupid idiot and really needs to have a few lessons in the aristocratic principle. I know it's too late now, but this is what comes of not having monarchy that looks like and acts like the people it is supposed to represent.

    Get a Republic and free yourselves from all this crap. All our ancient kings and queens are gone. Our warriors are gone. Soon most of us will be gone. The least the remaining scum can do is get themselves a decentish republic and lose the socialism, the whinging and the hatred for one another in some hoped for new dawn where education, skills and decency have a little niche in the national character. I know it's largely too late for many, but I feel sorry for those who, like me, would like to see a return to what was good and true and an end to this utterly awful monstrosity that has become British "society". It is about about as British as crap on toast.

    You: I see the media are publishing photos of Andrew being a stupid idiot at parties. What does this have to do with anything except entrench the fact that Andrew is a bit of a stupid idiot and really needs to have a few lessons in the aristocratic principle.

    Me: The aristocratic principle, thanks to all its inbreeding, is such that Andrew needs no lessons in demonstrating how perfectly he belongs to it, repressed by nature and nurture and reinforced or straitjacketed by royal courtiers (acolytes or aspirants). That said, I must admit that our long-standing Her Majesty somehow shines through with an intrinsic goodness and humanity. But it is probably for British citizens a suspension of disbelief stemming from HM's inner character of subtlety and restraint, which may well be a magnet rather than a repellent. especially in today's world of dispensing self-identity in shovel loads.

    You: I know it's too late now, but this is what comes of not having monarchy that looks like and acts like the people it is supposed to represent.

    Me: Look what happens in Parliament when we have leaders who do look and act like the people they are supposed to represent? I've always wanted to find an excuse to refer to the twin horns of a dilemma. Thank you!

    You: Get a Republic and free yourselves from all this crap.

    Me: I agree entirely. I buy into all your arguments. I won't bother debating the (theoretical) pros & cons of democracy (majority rules) vs republicanism (inclusiveness to embrace minorities) - suffice to say that just so long as a minority accounts for a shitload of votes, the so-called purity of majority-ruled democracy will be compromised by political expediency and ambition. For a long while now, I have been exposed to the argument by a lady known as SWMBO that a monarchy symbolizes and encourages stability in the way its country manages its affairs. This always seemed a reasonable end-benefit from having a few human icons or ornaments holed up on a roundabout or near Heathrow ("why did they build Windsor Castle so near a noisy airport?" American tourists might ask), for a fraction of the cost of HS2 and competes well against the return on investment of Disneyworld. However, over the last decade or so, the "stability" argument is rapidly disintegrating into a pile of rubble and with no sign of arresting this downhill trend. So all we're left is Royalty as a competitive attraction to Disneyworld. Do you think switching to a republic is going to reduce mob democracy? Possibly quite the contrary.


    Me: I wish I could write and talk about this like the late Christopher Hitchens:

    Him: 'The British monarchy inculcates unthinking credulity and servility. It forms a heavy layer on the general encrustation of our unreformed political institutions. It is the gilded peg from which our unlovely system of social distinction and hierarchy depends. It is an obstacle to the objective public discussion of our history. It tribalises politics. It entrenches the absurdity of the hereditary principle. It contributes to what sometimes looks like an enfeeblement of the national intelligence, drawing from our press and even some of our poets the sort of degrading and abnegating propaganda that would arouse contempt if displayed in Zaire or Romania. It is, in short, neither dignified or efficient.'

    Or Malcom Muggeridge who in the early sixties wrote The Queen & I , with gems like:

    There is no Empire, but only a holding company, the Commonwealth, set up to dispose of its dwindling residual assets, on whose managerial board the Queen does not sit, though she has inherited a sizable block of non-voting shares.

    No fatuity of the Monarchy is too oleaginous to serve its purpose. It remains at the top because of the intensification of snobbishness which, paradoxically, has accompanied the transformation of England into a Welfare State. The nerves of class consciousness have been made raw and inflamed by the administration of what purported to be its sedative.

    Dreams elude, and at last destroy. Knees should never be bowed. The last Roman Emperors insisted on being worshiped as Gods but as their earthly pretensions became less convincing, they became more insistent on their divine pretensions - but the barbarians were closing in to replace a debauched sycophantic Roman population according their emperor hollow praises of virtue, valor and divine honours. A Britannic Majesty, presiding over a diminishing and fractious kingdom, with a non-existent Empire, should beware a similar fate


    Why does Boris refrain from nominating someone? Why not nominate Nigel Farage?

    Or, using the same strategy but from a reverse perspective, why not nominate the most pedantic feeble minded anti-British MEP imaginable (loads to choose from), ideally with a thick German accent. This would be the same strategy in reverse asnominating Farage, so that that at the end of the 12 months negotiation-cum-transition, the EU will have contributed more weight to the notion that Britain leaving the EU is not only the sanest choice but also that leaving without a deal is inevitable and necessary when trying to deal with such people

    I don't think it matters whether or not one takes an oath. Constructs such as goodness, decency, respect, responsibility, fair-minded-ness, honesty are all matters of degree, not dichotomies. I've heard it said the opposite of such constructs reside in all of us and that some people are better than others at maintaining a positive than a negative score, that some people can do so effortlessly, while others have to work at it but at least know they should, while others feel quite normal or even gratified with a negative score, don't even think its negative, don't think there is a better alternative way of looking at things, and a few of them will be on a pathway where they need to be locked up as criminally insane or even "put down".

    The good-bad distribution of scores will always be a normal curve (ie bell-shaped) but the midpoint (the mean average) can only remain at zero by expressing the scores as deviations from the mean average. And here's the rub: that mean average good-bad score is being dragged down over the years, by a decline in IQ, education, tolerance, self-control and opinions and beliefs based on facts rather than perceptions or prejudices.

    It is natural that society forms into segments (birds of a feather flock together) but the downside of togetherness within each segment is factionalism between segments (between believers and non-believers, between (self-) oppressed and the oppressors (government or capitalism), and this contrariness seems be getting out of control all over the world. It starts off as an expression of democracy (freedom of speech, the right to air one's views and the reinforcement and imagined validation of one's view by joining a movement or mob singing from the same hymn book.

    My view is that thanks to the blind worship of democracy, citizens are getting the governments they deserve. The usual chicken & egg cause & effect argument is that the government has caused citizens to be the way they are today. There is some truth in that but one must also face the fact that we voted for the politicians that create a reviled government and our collective ill-informed or malign choice in the voting booth prevents better quality people from stepping forward to consider politics as a worthwhile vocation.

    It is because I think such despondent thoughts, that when someone says "as an ordinary citizen I ........" I cannot help myself from imagining he really said "as an ornery citizen ....". When that person goes on to tell the reader or listener that they are in a vocation where they have taken an oath to operate to a higher standard than us lesser mortals I wait with bated breath to learn who are these higher-order guardians of morality. Catholic priests? A cabal of Supreme Court Judges? Scoutmasters? You're warm. It's the police! Hello hello hello? You have to laugh! Only an oaf can think that taking an oath is the litmus test of unimpeachable goodness and morality. It now makes sense to me why such a person is nursing a vendetta so heavily biased towards nobs rather than slobs. Truly a prize nab. A lynch mob in uniforms.

    Pacts and coalitions in a fragmented Parliament

    The last 3 or so frightful years of a wafer thin majority has generated vitriolic Parliamentary dissent, often where political partisanship individual self-interest is placed before national interest , leading to decision paralysis.

    This has increased the aspiration of smaller parties to gain a decisive presence in Parliament after the next GE, along with the predictable moan about the allegedly undemocratic method where the a constituency candidate, can win entirely even by just one vote, virtually snuffing out a close runner-up party candidate.

    The consequence is that snuffed out also-ran parties are talking about pacts or mergers to add heft to their individually small representations in Parliament.

    Sooner or later some of them will merge into a singular party at the constituency voting level than might gives the Labs and Cons a real run for their money. Or more dangerously, Labour with a dollop of Green and a dollop of Lib-Dem.

    Across all constituencies, in aggregate, these mergers or alliances will produce a less lumpy, less feat-or-famine result than the traditional constituency photo-finish winner method.

    Alternatively, or additionally, if the also-ran parties are to give the major parties a fair run for their money at a constituency level, It would be even less lumpy, more granular with a proportional representation method based on some rank preference scoring in the polling booth.

    If we allow proportional representation to factor into the voting system, it becomes much less likely that one party will have a majority, which makes it likely we will re-create the same or similar kind of partisan fragmentation in parliament that we have been experiencing for the last 3 or so crippling years?

    Question 1: is that increased representation of minority parties within Parliament a good thing? I think not

    Question 2: how can a system be created which enables the winning party to make decisions? One solution is to base parliamentary decision on which of a number of proposed options gets the highest share of votes, ie not simply a yes-no response to each proposal in isolation. In survey research this known as comparative rather than monadic preferences. It could be administered in a series of multi-stage knock-out preferences rather like Tory leadership elections. Another method might be degree of approval or acceptance on a 5 point rating scale, where the highest rating determines which proposal is implemented. Another method might be where the current Parliamentary voting system reaches an impasse, so that the leading party, the one which won the most constituencies, with its PM and party leader, will be entitled to break the deadlock by restricting the deciding vote to its own executive cabinet.

    Any views?

    Would you care to expand on that snidey (personal) remark please?

    Apologies for not answering. I forgot to press "reply" until today (I had typed "If you don't get it, you prove my point" ) but now I can't even find my "snidey remark" let alone yours which generated it (I vaguely recall concluding that the truth behind your request was that of a counter-troll strategy and hence my bouncing the ball back to you rather than taking the bait).

    The NHS is run by bureaucrats, and as we all know, bureaucrats are indolent, usually incompetent, self-serving, and careless with the money (need I say 'our taxes'?) with which they're entrusted . . . actually just like politicians, when ya think about it? lol

    The 'sacred cow' of the NHS is the best way bar none for politicians to big it up at election times because it's a sure-fire vote-winner, when the truth is that they don't GAF about it, not least because they all have private health cover. So what they always do, as they're doing now, is use neuro linguistic programming to leap-frog one another with spurious pie-in-the-sky promises of 'extra funding', and I'm afraid that it works for them because our health service is such an emotive issue. The bottom line is that - unless and until they and the establishment elitists are forced to use the NHS - like that'll ever happen in a million years? - the NHS has become a mere dog whistle device to garner votes. And call me a cynic, but from the way they just pluck telephone-book numbers out of the air, I'd bet the so-called 'extra funding is fanciful in the extreme; I mean who can prove otherwise? And as a visitor to a specific hospital at various times over the last decade, I know how much the chav demographic of the country abuse it out of sight., and how fucking useless some of the 'angels' are, and only in it for the monthly pay cheques. And I could rant even more by giving some examples, but that's enough for now, save to say . . .

    The 3 main parties don't GAF about what they see as the great unwashed, have over the decades have become unbelievably complacent, and if we vote any of them into power in December then we'll deserve everything we get subsequently.

    You have posted a viewpoint which I agree with 200%. It is deplorable that in GE campaigning no politician (or for that matter media interviewer) raises the question about the NHS pissing away taxpayers' money whilst slowly and expensively dying of "bureaucracitus". This mania that Britain has in presuming that all its failures (oops "challenges") can be cured by injecting money drives me nuts. I remember as an outside consultant to British Rail (ie pre-privatisation) of a typical BR executive turd called Wayne who responded to a problem for which there was a simple solution by saying "we just need to throw some money at this". The "we" are us tax payers who have to pay the salaries of these pseudo-executive turds.

    1 Personally, I don't think Andrew had sex with any underage girls. Epstein is guilty, yes, but Andrew seems more like a somewhat pathetic hanger on.

    That’s pretty much my feeling. I think he was probably a shag-hungry hanger on but he was, after all unattached at the time and OTS’s (Opportunities To Shag) are in short supply in Royal garden parties. I don’t think he had a choice in the Newsnight interview to offer that type of explanation without being crucified in the media and risk bringing the whole Monarchy Firm into disrepute, whilst becoming a social outcast; which would also torpedo his freeloading income. So instead he hides behind a fuzzy memory and blathers on Royal standards and letting down the side by socialising with post-trial-and-found-guilty Epstein. Andrew’s a pompous-sounding explanation had a contrived ring which I’m sure, for many, viewers will add to their suspicion that he is concealing a sex offence or at the very least is behaving in a sexually disreputable or distasteful or depraved way.

    2 To me, this photo looks photoshopped.

    It certainly looks contrived or stilted. I read somewhere that it also looks as if the left hand around her waist is longer than his right hand (I assume that is what you mean by spatial sense?). I like your closer examination of the girl’s hand in mid-air as well as your other observations. Very forensic expert witness stuff. And, don’t forget, to cap it all, there is no negative.

    3a The media should stop using it.

    Yeah – and pigs will fly

    3b He made the huge mistake of getting himself connected to Epstein …… spare parts in the Firm's available tool factory.

    Cute summing up of minor-royal self-destruction

    4 It’s no use just going for them because they happen to be aristos or royals and you don't like these folk. They really do have to be guilty and this needs to be proven. If they want to prove Andrew's liaison with this girl then they should have produced a more believable photograph. But then, if it's all lies, I suppose they had to work with what they could create and, frankly, they should have employed a better photo editor.

    Thank you for being a 2nd voice in my self-made wilderness, expressed in a more authoritative, persuasive, and in a less combative way than I seem capable of.

    On the instinctive assumption that he's guilty (which a part of me shares with you) , that's a very witty scenario with more than a grain of truth if he is guilty. Bring back Spitting Images or Not The Nine O'Clock News!

    Impossible though for an innocent accused to offer evidence that disproves something that didn't exist.

    I'm not sure that "I don't remember" is a good defense against the accusation, since it implies that his Royal Highness is shagging everything that moves and it has become for him a non stop blur. After all, he accepted an invitation to those parties knowing it wasn't a book reading club.

    Then again, he was single and unattached and there is a fine dividing line between laying on hookers and sprinkling some pretty unattached female guests into the mix (obviously not under-age).

    Confession: back in the early 80's I occasionally held fairly large parties for friends and close clients, for the usual business & social self-promotion reasons. In these parties I included about half a dozen personable young ladies from an up-market secretarial and PA agency my company used from time-to-time, to serve drinks & eats. It seemed more fun that using waiters and waitresses - and a damn sight cheaper! They were told in advance that, as well as serving or getting drinks & eats at the early stage (before setting up the help-yourself bar), the ladies were welcome to mix and chat with the guests (or not, as they wished) - and I didn't ask to see their birth certificates - it was hard to imagine an under-age would scrape through- after all, they were senior secretaries or PA's. Because some guests came solo (especially male clients who weren't married or attached), hosting it this way enabled me to balance out the male-female numbers. Just because some male friends and clients were please to come to this kind of party (I held about four over a 6 year period), did that make me a miniature/poor man's Epstein?

    1 That people who have no case resort to personal insult.

    And people who regard their stubborn ignorance as a virtue (or don't even realise their ignorance) will often find themselves on the receiving end of a personal insult. If you were not so arrogantly confident of your stubborn ignorance I would make an effort to be less insulting and instead taken the more charitable view that it is wrong to mock the afflicted.

    2 The presumption of innocence is a valid doctrine/practice in the UK judicial system

    Clearly you took my advice and didn't read beyond the asterisks. I'm sure you made the right decision: don't read anything where there is a risk it will challenge your ignorance or mistaken beliefs

    3 You are making that huge leap - because a person disagrees with you said person, or people, therefore totally disregard the main tenet of our legal system - INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY - ?? OK, if thats how you want to reason, thats a matter for you.

    I don't follow your argument. Are you disagreeing with the established legal tenet, of a presumption of innocence, or are you contending that it should only apply to people whose position in society meets your approval?

    4 Guilty people regularly prefer to go to trial in the hope their brilliant Barrister will get them off.

    What could be their preferred alternative to "going to trial"? Would they be less criticised by you if they hired a dumb barrister?

    5 All the barrister does is make a case to convince the jury either way.

    Did you mean barristers plural? You surely realise - don't you? - that there are two barristers - one to defend, the other to prosecute. If you do realise that, what else do you expect the prosecution and defense barristers to do other than prosecute and defend respectively?

    6 Truth has nothing to do with systems or articulation of lies and facts.

    Well there is the fear of a severe consequence if one is found to lie in court when under oath. What are you in search of that might be an improvement? 12 jurors just like you who find the accused guilty because there is no smoke without fire, especially with people who are posher and hence more privileged than yourself, such as the establishment, even more especially if they are royal. "Off with their heads!", right? Indeed, why wait for an accusation against them, why not prosecute them for the crime of simply being who they are?

    7 Guilty people are found innocent and innocent people are found guilty - on a regular basis.

    Thanks for that interesting statistic. Presumably you feel that your instinct or chip-on-shoulder prejudice is a more reliable safeguard against a mis-verdict

    8 So your claim on applying a system, procedure as your blind loyalty to a pervert Royal is blown out of the water.

    When you type this sort of drivel, is it accompanied by dribble, ie a white foam coming out of your mouth?

    9 Garrow is probably the most important contributor to our current legal system, not least for his brave approach to the "Establishment" in pursuit of equity and the rule of law. He is one of my heroes.

    And yet presumably you feel he has let himself down - and you - in being a pioneering voice in court for the presumption of innocence.

    10 The "Establishment" is the prime driver. Andrew is Establishment... his mother is the supreme head of the Establishment. The same Establishment which set up, allowed Field Court Marshalls following the Irish "troubles.. Easter Rising. So anything can be done to set a person free or see them jailed or executed.

    There is much truth in what you say. The counter argument in defense of Royalty is that it is a stabilizing force and that might have some validity but it paints a pathetic picture of the British in needing all that ceremonial class-ridden crap to be stable. You have extended your disapproval to the establishment who might also take advantage of the privileges that accompany that dubious status. You may as well go one stage further and talk of how the mega rich can also avail themselves of the advantage that "money talks". Don't you think that the corruption lies mostly with those who allow themselves to be influenced or corrupted by the higher echelons?

    11 There are lots of people who, like you, blindly hold to a loyalty to Royalty and the rich and powerful despite their proven historic misgivings.

    I am defending the right to a "presumption of innocence until proven guilty" to all human beings, whatever their position on the nob-slob scale and irrespective of whether I resent their existence and life-style in society. If you really can't understand that, at least I know where to place you on that scale!

    12 So this moron would like to leave you with this simple saying: He who contrives, defeats his purpose, and he who is grasping, loses.....the sage does not contrive to win and therefore is not defeated..... the sage is not grasping, so therefore, is not defeated

    I assume you got this out of a cookie in an up-market Chinese restaurant. I'm confident that you couldn't contrive even if you wanted to; but that wouldn't stop you defeating your purpose, if you only knew what your purpose was. I don't think you are grasping in the sense that the Chinese Cookie Prophet means but I do think you are grasping at straws. But in truth I don't know - you seem to have a contrived ignorance that is almost an aspiration

    13 I await your insults.

    There is no need for me to help you do that

    Actually, I'm just replying to anyone who is rushing to judgement, as well as challenging those who thinks I am defending the indefensible. I am just as repelled as any other normal civilized person by the depravity of Epstein and that of any of his acolytes


    Bryanluc: You say “some people rush to believe denials”. My rejoinder is that “some people rush to believe accusations”. Actually, you really need to try harder to understand that I am not rushing to believe a denial. I'm just trying to be fair minded. At the time, when Clinton said "I never had sex with that woman", did you have an open mind? Granted, it may have been laced with suspicion but I assure you that if when a court was swearing in a jury and each juror was being tested for competency, if your response to the defendant’s denial of guilt was a sneering "yeah, right!", the judge would have banned you from the jury and probably marked you as unfit for any future jury duty.

    Mali99: I think your insistence on judging guilt through deep-down hatreds, prejudices, associations and stereotyping makes you as useful on a jury as a person covered in a white sheet that comes to a pointy head with two eye slits. It's possible you're just taking the pi55. In other words, it's possible you're only pretending to be a moron.


    To both or either of you - or anyone else with a similar point of view, all I've ever argued on this thread is to exercise the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

    I just can't believe it when adults don't understand the difference between an accusation (= no evidence) and a conviction (= evidence). I can understand emotions clouding rational or fair-mindeness but surely a more civilized frame of mind enters when writing or typing one's position

    I can't believe either of you or anyone else is unaware of the fundamental point of law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I suppose I just don’t want to believe anyone can be that ignorant, uncivilised and entrenched. If that really applies in your case I don't want to bore or confuse you further and therefore by all means don't bother reading the rest of my reply below which I freely admit is more for my own egotistical satisfaction than for your enlightenment.


    The presumption of innocence is a legal principle in practically all civilised countries, in which an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

    Even in Roman Times there was written as a rule of evidence: “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” (Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies)

    Presumption of innocence is so important in modern-day democracies (whether monarchies or republics) as to be explicitly included it in their fundamental legal principles.

    The British barrister Sir William Garrow (1760-1840) coined the phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty", insisting accusers and their evidence be thoroughly tested in court, proving the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, in which the accused bears no burden of proof and does not even have to testify. (In the accusation of a sexual offence, where the sexual act has already been proved, there are circumstances where the defendant might need to offer evidence that the complainant consented to the sexual act or that the defendant reasonably believed the complainant was consenting).


    I have to believe most adults are at least vaguely aware of this principle (even Forum Box members!!) and that they are not a Neanderthal just recently been thawed out and trying to acquaint themselves with 21st Century living

    Err lets have a look ...... Young girls or a rich powerful royal with a convicted sexual pervert and rapist ... this is difficult, nope.. I have decided..... I support the girls 100%. (SHOCKING deduction)

    Virginia also said claimed she had it away with Alan Dershowitz.…inia-Roberts-Giuffre.html…-shes-just-out-for-money/

    But don't let that get in your way. Perhaps he has royal blood?

    Obviously I over-estimated you.

    You are fixated on the age of 17

    These women allege that Andrew had sex with them when they were 14 years old

    It is all speculation but given the reputation of those in power including the royals it is believable

    If he is so innocent then ley him go to the States and answer the allegations in a court

    fixated on the age of 17?

    That was her age at the time

    These women allege that Andrew had sex with them when they were 14 years old

    And that's good enough for you? You don't see any ulterior motive behind that allegation?

    It is all speculation

    But for you it's believable speculation?

    Given the reputation of those in power including the royals it is believable

    You remind me of Jack Warden or Lee J Cobb in 12 Angry Men, or any of the accusers in The Crucible

    If he is so innocent then let him go to the States and answer the allegations in a court

    If in his shoes - and innocent - would you go? Really? Haven't you kept tabs on the US brand of justice? They have a lot of folks like you!