On letters, it's worth remembering that when it happened to May, I think the news broke early in the morning (around 7am, I think).
If there's to be a VoC every member of the cabinet will either declare for Boris (with reasons) or resign. If a potential successor resigns they will either be strengthened or cast into outer darkness, depending on the outcome. It's a high stakes game.
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
Yes, from Rotherham, to Thailand to Epstein and Maxwell the modus operandi is for traffickers to use previously trafficked girls to recruit newer younger ones into the life. It is all part of the controlling psychology, and also why so many of the Rotherham girls wouldn't testify against their "boyfriends".
It takes time and distance for the realisation of how they have been manipulated to arrive. Indeed the story arc of Virginia Roberts/Giuffre fits the pattern very well indeed, as does Maxwells. Sometimes victims are criminals too.
I am sure that many of Epsteins guests didn't question how all the young and apparently willing wound up at a party with them.
"It takes time and distance for the realisation of how they have been manipulated to arrive."
I love this sort of stuff. These people are young women, so how can they possibly be expected to understand their own position, without it being explained to them by an elderly wealthy middle class white man?
And that's a figure which we all know is manipulated down, and depends very much on what you want to buy. Flatscreen tellies get cheaper, but food and a roof over your head does not.
US house inflation is 23% in last year !!!!!!!!!
Brace.
The offers I get for my house are ludicrous
Yes, but if houses as a whole go up, nice houses go up even more. So one's chances of ever living in one recede in the rear view mirror. I feel for you.
It’s not for sale. My wife would kill me.
Although with some of the offers…
Problem is you need somewhere better to move to and.....
We are on the best street in the best town in the best county in the best state in the US.
We could have a larger house or be 20 feet nearer the ocean but neither are strictly necessary.
Jesus Christ Charles give it a rest.
I am an appallingly common little man myself, but I do know quite a lot of posh and rich people, including several of your posher-and-richer-than-you cousins, and it's amazing how little they go on about it.
I don’t in the real world. But here I blow off steam. Much like you seem to do when you are quite as unpleasant as you are to many others on here.
Not really understanding your "real world" point. You mean, you thought nobody here was in a position to bite back?
No it means we are all (to some extent) anonymous on here and engaged in mutual banter quite divorced from family, friends and professional circles.
If we ever encounter each other in the real world then feel free to judge me based on my posts on here. I won’t judge you on yours.
I've come down from the upper class To mend your rotten ways My father was a man-of-power Whom everyone obeyed
So come on all you criminals! I've got to put you straight Just like I did with my old man Twenty years too late
How do you think that I know that I know your cousins?
Because I’ve never bothered to hide my identity. Most people don’t really care either, and neither do I. The only link I have obfuscated is when I refer to my mentor.
As for whatever money I have it’s about the same as any modestly successful City professional of my vintage.
Nothing pretentious about having a "mentor". No sirree.
My mentor was my grandfather’s generation, and I loved them dearly. But they weren’t a friend precisely. And I don’t want to name them because they are sufficiently high profile that I don’t want people to be able to trace back remarks I may have made in the past to them.
So it’s a convenient word to describe the relationship.
I think I know who you mean. 89, Well known, Sale, England.
Never for sale. Just another sparrow in the field.
The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain - from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward. https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1481374158202228736
The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain - from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward. https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1481374158202228736
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
I get the impression that Prince Andrew is the kind of person who doesn't welcome hard truths and would prefer to have lawyers who tell him they can get the case thrown out than lawyers who would advise him to settle on as good terms and as early as possible.
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
Yes, from Rotherham, to Thailand to Epstein and Maxwell the modus operandi is for traffickers to use previously trafficked girls to recruit newer younger ones into the life. It is all part of the controlling psychology, and also why so many of the Rotherham girls wouldn't testify against their "boyfriends".
It takes time and distance for the realisation of how they have been manipulated to arrive. Indeed the story arc of Virginia Roberts/Giuffre fits the pattern very well indeed, as does Maxwells. Sometimes victims are criminals too.
I am sure that many of Epsteins guests didn't question how all the young and apparently willing wound up at a party with them.
"It takes time and distance for the realisation of how they have been manipulated to arrive."
I love this sort of stuff. These people are young women, so how can they possibly be expected to understand their own position, without it being explained to them by an elderly wealthy middle class white man?
'realisation for how they have been manipulated' does not mean what you have interpreted it to mean. It means they come to their own realisation - not having it explained to them by another, male or female, white or other, old or young.
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
I was just about to post about that, it is jigsaw identification.
The last paragraph in this Telegraph article is reprehensible.
Can you relay it here, not all of us are Tele subs.
The Daily Telegraph has contacted the RFU for comment, but the player is not a member of Eddie Jones' last England squad.
It doesn't narrow it down too much, just rules out Manu tbh - most of the Sale squad seem to have played for England at some level or another except the saffers.
I see the wife of a former England player has put a statement out stating this arrest has nothing to do with her and her husband. The only similarity being she is the same age as the complainant. They had been doorstepped by the press today.
It’s like the time the Everton player was arrested for ‘noncing’ lots of ill informed speculation on social media and people,being wrongly accused. It’s not on. It could ruin someone’s life and affect the trial.
Between Everton, Man City and now Sale, it does look like professional sports need to look beyond campaigns against racism and homophobia.
The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain - from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward. https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1481374158202228736
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
I get the impression that Prince Andrew is the kind of person who doesn't welcome hard truths and would prefer to have lawyers who tell him they can get the case thrown out than lawyers who would advise him to settle on as good terms and as early as possible.
Yes, the lawyers biggest problem may well be the instructions from their client.
The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain - from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward. https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1481374158202228736
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Maybe he has the lawyers he has because he insists fighting it a particular way?
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Of course, some see that as bad, some see it as good. I’m of the latter view, and I am still disappointed my EU citizenship has been removed against my will and I am no longer directly part of such a project.
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Yes, you are right and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to want a United States of Europe. You do, I don't. It is also correct that the ambition for it was hiding in plain sight. It is also correct that at no point ever either in national politics or in the Remain campaign has it been asserted, argued for, supported or anything other than derided as a right wing conspiracy theorist fantasy.
To quote the Queen's speech from the State opening of Parliament 1973:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Couldn't really call that hiding, could you?
As I say, the ambition was hiding in plain sight. If I am wrong could you draw my attention to the Remain campaign relying on the prospect of a United States of Europe as part of its case for being in the EU?
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
Re 2, I don't think it a defence. Rather it may show that she was told to behave in a way which made the man think she was consenting and very willing i.e. if she was telling other young girls that as part of what she did then it may support his defence that he reasonably believed she was willing. But it's all a bit hypothetical because he says he never had sex with her at all.
Re why his lawyers are crap, God knows. My guess is that he has refused to listen to any sort of advice from anyone sensible - much as he reportedly refused to listen to advice when people tried to warn him against Epstein.
I think good lawyers would take the case but would do so only if Andrew listened to the advice and would not advance the sort of silly arguments his lawyers have been. Good lawyers would have tried to get a settlement and/or offer real assistance to the US authorities at an early stage. Much like others in public life, if he'd apologised profusely early enough instead of behaving like an arrogant arse he would not be in the mess he is in now.
Re 3, I think it quite possible that he was sleeping with lots of women and can't really remember who with on any one particular night. And like many other men he was not really bothered about either the age gap, whether the consent was real, remarkably uncurious and assumed that he must be amazingly attractive to girls young enough to be his daughter. All very seedy and distasteful but not uncommon among some men.
He's doing worse than a French President, that truly is a national embarrassment, Boris Johnson needs to go now.
Worse than that, he's doing worse than the worst ever French President.
Not forgetting the one that fell out of a train while drunk, the one who turned up at a formal dinner with all his medals on but nothing else at all and the one who died of a heart attack while being fellated.
I would have thought "dying of a heart attack while being fellated AND BEING FRENCH PRESIDENT" would make him a French national hero
He's certainly in my top ten politicians of all time, and I've only just heard of him
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
Yes, from Rotherham, to Thailand to Epstein and Maxwell the modus operandi is for traffickers to use previously trafficked girls to recruit newer younger ones into the life. It is all part of the controlling psychology, and also why so many of the Rotherham girls wouldn't testify against their "boyfriends".
It takes time and distance for the realisation of how they have been manipulated to arrive. Indeed the story arc of Virginia Roberts/Giuffre fits the pattern very well indeed, as does Maxwells. Sometimes victims are criminals too.
I am sure that many of Epsteins guests didn't question how all the young and apparently willing wound up at a party with them.
"It takes time and distance for the realisation of how they have been manipulated to arrive."
I love this sort of stuff. These people are young women, so how can they possibly be expected to understand their own position, without it being explained to them by an elderly wealthy middle class white man?
Do you deny the process of grooming young girls into being trafficked?
It is quite an interesting position to argue that they had agency as teenagers, but were manipulated later into thinking they were trafficked.
And that's a figure which we all know is manipulated down, and depends very much on what you want to buy. Flatscreen tellies get cheaper, but food and a roof over your head does not.
US house inflation is 23% in last year !!!!!!!!!
Brace.
The offers I get for my house are ludicrous
Yes, but if houses as a whole go up, nice houses go up even more. So one's chances of ever living in one recede in the rear view mirror. I feel for you.
It’s not for sale. My wife would kill me.
Although with some of the offers…
Problem is you need somewhere better to move to and.....
We are on the best street in the best town in the best county in the best state in the US.
We could have a larger house or be 20 feet nearer the ocean but neither are strictly necessary.
Jesus Christ Charles give it a rest.
I am an appallingly common little man myself, but I do know quite a lot of posh and rich people, including several of your posher-and-richer-than-you cousins, and it's amazing how little they go on about it.
I don’t in the real world. But here I blow off steam. Much like you seem to do when you are quite as unpleasant as you are to many others on here.
Not really understanding your "real world" point. You mean, you thought nobody here was in a position to bite back?
No it means we are all (to some extent) anonymous on here and engaged in mutual banter quite divorced from family, friends and professional circles.
If we ever encounter each other in the real world then feel free to judge me based on my posts on here. I won’t judge you on yours.
I've come down from the upper class To mend your rotten ways My father was a man-of-power Whom everyone obeyed
So come on all you criminals! I've got to put you straight Just like I did with my old man Twenty years too late
How do you think that I know that I know your cousins?
Let us all agree that you are both stupid posh twats?
The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain - from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward. https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1481374158202228736
Boris would do well to remember that everyone got behind Caesar because it was easier to stab him in the back...
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
Re 2, I don't think it a defence. Rather it may show that she was told to behave in a way which made the man think she was consenting and very willing i.e. if she was telling other young girls that as part of what she did then it may support his defence that he reasonably believed she was willing. But it's all a bit hypothetical because he says he never had sex with her at all.
Re why his lawyers are crap, God knows. My guess is that he has refused to listen to any sort of advice from anyone sensible - much as he reportedly refused to listen to advice when people tried to warn him against Epstein.
I think good lawyers would take the case but would do so only if Andrew listened to the advice and would not advance the sort of silly arguments his lawyers have been. Good lawyers would have tried to get a settlement and/or offer real assistance to the US authorities at an early stage. Much like others in public life, if he'd apologised profusely early enough instead of behaving like an arrogant arse he would not be in the mess he is in now.
Re 3, I think it quite possible that he was sleeping with lots of women and can't really remember who with on any one particular night. And like many other men he was not really bothered about either the age gap, whether the consent was real, remarkably uncurious and assumed that he must be amazingly attractive to girls young enough to be his daughter. All very seedy and distasteful but not uncommon among some men.
Yes, I think that would be the best defence: that he thought she was of age, and freely consenting. Possibly arguable for the year 2001.
Hard to see why he stayed friends with Epstein, even after Epstein was convicted of sex offences though.
A couple of questions about Sir Graham Brady Old Lady:
1) can he write a letter to himself? 2) if asked to reveal how many letters he has, must he do so (honestly)?
Yes (in theory, no, in practice)
No (other than saying when it reaches the magic number)
Thanks, a third question:
3) if asked to reveal how many letters he has, *may* he do so?
Nope, he follows the Sir Michael Spicer precedent.
He will never publicly or privately announce how many letters he has received, when the threshold for a VONC is reached, he will announce a sufficient number have been received to trigger a VONC.
The Vice-Chair of the 1922 verifies that privately by checking every letter.
So the PM won't know how many letters there are before the threshold is reached?
A couple of questions about Sir Graham Brady Old Lady:
1) can he write a letter to himself? 2) if asked to reveal how many letters he has, must he do so (honestly)?
Yes (in theory, no, in practice)
No (other than saying when it reaches the magic number)
Thanks, a third question:
3) if asked to reveal how many letters he has, *may* he do so?
Nope, he follows the Sir Michael Spicer precedent.
He will never publicly or privately announce how many letters he has received, when the threshold for a VONC is reached, he will announce a sufficient number have been received to trigger a VONC.
The Vice-Chair of the 1922 verifies that privately by checking every letter.
So the PM won't know how many letters there are before the threshold is reached?
Only Sir Graham Brady knows how many letter he has received...
The vice chair then finds out when Sir Graham asks him to doublecheck that 54 valid letters have been received.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Of course, some see that as bad, some see it as good. I’m of the latter view, and I am still disappointed my EU citizenship has been removed against my will and I am no longer directly part of such a project.
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Yes, you are right and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to want a United States of Europe. You do, I don't. It is also correct that the ambition for it was hiding in plain sight. It is also correct that at no point ever either in national politics or in the Remain campaign has it been asserted, argued for, supported or anything other than derided as a right wing conspiracy theorist fantasy.
To quote the Queen's speech from the State opening of Parliament 1973:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Couldn't really call that hiding, could you?
As I say, the ambition was hiding in plain sight. If I am wrong could you draw my attention to the Remain campaign relying on the prospect of a United States of Europe as part of its case for being in the EU?
I said before the referendum that Remain was running a very poor campaign, dominated by Tories and purely transactional. Leave campaigned poorly too, but at least tried to engage people emotionally, not least because transactionally they were on dodgy ground.
A couple of questions about Sir Graham Brady Old Lady:
1) can he write a letter to himself? 2) if asked to reveal how many letters he has, must he do so (honestly)?
Yes (in theory, no, in practice)
No (other than saying when it reaches the magic number)
Thanks, a third question:
3) if asked to reveal how many letters he has, *may* he do so?
Nope, he follows the Sir Michael Spicer precedent.
He will never publicly or privately announce how many letters he has received, when the threshold for a VONC is reached, he will announce a sufficient number have been received to trigger a VONC.
The Vice-Chair of the 1922 verifies that privately by checking every letter.
So the PM won't know how many letters there are before the threshold is reached?
Would there be sworn enemies of a party leader who send their letters in straight after he wins the leadership election? Almost like a retainer of 5-10 letters that’s always there.
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
Yes, from Rotherham, to Thailand to Epstein and Maxwell the modus operandi is for traffickers to use previously trafficked girls to recruit newer younger ones into the life. It is all part of the controlling psychology, and also why so many of the Rotherham girls wouldn't testify against their "boyfriends".
It takes time and distance for the realisation of how they have been manipulated to arrive. Indeed the story arc of Virginia Roberts/Giuffre fits the pattern very well indeed, as does Maxwells. Sometimes victims are criminals too.
I am sure that many of Epsteins guests didn't question how all the young and apparently willing wound up at a party with them.
A significant difference is you don't get 20 defendants on trial in one courtroom.
He's doing worse than a French President, that truly is a national embarrassment, Boris Johnson needs to go now.
Worse than that, he's doing worse than the worst ever French President.
Not forgetting the one that fell out of a train while drunk, the one who turned up at a formal dinner with all his medals on but nothing else at all and the one who died of a heart attack while being fellated.
I would have thought "dying of a heart attack while being fellated AND BEING FRENCH PRESIDENT" would make him a French national hero
He's certainly in my top ten politicians of all time, and I've only just heard of him
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Of course, some see that as bad, some see it as good. I’m of the latter view, and I am still disappointed my EU citizenship has been removed against my will and I am no longer directly part of such a project.
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Yes, you are right and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to want a United States of Europe. You do, I don't. It is also correct that the ambition for it was hiding in plain sight. It is also correct that at no point ever either in national politics or in the Remain campaign has it been asserted, argued for, supported or anything other than derided as a right wing conspiracy theorist fantasy.
To quote the Queen's speech from the State opening of Parliament 1973:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Couldn't really call that hiding, could you?
As I say, the ambition was hiding in plain sight. If I am wrong could you draw my attention to the Remain campaign relying on the prospect of a United States of Europe as part of its case for being in the EU?
It wasn't hiding in plain sight, it was hidden
"The Conservative government was advised 30 years ago that if Britain entered the Common Market it could rapidly end up inside a federal Europe with a single currency, and be left with less independence than individual states in the US.
"A confidential Treasury report prepared for Edward Heath's cabinet in November 1971 - long before the referendum on EEC membership - suggested the United Kingdom would suffer a gradual loss of economic sovereignty."
Heath then told the British people:
"That year - 1971 - the prime minister had told the House of Commons that he had negotiated membership of the Common Market with France's President Pompidou.
"Joining the community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty," Mr Heath said.""
The usual europhile cant. *Essential national sovereignty" my fucking royal Celto-Brittanic ARSE. Anything can be "essential sovereignty". The ability to have slightly different speed limits? The ability to withdraw, but if you do your country will be turned into a leprous, wolf-haunted wasteland?
In retrospect, the europhiles would have been much better off with honesty from the get-go. And, also, as we have established multiple times, from maybe seeking democratic assent to this erosion of sovereignty at least ONCE between 1975 and 2016. Because they were simultaneously arrogant yet cowardly, they did not. Hence, Brexit
But they didn't. lol @ the stupidity of these fuckers
He's doing worse than a French President, that truly is a national embarrassment, Boris Johnson needs to go now.
Worse than that, he's doing worse than the worst ever French President.
Not forgetting the one that fell out of a train while drunk, the one who turned up at a formal dinner with all his medals on but nothing else at all and the one who died of a heart attack while being fellated.
I would have thought "dying of a heart attack while being fellated AND BEING FRENCH PRESIDENT" would make him a French national hero
He's certainly in my top ten politicians of all time, and I've only just heard of him
The slightly misnamed Paris Police 1900 series started with that episode. It was a good series too - looking forward to series 2
He's doing worse than a French President, that truly is a national embarrassment, Boris Johnson needs to go now.
Worse than that, he's doing worse than the worst ever French President.
Not forgetting the one that fell out of a train while drunk, the one who turned up at a formal dinner with all his medals on but nothing else at all and the one who died of a heart attack while being fellated.
I would have thought "dying of a heart attack while being fellated AND BEING FRENCH PRESIDENT" would make him a French national hero
He's certainly in my top ten politicians of all time, and I've only just heard of him
He's doing worse than a French President, that truly is a national embarrassment, Boris Johnson needs to go now.
Worse than that, he's doing worse than the worst ever French President.
Not forgetting the one that fell out of a train while drunk, the one who turned up at a formal dinner with all his medals on but nothing else at all and the one who died of a heart attack while being fellated.
I would have thought "dying of a heart attack while being fellated AND BEING FRENCH PRESIDENT" would make him a French national hero
He's certainly in my top ten politicians of all time, and I've only just heard of him
Well, it did. Newspaper headline: 'President dies enjoying the full vigour of his manhood.'
I think you would enjoy the story. It's wonderfully bizarre.
“ Liz Truss, also in the running for PM, has also not tweeted or voiced her support but was spotted giving him a knee touch in the Commons.”
What is wrong with her? 🤷♀️
If she ain’t careful PBs “Jizz with Liz” meme is going to go Global Britain.
Jizz with Liz? Knee touching?
Careful. Porn, drugs, prostitution etc is Sean’s specialist area.
We had that earlier alongside a reference to Mummy porn and something called a Sybian which seems to be connected to this photo
I have to admit the post internet bachelor days of TSE seem far more "enlightening" than my pre internet bachelor days.
New day, same old misogyny on PB.
I don't see any particular misogyny in it. As I recall the latest discussion of it was from MoonRabbit, who unless I'm much very mistaken, is a lady ;.)
Pose astride something in a trouser suit with my legs wide open? No, I wouldn’t do that as serious politician, where it’s not the size of your column inches that should concern you, but what you do with them. boardroom or Parliament, in such settings you really don’t need to go to town to be appropriately smart and noticed.
This is a different thing to say I think than saying raped nightclubber was asking for it the way she was basically undressed, therefore it’s her fault. That is misogyny. Yes there is more than enough old fashioned sexism and passive by stander out there already. But this point is Different because if the good attention you want to come at work is from is from your good work, you wouldn’t go there dressed as you would to a club, You wouldn’t behave as you would out on the pull, professional in work and career you wouldn’t want any vibe to distract from how you would want to be thought of? This is all my opinion anyway. 🙂
That’s my original post. Even today Liz, favourite to be in top two next Conservative Party Leader, is being touchy feely on colleague. I don’t think Liz gets it, she’s doing it wrong in both trying too hard in politics, and too many little come and get me vibes mixed in can distract from good impression of her work, and have her thought of in a counteracting way. If she’s not careful. Or maybe too late already costs her.
PS and it’s not that i don’t think I’m sexy myself, I bloody am in my bohemian earth Goddess way! if I had replied to that AbbyWinters email it wouldn’t just be Leon stashing that vid and photos in his favourites I’m damn sure 😘
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Of course, some see that as bad, some see it as good. I’m of the latter view, and I am still disappointed my EU citizenship has been removed against my will and I am no longer directly part of such a project.
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Yes, you are right and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to want a United States of Europe. You do, I don't. It is also correct that the ambition for it was hiding in plain sight. It is also correct that at no point ever either in national politics or in the Remain campaign has it been asserted, argued for, supported or anything other than derided as a right wing conspiracy theorist fantasy.
To quote the Queen's speech from the State opening of Parliament 1973:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Couldn't really call that hiding, could you?
As I say, the ambition was hiding in plain sight. If I am wrong could you draw my attention to the Remain campaign relying on the prospect of a United States of Europe as part of its case for being in the EU?
I said before the referendum that Remain was running a very poor campaign, dominated by Tories and purely transactional. Leave campaigned poorly too, but at least tried to engage people emotionally, not least because transactionally they were on dodgy ground.
Yes, goddamn those American and Irish revolutionaries for "engaging people emotionally"
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
I was just about to post about that, it is jigsaw identification.
The last paragraph in this Telegraph article is reprehensible.
Can you relay it here, not all of us are Tele subs.
The Daily Telegraph has contacted the RFU for comment, but the player is not a member of Eddie Jones' last England squad.
It doesn't narrow it down too much, just rules out Manu tbh - most of the Sale squad seem to have played for England at some level or another except the saffers.
I see the wife of a former England player has put a statement out stating this arrest has nothing to do with her and her husband. The only similarity being she is the same age as the complainant. They had been doorstepped by the press today.
It’s like the time the Everton player was arrested for ‘noncing’ lots of ill informed speculation on social media and people,being wrongly accused. It’s not on. It could ruin someone’s life and affect the trial.
Between Everton, Man City and now Sale, it does look like professional sports need to look beyond campaigns against racism and homophones.
I keep hearing the same thing over and over about homophonia.
I don't like the idea of the Chesterfield arse line.
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
Yes, from Rotherham, to Thailand to Epstein and Maxwell the modus operandi is for traffickers to use previously trafficked girls to recruit newer younger ones into the life. It is all part of the controlling psychology, and also why so many of the Rotherham girls wouldn't testify against their "boyfriends".
It takes time and distance for the realisation of how they have been manipulated to arrive. Indeed the story arc of Virginia Roberts/Giuffre fits the pattern very well indeed, as does Maxwells. Sometimes victims are criminals too.
I am sure that many of Epsteins guests didn't question how all the young and apparently willing wound up at a party with them.
"It takes time and distance for the realisation of how they have been manipulated to arrive."
I love this sort of stuff. These people are young women, so how can they possibly be expected to understand their own position, without it being explained to them by an elderly wealthy middle class white man?
Do you deny the process of grooming young girls into being trafficked?
It is quite an interesting position to argue that they had agency as teenagers, but were manipulated later into thinking they were trafficked.
What? I tend to treat everyone as having agency, even if they are less white male and elderly than I am. And to leave it to the relevant court to find out what the facts actually are vs what the story arc would like them to be.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Of course, some see that as bad, some see it as good. I’m of the latter view, and I am still disappointed my EU citizenship has been removed against my will and I am no longer directly part of such a project.
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Yes, you are right and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to want a United States of Europe. You do, I don't. It is also correct that the ambition for it was hiding in plain sight. It is also correct that at no point ever either in national politics or in the Remain campaign has it been asserted, argued for, supported or anything other than derided as a right wing conspiracy theorist fantasy.
To quote the Queen's speech from the State opening of Parliament 1973:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Couldn't really call that hiding, could you?
As I say, the ambition was hiding in plain sight. If I am wrong could you draw my attention to the Remain campaign relying on the prospect of a United States of Europe as part of its case for being in the EU?
It wasn't hiding in plain sight, it was hidden
"The Conservative government was advised 30 years ago that if Britain entered the Common Market it could rapidly end up inside a federal Europe with a single currency, and be left with less independence than individual states in the US.
"A confidential Treasury report prepared for Edward Heath's cabinet in November 1971 - long before the referendum on EEC membership - suggested the United Kingdom would suffer a gradual loss of economic sovereignty."
Heath then told the British people:
"That year - 1971 - the prime minister had told the House of Commons that he had negotiated membership of the Common Market with France's President Pompidou.
"Joining the community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty," Mr Heath said.""
The usual europhile cant. *Essential national sovereignty" my fucking royal Celto-Brittanic ARSE. Anything can be "essential sovereignty". The ability to have slightly different speed limits? The ability to withdraw, but if you do your country will be turned into a leprous, wolf-haunted wasteland?
In retrospect, the europhiles would have been much better off with honesty from the get-go. And, also, as we have established multiple times, from maybe seeking democratic assent to this erosion of sovereignty at least ONCE between 1975 and 2016. Because they were simultaneously arrogant yet cowardly, they did not. Hence, Brexit
But they didn't. lol @ the stupidity of these fuckers
Did you read my quote from the Queen's Speech of 1973? Pretty clear and upfront, and before the first EEC referendum:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment 2of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Economic and Monetary Union was the objective from the start. The idea that we only signed up to a "Common market" is a Brexiteer falsehood.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Of course, some see that as bad, some see it as good. I’m of the latter view, and I am still disappointed my EU citizenship has been removed against my will and I am no longer directly part of such a project.
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Yes, you are right and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to want a United States of Europe. You do, I don't. It is also correct that the ambition for it was hiding in plain sight. It is also correct that at no point ever either in national politics or in the Remain campaign has it been asserted, argued for, supported or anything other than derided as a right wing conspiracy theorist fantasy.
To quote the Queen's speech from the State opening of Parliament 1973:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Couldn't really call that hiding, could you?
As I say, the ambition was hiding in plain sight. If I am wrong could you draw my attention to the Remain campaign relying on the prospect of a United States of Europe as part of its case for being in the EU?
It wasn't hiding in plain sight, it was hidden
"The Conservative government was advised 30 years ago that if Britain entered the Common Market it could rapidly end up inside a federal Europe with a single currency, and be left with less independence than individual states in the US.
"A confidential Treasury report prepared for Edward Heath's cabinet in November 1971 - long before the referendum on EEC membership - suggested the United Kingdom would suffer a gradual loss of economic sovereignty."
Heath then told the British people:
"That year - 1971 - the prime minister had told the House of Commons that he had negotiated membership of the Common Market with France's President Pompidou.
"Joining the community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty," Mr Heath said.""
The usual europhile cant. *Essential national sovereignty" my fucking royal Celto-Brittanic ARSE. Anything can be "essential sovereignty". The ability to have slightly different speed limits? The ability to withdraw, but if you do your country will be turned into a leprous, wolf-haunted wasteland?
In retrospect, the europhiles would have been much better off with honesty from the get-go. And, also, as we have established multiple times, from maybe seeking democratic assent to this erosion of sovereignty at least ONCE between 1975 and 2016. Because they were simultaneously arrogant yet cowardly, they did not. Hence, Brexit
But they didn't. lol @ the stupidity of these fuckers
Did you read my quote from the Queen's Speech of 1973? Pretty clear and upfront, and before the first EEC referendum:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment 2of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Economic and Monetary Union was the objective from the start. The idea that we only signed up to a "Common market" is a Brexiteer falsehood.
You lost, because your side lied for forty years. It's never coming back. We are never rejoining. A dream is over and you guys, ironically, killed it
It will take you about ten years to mentally process what happened and why. Good luck
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
Re: Andrew's possible defenses: 1. about as likely as Boris "proving" he was running marathons on HIS dates in question. 2. think you are mistaken that showing the victim was herself implicated in trafficking is itself a credible defense, given the nature of human trafficking which is rather well documented AND (I think) litigated in US courts. 3. would have to get judge drunk first for this one to fly.
Personally think His Foul Highness is unlikely to escape either admission of liability or outright conviction.
As for his legal eagles, IF it's true his lawyers are crap, WHY do you think that is? Could it be, because either no one (not even Mom) will pony up for better? Or because good ones won't touch him with a barge pole, either due to distaste or because they think likely pain would exceed the monetary gain?
Re 2, I don't think it a defence. Rather it may show that she was told to behave in a way which made the man think she was consenting and very willing i.e. if she was telling other young girls that as part of what she did then it may support his defence that he reasonably believed she was willing. But it's all a bit hypothetical because he says he never had sex with her at all.
Re why his lawyers are crap, God knows. My guess is that he has refused to listen to any sort of advice from anyone sensible - much as he reportedly refused to listen to advice when people tried to warn him against Epstein.
I think good lawyers would take the case but would do so only if Andrew listened to the advice and would not advance the sort of silly arguments his lawyers have been. Good lawyers would have tried to get a settlement and/or offer real assistance to the US authorities at an early stage. Much like others in public life, if he'd apologised profusely early enough instead of behaving like an arrogant arse he would not be in the mess he is in now.
Re 3, I think it quite possible that he was sleeping with lots of women and can't really remember who with on any one particular night. And like many other men he was not really bothered about either the age gap, whether the consent was real, remarkably uncurious and assumed that he must be amazingly attractive to girls young enough to be his daughter. All very seedy and distasteful but not uncommon among some men.
You make good points, as per usual.
Yet still don't get the "his lawyers are crap" bit. My guess is that it's far more likely, they are reasonably competent, above average even (like you'd expect for a billionaire's scion).
Problem is, their client is crap . . . in FAR more ways than one.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Of course, some see that as bad, some see it as good. I’m of the latter view, and I am still disappointed my EU citizenship has been removed against my will and I am no longer directly part of such a project.
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Yes, you are right and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to want a United States of Europe. You do, I don't. It is also correct that the ambition for it was hiding in plain sight. It is also correct that at no point ever either in national politics or in the Remain campaign has it been asserted, argued for, supported or anything other than derided as a right wing conspiracy theorist fantasy.
To quote the Queen's speech from the State opening of Parliament 1973:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Couldn't really call that hiding, could you?
As I say, the ambition was hiding in plain sight. If I am wrong could you draw my attention to the Remain campaign relying on the prospect of a United States of Europe as part of its case for being in the EU?
I said before the referendum that Remain was running a very poor campaign, dominated by Tories and purely transactional. Leave campaigned poorly too, but at least tried to engage people emotionally, not least because transactionally they were on dodgy ground.
Yes, goddamn those American and Irish revolutionaries for "engaging people emotionally"
The first EEC referendum was won by campaigning for the European project on emotional as well as financial grounds. There is a good book on it, and the result not certain at all during the campaign.
The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain - from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward. https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1481374158202228736
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Of course, some see that as bad, some see it as good. I’m of the latter view, and I am still disappointed my EU citizenship has been removed against my will and I am no longer directly part of such a project.
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Yes, you are right and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to want a United States of Europe. You do, I don't. It is also correct that the ambition for it was hiding in plain sight. It is also correct that at no point ever either in national politics or in the Remain campaign has it been asserted, argued for, supported or anything other than derided as a right wing conspiracy theorist fantasy.
To quote the Queen's speech from the State opening of Parliament 1973:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Couldn't really call that hiding, could you?
As I say, the ambition was hiding in plain sight. If I am wrong could you draw my attention to the Remain campaign relying on the prospect of a United States of Europe as part of its case for being in the EU?
It wasn't hiding in plain sight, it was hidden
"The Conservative government was advised 30 years ago that if Britain entered the Common Market it could rapidly end up inside a federal Europe with a single currency, and be left with less independence than individual states in the US.
"A confidential Treasury report prepared for Edward Heath's cabinet in November 1971 - long before the referendum on EEC membership - suggested the United Kingdom would suffer a gradual loss of economic sovereignty."
Heath then told the British people:
"That year - 1971 - the prime minister had told the House of Commons that he had negotiated membership of the Common Market with France's President Pompidou.
"Joining the community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty," Mr Heath said.""
The usual europhile cant. *Essential national sovereignty" my fucking royal Celto-Brittanic ARSE. Anything can be "essential sovereignty". The ability to have slightly different speed limits? The ability to withdraw, but if you do your country will be turned into a leprous, wolf-haunted wasteland?
In retrospect, the europhiles would have been much better off with honesty from the get-go. And, also, as we have established multiple times, from maybe seeking democratic assent to this erosion of sovereignty at least ONCE between 1975 and 2016. Because they were simultaneously arrogant yet cowardly, they did not. Hence, Brexit
But they didn't. lol @ the stupidity of these fuckers
Did you read my quote from the Queen's Speech of 1973? Pretty clear and upfront, and before the first EEC referendum:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment 2of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Economic and Monetary Union was the objective from the start. The idea that we only signed up to a "Common market" is a Brexiteer falsehood.
You lost, because your side lied for forty years. It's never coming back. We are never rejoining. A dream is over and you guys, ironically, killed it
It will take you about ten years to mentally process what happened and why. Good luck
No, Remain Lost because people often do not value things until they lose them.
Brexit regret is increasingly obvious in the polls, and it ain't going away. Rejoin won't be the policy of any major English party at the next GE, but that will be the direction of travel.
He's doing worse than a French President, that truly is a national embarrassment, Boris Johnson needs to go now.
Worse than that, he's doing worse than the worst ever French President.
Not forgetting the one that fell out of a train while drunk, the one who turned up at a formal dinner with all his medals on but nothing else at all and the one who died of a heart attack while being fellated.
I would have thought "dying of a heart attack while being fellated AND BEING FRENCH PRESIDENT" would make him a French national hero
He's certainly in my top ten politicians of all time, and I've only just heard of him
I'm surprised that there was no love shown on here for Paris Police 1900 recently on BBC4 which starts with the act of death by BJ and goes on to all sorts of fin de siècle debauchery. I loved it.
Comments
Weird to think the tie would be 3-3 were it not for VAR
2 penalties and a goal overturned for Tottenham
https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1481372623221186573
I love this sort of stuff. These people are young women, so how can they possibly be expected to understand their own position, without it being explained to them by an elderly wealthy middle class white man?
Andrew Adonis
@Andrew_Adonis
If Boris goes, Brexit goes
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1481325190269259777
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1481374158202228736
Re why his lawyers are crap, God knows. My guess is that he has refused to listen to any sort of advice from anyone sensible - much as he reportedly refused to listen to advice when people tried to warn him against Epstein.
I think good lawyers would take the case but would do so only if Andrew listened to the advice and would not advance the sort of silly arguments his lawyers have been. Good lawyers would have tried to get a settlement and/or offer real assistance to the US authorities at an early stage. Much like others in public life, if he'd apologised profusely early enough instead of behaving like an arrogant arse he would not be in the mess he is in now.
Re 3, I think it quite possible that he was sleeping with lots of women and can't really remember who with on any one particular night. And like many other men he was not really bothered about either the age gap, whether the consent was real, remarkably uncurious and assumed that he must be amazingly attractive to girls young enough to be his daughter. All very seedy and distasteful but not uncommon among some men.
He's certainly in my top ten politicians of all time, and I've only just heard of him
It is quite an interesting position to argue that they had agency as teenagers, but were manipulated later into thinking they were trafficked.
There. Sorted
Many MPs will be assessing the mood in coming days.
“It’s looking bad for him,” this senior Tory believed
http://bbc.co.uk/politics
Hard to see why he stayed friends with Epstein, even after Epstein was convicted of sex offences though.
Only Sir Graham Brady knows how many letter he has received...
The vice chair then finds out when Sir Graham asks him to doublecheck that 54 valid letters have been received.
https://youtu.be/bpJNmkB36nE
Note that President Faure expired "while engaged in sexual activities" not (necessarily) fellatio.
BTW, former NY Governor and US Vice President Nelson Rockefeller died in similar circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller
"The Conservative government was advised 30 years ago that if Britain entered the Common Market it could rapidly end up inside a federal Europe with a single currency, and be left with less independence than individual states in the US.
"A confidential Treasury report prepared for Edward Heath's cabinet in November 1971 - long before the referendum on EEC membership - suggested the United Kingdom would suffer a gradual loss of economic sovereignty."
Heath then told the British people:
"That year - 1971 - the prime minister had told the House of Commons that he had negotiated membership of the Common Market with France's President Pompidou.
"Joining the community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty," Mr Heath said.""
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jan/01/uk.euro
The usual europhile cant. *Essential national sovereignty" my fucking royal Celto-Brittanic ARSE. Anything can be "essential sovereignty". The ability to have slightly different speed limits? The ability to withdraw, but if you do your country will be turned into a leprous, wolf-haunted wasteland?
In retrospect, the europhiles would have been much better off with honesty from the get-go. And, also, as we have established multiple times, from maybe seeking democratic assent to this erosion of sovereignty at least ONCE between 1975 and 2016. Because they were simultaneously arrogant yet cowardly, they did not. Hence, Brexit
But they didn't. lol @ the stupidity of these fuckers
Always admired his astute Foreign Policy initiatives
I think you would enjoy the story. It's wonderfully bizarre.
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/félix-faure-the-french-president-who-died-getting-a-blowjob-7c10305813a
boardroom or Parliament, in such settings you really don’t need to go to town to be appropriately smart and noticed.
This is a different thing to say I think than saying raped nightclubber was asking for it the way she was basically undressed, therefore it’s her fault. That is misogyny. Yes there is more than enough old fashioned sexism and passive by stander out there already. But this point is Different because if the good attention you want to come at work is from is from your good work, you wouldn’t go there dressed as you would to a club, You wouldn’t behave as you would out on the pull, professional in work and career you wouldn’t want any vibe to distract from how you would want to be thought of? This is all my opinion anyway. 🙂
That’s my original post. Even today Liz, favourite to be in top two next Conservative Party Leader, is being touchy feely on colleague. I don’t think Liz gets it, she’s doing it wrong in both trying too hard in politics, and too many little come and get me vibes mixed in can distract from good impression of her work, and have her thought of in a counteracting way. If she’s not careful. Or maybe too late already costs her.
PS and it’s not that i don’t think I’m sexy myself, I bloody am in my bohemian earth Goddess way! if I had replied to that AbbyWinters email it wouldn’t just be Leon stashing that vid and photos in his favourites I’m damn sure 😘
Does that make me homophonic?
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment 2of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
Economic and Monetary Union was the objective from the start. The idea that we only signed up to a "Common market" is a Brexiteer falsehood.
It will take you about ten years to mentally process what happened and why. Good luck
Yet still don't get the "his lawyers are crap" bit. My guess is that it's far more likely, they are reasonably competent, above average even (like you'd expect for a billionaire's scion).
Problem is, their client is crap . . . in FAR more ways than one.
Don't remember the details, but perhaps worth re-perusing at this juncture.
Yes to Europe!: The 1975 Referendum and Seventies Britain https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1108425356/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_i_A7PBP9DR3JHK16M22NWS
Brexit regret is increasingly obvious in the polls, and it ain't going away. Rejoin won't be the policy of any major English party at the next GE, but that will be the direction of travel.