The "Royals" Thread

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
toontra
Posts: 1190
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by toontra »

thirdcrank wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 2:11pm I think this really belongs on the Boris's brain is missing thread. I was originally commenting here on some tittle-tattle about the Duke of York's teddy bears or somesuch.

Ah OK :D As you were!
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

I can't help but feel P. Andrew is digging an ever deeper hole.

Whilst I have no idea about who really did what to who nor where nor when, even if he wins his court case it will be widely reported and there will be dirt and he's not popular and what people will remember is that dirt. He wins and it will (rightly or wrongly) be widely perceived as he got away with it but the evidence presented against him will be long remembered. All made worse by the outcry he's currently causing over his "victim blaming".

So in effect he loses whatever the outcome of the court case. The harder he pushes the worse the long term impact for his reputation.

Ian
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Screenshot 2022-01-27 at 09.04.16.png

Does this have any legal meaning?

Jonathan
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Bonefishblues »

Analysis this morning was that he was going to have one anyway, so he's better to demand one...

Parties are positioning at the moment.
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Tangled Metal »

Did he really DEMAND a jury trial? Or is that a modern media phrase for a routine court process that probably involves nothing much from the guy himself.

The more I read the news (online) the more I am getting sick of the way they all can't just present the news without embellishment, exaggeration, hyperbole, lies, misdirection and many other dodgy and I'd hope uneccesary practises.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Tangled Metal wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 1:27pm Did he really DEMAND a jury trial? Or is that a modern media phrase for a routine court process that probably involves nothing much from the guy himself.
https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/14 ... XUgaEpAAAA

Jonathan
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Tangled Metal »

So the headline should read that the claimant DEMANDED it surely? So sensational and incorrect headlines all round then!

That twitter account linked to got me thinking. Are there any legal twitterati making online clarifications from the Andy side of this? Whilst interesting twitter account she certainly makes it clear she's only going to post on matters that support the claimant. I mean with the nature of the claim you can understand it but no neutral legal twitter accounts on this case giving unbiased commentary?
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Bonefishblues »

Tangled Metal wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 4:22pm So the headline should read that the claimant DEMANDED it surely? So sensational and incorrect headlines all round then!

That twitter account linked to got me thinking. Are there any legal twitterati making online clarifications from the Andy side of this? Whilst interesting twitter account she certainly makes it clear she's only going to post on matters that support the claimant. I mean with the nature of the claim you can understand it but no neutral legal twitter accounts on this case giving unbiased commentary?
He demanded it too.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by reohn2 »

Bonefishblues wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 12:21pm Analysis this morning was that he was going to have one anyway, so he's better to demand one...

Parties are positioning at the moment.
Not more parties :shock: :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by reohn2 »

Tangled Metal wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 1:27pm .......The more I read the news (online) the more I am getting sick of the way they all can't just present the news without embellishment, exaggeration, hyperbole, lies, misdirection and many other dodgy and I'd hope uneccesary practises.
Penny's dropped then :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Tangled Metal »

Bonefishblues wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 4:32pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 4:22pm So the headline should read that the claimant DEMANDED it surely? So sensational and incorrect headlines all round then!

That twitter account linked to got me thinking. Are there any legal twitterati making online clarifications from the Andy side of this? Whilst interesting twitter account she certainly makes it clear she's only going to post on matters that support the claimant. I mean with the nature of the claim you can understand it but no neutral legal twitter accounts on this case giving unbiased commentary?
He demanded it too.
After she did so the news didn't report the original demand. The demand bit is only significant if it can be used with the implication the defendent is an overprivilaged person. I think that is unprincipled reporting which is my point. It's trying to effect a certain POV rather than simply reporting the facts.

I wonder how you'd report this case in a completely neutral, facts based and non sensationalist way? If this happened with cases such as this would there be a difference in the views of people?
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Tangled Metal »

reohn2 wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 5:44pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 1:27pm .......The more I read the news (online) the more I am getting sick of the way they all can't just present the news without embellishment, exaggeration, hyperbole, lies, misdirection and many other dodgy and I'd hope uneccesary practises.
Penny's dropped then :wink:
Hey like politicians news media disillusioned me decades ago. We condemn Russian control of the news media but let's face it our media "freedoms" aren't working out much better. Who's to say which media is closest to the bottom of the barrel?
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Bonefishblues »

Tangled Metal wrote: 28 Jan 2022, 7:10am
Bonefishblues wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 4:32pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 4:22pm So the headline should read that the claimant DEMANDED it surely? So sensational and incorrect headlines all round then!

That twitter account linked to got me thinking. Are there any legal twitterati making online clarifications from the Andy side of this? Whilst interesting twitter account she certainly makes it clear she's only going to post on matters that support the claimant. I mean with the nature of the claim you can understand it but no neutral legal twitter accounts on this case giving unbiased commentary?
He demanded it too.
After she did so the news didn't report the original demand. The demand bit is only significant if it can be used with the implication the defendent is an overprivilaged person. I think that is unprincipled reporting which is my point. It's trying to effect a certain POV rather than simply reporting the facts.

I wonder how you'd report this case in a completely neutral, facts based and non sensationalist way? If this happened with cases such as this would there be a difference in the views of people?
This is Andrew's Defence Team's doing in terms of placing the story.

It is also being widely reported - very widely - as indeed I commented earlier in the thread, that this is an exercise in positioning pre-trial* because that's what was going to occur, anyway.

*As indeed the Claimant's Team is doing - it being widely known that her price for settlement is an apology.

I think we have to face facts that this is a story of enormous global interest, and as such is not really susceptible to the type of Court Reporting seen in local newspapers. For anyone who cares to look, the facts are out there, and being widely discussed.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Bonefishblues wrote: 28 Jan 2022, 8:14amFor anyone who cares to look, the facts are out there, and being widely discussed.
Yes. It's never been easier, quicker or cheaper to discover what's happening or what experts think than it is now.

And it's up to each of us to choose where we get our news.

Jonathan
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Bonefishblues »

Jdsk wrote: 28 Jan 2022, 8:52am
Bonefishblues wrote: 28 Jan 2022, 8:14amFor anyone who cares to look, the facts are out there, and being widely discussed.
Yes. It's never been easier, quicker or cheaper to discover what's happening or what experts think than it is now.

And it's up to each of us to choose where we get our news.

Jonathan
Were we in a certain type of church, I might be moved to raise my hands and say "Amen Brother"

I was watching QT last night and was taken aback by an attack from an audience member on Alison Phillips from The Mirror for exposing Downing Street wrongdoing - 'because Press and because the government has better things to do' (my soundbite summary!). Sometimes I find myself short of breath.
Post Reply