The "Royals" Thread

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by reohn2 »

He'll have small bruises all over his body where the royals have been pushing him away with ten foot barge poles!

The man's a creep.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by 661-Pete »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 92588.html wrote:
Prince Andrew stripped of military titles after sexual abuse case moves to trial
Prince Andrew stripped of military titles after sexual abuse case moves to trial
Duke will also cease to be called ‘His Royal Highness’
Isn't this rather convenient timing for a certain 'Boris' of this parish, eh? 'Andrewgate' just the thing to distract the Press and public's attention from all those - ahem! - 'working' parties..... :twisted:

As to His No Longer Royal Highness, I've just done some digging (Wiki, of course) and come up with some rather ominous facts.

There have been twelve Dukes of York since the title was first bestowed. Of these, no fewer than six have gone on to become King of England/Britain (Edward IV, Henry VIII, Charles I, James II, George V and George VI).

Let's hope there isn't a seventh...

...
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

Any truth in the rumour that a certain nursery rhyme is to be banned?
DaveReading
Posts: 746
Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by DaveReading »

thirdcrank wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 2:48pmAny truth in the rumour that a certain nursery rhyme is to be banned?
I think it's only halfway true.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Bonefishblues »

The hill banned him?
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

DaveReading wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 3:09pm
thirdcrank wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 2:48pmAny truth in the rumour that a certain nursery rhyme is to be banned?
I think it's only halfway true.
The second line is not part of the current allegations.

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

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Bonefishblues »

Childish snigger :D
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by 661-Pete »

Jdsk wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 3:19pm The second line is not part of the current allegations.
Shouldn't Ms Giuffre be the judge of that? :lol:
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
User avatar
Hellhound
Posts: 756
Joined: 19 May 2021, 7:39am

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Hellhound »

There a plenty of very amusing memes knocking about on SM.Sadly the one I posted here was deemed unsuitable :lol:
francovendee
Posts: 3148
Joined: 5 May 2009, 6:32am

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by francovendee »

Hellhound wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 3:36pm There a plenty of very amusing memes knocking about on SM.Sadly the one I posted here was deemed unsuitable :lol:
That's not fair I want to see it :(
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

I doubt Andrew will step down from anything else. Royal family are protecting themselves rather than bothering to consider what their subjects want or are concerned about.

Ian
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

One interesting aspect is that Andrew's lawyers want to question Ms Giuffre psychologist.

a). I'd have expected anything Ms Giuffre might have divulged to any of her clinicians would have been confidential and thus could not be discussed with 3rd parties without Ms Guffre's permission/release.

b) Given Ms Giuffre psychologist is Australian, and Australian citizen resident in Australia I wonder what obligation s/he has to answer any of P. Andrew's questions under oath?

Similar with Ms 's husband, Australian citicen resident in Australia who presumably supports his wife's case could he just give P Duke "the finger"?

Whereas Andrew himself is in a more difficult position so when Ms Giuffre asks for medical evidence he can't sweat he might refuse but it was something he put in the public domain as evidence of his innocence so if unprepared to back-up that claim it becomes void in terms of defence (I'd have thought it pretty weak defence anyway).

Ian
toontra
Posts: 1190
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by toontra »

Psamathe wrote: 15 Jan 2022, 3:49pm One interesting aspect is that Andrew's lawyers want to question Ms Giuffre psychologist.
Didn't Maxwell's defence team try the false memory thing in her trial? Didn't work for them. Sounded like voodoo pseudo-science.

This all smacks of desperation.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

toontra wrote: 15 Jan 2022, 5:43pm
Psamathe wrote: 15 Jan 2022, 3:49pm One interesting aspect is that Andrew's lawyers want to question Ms Giuffre psychologist.
Didn't Maxwell's defence team try the false memory thing in her trial? Didn't work for them. Sounded like voodoo pseudo-science.

This all smacks of desperation.
I didn't follow Maxwell's trial in any detail but I thought the defence called an expert to give evidence about false memory in a general sense rather than specifically about an individual witness and not following consultation on what I'd expect to be based on clinical confidentiality (i.e. Ms Giuffre's psychologist). I'm no legal expert (or even knowledgable) but asking an individual's clinician about his/her patient must be covered by patient/clinician confidentiality (others would know better).

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

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Psamathe wrote: 15 Jan 2022, 6:08pmI'm no legal expert (or even knowledgable) but asking an individual's clinician about his/her patient must be covered by patient/clinician confidentiality (others would know better).
It probably varies between jurisdictions. I don't know of any where it's absolute: in England it could be overruled by child protection, risk of serious harm to others, or subpoena powers.

Jonathan
Post Reply