The "Royals" Thread

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

As a break from the not-so-grand old Duke of York, I see Harry is back in the news.

Prince Harry in legal fight to pay for UK police protection

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60012238

From the media POV, the royal family is (in the words of an increasingly well-known phrase or saying) a gift that keeps giving,
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

I think Andrew is making a big mistake starting with what is public victim blaming (not deliberately public but such an approach is bound to be public). He may have stepped back but that he retains "Prince" will ensure that his actions are still directly associated with the Royal Family so his victim blaming and alienating many women's groups will reflect on the Riyal Family and not be isolated to him.

Ian
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

When I first read this I thought I was in the NewsBiscuit feed ... but no, it's (apparently) serious
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ghislaine-maxwell-itv-page-prince-two-b1994572.html wrote:Andrew’s teddy bear collection was not to be disturbed, claims documentary
The Duke of York’s love of his soft toy collection meant he would throw a tantrum if the teddy bears were moved, an ITV documentary will allege.

A laminated picture of Andrew’s favoured possessions was said to be kept in a drawer to help household staff properly place them on his bed.

The claims will be made by former royal protection officer Paul Page in the ITV programme Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile, which is due to be screened on Tuesday.
Throw a tantrum if his teddybears were mover - gets more bizarre by the day.

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

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by 661-Pete »

Psamathe wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 4:09pm When I first read this I thought I was in the NewsBiscuit feed ... but no, it's (apparently) serious
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ghislaine-maxwell-itv-page-prince-two-b1994572.html wrote:Andrew’s teddy bear collection was not to be disturbed, claims documentary
The Duke of York’s love of his soft toy collection meant he would throw a tantrum if the teddy bears were moved, an ITV documentary will allege.
I'm not sure I quite understand this. Do they mean that in recent years (i.e. Prince A in his 50s and 60s) he still took teddy-bears to bed and threw tantrums? - or do they mean when he was a child? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please tell me, someone, that it was the former....! :D :shock: :twisted:

I remember that our son, when he was a toddler, used to take all his soft toys to bed with him. But he never complained if we put them away when making his bed. Just fetched them out again the following night...
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).
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/18/prince-andrew-shukri-walker-witness-testify-london-nightclub wrote:A woman who may have seen Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre at a London nightclub 20 years ago is “willing” to provide testimony in Giuffre’s civil lawsuit against the royal, whom she accuses of sexual abuse, the witness’s lawyer said.
To me (without legal experience) this sounds like bad news for Prince Andrew.

Ian
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

661-Pete wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 4:59pm
Psamathe wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 4:09pm When I first read this I thought I was in the NewsBiscuit feed ... but no, it's (apparently) serious
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ghislaine-maxwell-itv-page-prince-two-b1994572.html wrote:Andrew’s teddy bear collection was not to be disturbed, claims documentary
The Duke of York’s love of his soft toy collection meant he would throw a tantrum if the teddy bears were moved, an ITV documentary will allege.
I'm not sure I quite understand this. Do they mean that in recent years (i.e. Prince A in his 50s and 60s) he still took teddy-bears to bed and threw tantrums? - or do they mean when he was a child?
As an adult, according to tonight's television programme.

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

If police engaged on royalty protection etc witness a criminal offence they must have a duty to report it. Gossiping to hacks about the private activities of the people they are protecting to add a bit of padding to media reports seems like bad manners to me, at the least.
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

thirdcrank wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 7:45am If police engaged on royalty protection etc witness a criminal offence they must have a duty to report it. Gossiping to hacks about the private activities of the people they are protecting to add a bit of padding to media reports seems like bad manners to me, at the least.
Same applies to No 10 Parties - are we meant to believe that the No 10 garden is CCTV free and no records are kept? Police protection seems to extend to protecting the reputation of the person(s) under their guard.

Ian
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

IMO the same applies everywhere. What I'm saying is that the role of the police should not be a version of What the butler saw. We get enough of that from the butlers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Burrell
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

The animals now also learned that Snowball had never — as many of them had believed hitherto — received the order of “Animal Hero, First Class.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... us-lawsuit

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

"Court of appeal to hear challenge over media ban from Prince Philip’s will court case":
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... court-case

Jonathan
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by reohn2 »

thirdcrank wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 7:45am If police engaged on royalty protection etc witness a criminal offence they must have a duty to report it. Gossiping to hacks about the private activities of the people they are protecting to add a bit of padding to media reports seems like bad manners to me, at the least.
But if you report such offences to your superiors and they do nothing or even worse tell you to turn a blind eye,what course of action do you have left?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

It's not easy to comment on speculation, especially when it carries a strong implication that the speculation is factual.

Reports of offending are dealt with in many ways, and not all suit the reporting officer. Any "cover up" may, by definition, not come to light.

I was referring to the circumstances when police - and others - in the course of their work see aspects of people's private lives. It happens all the time with things like searching houses, but not all private lives are newsworthy.
toontra
Posts: 1190
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by toontra »

thirdcrank wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 10:52am I was referring to the circumstances when police - and others - in the course of their work see aspects of people's private lives. It happens all the time with things like searching houses, but not all private lives are newsworthy.
If the police discover criminal activity in the course of their duty (as is the inference in this case) they are not only permitted but obligated to investigate such matters. For example, searching a house on a warrant for drugs and finding firearms, or stopping a car for faulty lights and finding the driver has no insurance.

That's quite different to respecting people's right to privacy if witnessing embarrassing or possibly compromising activity whilst carrying out other duties.

The rules at the time were crystal clear. Everyone knew them, most people abided by them and the police routinely prosecuted those who infringed them.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

toontra wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 1:02pm
thirdcrank wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 10:52am I was referring to the circumstances when police - and others - in the course of their work see aspects of people's private lives. It happens all the time with things like searching houses, but not all private lives are newsworthy.
If the police discover criminal activity in the course of their duty (as is the inference in this case) they are not only permitted but obligated to investigate such matters. For example, searching a house on a warrant for drugs and finding firearms, or stopping a car for faulty lights and finding the driver has no insurance.

That's quite different to respecting people's right to privacy if witnessing embarrassing or possibly compromising activity whilst carrying out other duties.

The rules at the time were crystal clear. Everyone knew them, most people abided by them and the police routinely prosecuted those who infringed them.
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.
Post Reply