The "Royals" Thread
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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.
The man's a creep.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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.....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’
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).
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
-
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Any truth in the rumour that a certain nursery rhyme is to be banned?
-
- Posts: 753
- Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm
Re: The "Royals" Thread
I think it's only halfway true.thirdcrank wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 2:48pmAny truth in the rumour that a certain nursery rhyme is to be banned?
-
- Posts: 11041
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: The "Royals" Thread
The hill banned him?
Re: The "Royals" Thread
The second line is not part of the current allegations.DaveReading wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 3:09pmI think it's only halfway true.thirdcrank wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 2:48pmAny truth in the rumour that a certain nursery rhyme is to be banned?
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 11041
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Childish snigger
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Shouldn't Ms Giuffre be the judge of that?
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).
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Re: The "Royals" Thread
There a plenty of very amusing memes knocking about on SM.Sadly the one I posted here was deemed unsuitable
-
- Posts: 3151
- Joined: 5 May 2009, 6:32am
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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
Ian
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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
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
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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