Prince Andrew, the Royals and the media | Page 3 | Vital Football

Prince Andrew, the Royals and the media

Maybe, it`s a big maybe but, maybe, someone around HRH is a lot more clever than people might think. Consider this: Due to an awareness that circumstances reported, or not yet reported, may lend themselves to a possible prosecution how could a very prominent person, such as a Prince, avoid going to trial. One way would be to avail oneself to public scrutiny of a third party relationship by way of a much publicised TV interview. Whilst that might not portray the interviewee in a grand light it would achieve a climate in which no judge would sanction a subsequent trial on the grounds that a Fair Trial would be impossible on the back of a trial by TV. Just my own little hypothetical observation.

As I implied earlier, i`m a little confused as to why a person subject to royalty protection would need to affirm his presence, albeit a lengthy time ago, at a particular place at a particular time (Pizza Express, Woking) when movement on that day would probably have been logged (by Royalty Protection Officer/s) and that record retained affording, therefore, the potential to have a more solid confirmation.
 
The suggestion is that Andrew himself pushed for the interview. He is not the brightest royal. Nothing that was said during that interview would prevent a trial going ahead in the future. The first and most obvious thing to observe is that he was not accused of any criminality during that interview. What is certain is that every word he spoke could be raked over during any legal process in the future. He has quite literally offered up a whole lot of stuff that he had no need to reveal and suggested new lines of questioning.
 
Jerryattrick said:
For fun as the devils advocate lol, lets follow this sexist hypothesis - the other gender has less of an opinion if the subject is happening to their opposite gender?

It would logically follow from that reasoning that when this situation happens with an issue or law in parliament then the less impacted gender should, what, have less right to speak on it or not be allowed to vote on it?

Also, if the subject was on the rape of a minor male then a females opinion would be of less worth or validity than mine?

And what if someone claiming one of 50 trans pronouns is looking at a case how should we judge their opinion?

And yes, public opinion is made by the media (based on your previous programming) lol.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about jerry? You claimed to know that public opinion showed no interest in this situation. I questioned that assumption and made a suggestion that half the population might be more likely to react negatively. I don't know but it's at least possible. What on earth does that have to do with lawmaking, rape trials and transgender choices?
 
jogills said:
What are you talking about jerry? You claimed to know that public opinion showed no interest in this situation. I questioned that assumption and made a suggestion that half the population might be more likely to react negatively. I don't know but it's at least possible. What on earth does that have to do with lawmaking, rape trials and transgender choices?
Click to expand...


I said on these issues, mostly public opinion is directed by the media or the twitter minority.
It has everything to do with lawmaking as all humans no matter which sex have an equally weighted opinion - if not then it is sexism.

All identity politics is divide and rule. There is only equality for ALL and freedom for ALL.
 
Jerryattrick said:
I said on these issues, mostly public opinion is directed by the media or the twitter minority.
It has everything to do with lawmaking as all humans no matter which sex have an equally weighted opinion - if not then it is sexism.

All identity politics is divide and rule. There is only equality for ALL and freedom for ALL.
Click to expand...
For once I think you're 'losing it' Jerry. I'm certainly lost by what you are on about so maybe that makes both of us.
 
Lol, very true.

My point is that the media decide what is in the public interest and say ‘what the people want to know is....’ and by default they fill the media space with it and guess what it becomes of public interest. They control the agenda and public discussion.

More important issues are only covered when a knee jerk reaction is ‘required’ and then the subject is not in the media even though the issue is still there - thereby ensuring it not of public interest.

My point on gender is simple. Neither gender has more right on certain issues to be offended than the other lol.
 
jogills said:
Nothing that was said during that interview would prevent a trial going ahead in the future. .
Click to expand...

That`s not what I implied jogills. I agree that there were no criminal allegations made against HRH in the TV show. I was thinking more about a defensive contingency based on an awareness that something further is in the pipeline ie "matters not yet reported" (and I alluded to someone other than HRH as being clever).

Regarding a trial (IF there was ever to be one) my hypothesis has little to do with narrative during the TV interview. It`s all to do with a climate created by saturation coverage and the negative connotations apparently applied by the media and public at large. Notwithstanding that no specific crimes were alleged during the interview, should there later be criminal allegations, it`s difficult to imagine one`s reflection of "that interview" as anything other than very negative as far as HRH is concerned - along the notion of no smoke without fire ! In my view, a long and prevailing public perception of HRH`s general wrongdoing, subsequent to the TV "interview" , influenced by media frenzy, would surely be seen as a vehicle by those "protecting" HRH to challenge any proceedings. A host of Q.C`s would, by then, surely have a huge catalogue of material at their disposal to suggest serious prejudice of a fair trial. In such circumstances, no prospect of a fair trial would be a most convenient way of fending off a constitutional nightmare.
 
LancsGordoRoad said:
That`s not what I implied jogills. I agree that there were no criminal allegations made against HRH in the TV show. I was thinking more about a defensive contingency based on an awareness that something further is in the pipeline ie "matters not yet reported" (and I alluded to someone other than HRH as being clever).

Regarding a trial (IF there was ever to be one) my hypothesis has little to do with narrative during the TV interview. It`s all to do with a climate created by saturation coverage and the negative connotations apparently applied by the media and public at large. Notwithstanding that no specific crimes were alleged during the interview, should there later be criminal allegations, it`s difficult to imagine one`s reflection of "that interview" as anything other than very negative as far as HRH is concerned - along the notion of no smoke without fire ! In my view, a long and prevailing public perception of HRH`s general wrongdoing, subsequent to the TV "interview" , influenced by media frenzy, would surely be seen as a vehicle by those "protecting" HRH to challenge any proceedings. A host of Q.C`s would, by then, surely have a huge catalogue of material at their disposal to suggest serious prejudice of a fair trial. In such circumstances, no prospect of a fair trial would be a most convenient way of fending off a constitutional nightmare.
Click to expand...

I like your thinking :)
 
GillsBluenose said:
They really should never sit down and be interviewed in the way that he was.

When he used the word unbecoming, didn't he say he was just trying to put it in a polite way or something? He clearly does not understand the concept of understatement.

Not sure why they keep using the word empathy. I thought that meant putting yourself in the position of the victims. It would be pretty difficult for him to do that. Should it not be sympathy rather than empathy?

Reminds me of when Edward was "demanding" that the press agree with him that "It's a Royal Knockout" was good and then throwing a wobbly when they were unenthusiastic.

I think Meghan's claim could be weaker than Harry's if her dad did sell the private letter to the paper as I think legally it would have become his property. The phone hacking claim by Harry, if true, would mean the media would deserve another pasting.
Click to expand...

Isn't copyright with the author
 
You must log in or register to reply here.