Prince Andrew, the Royals and the media | Page 2 | Vital Football

Prince Andrew, the Royals and the media

EagerExile said:
Your attitude's all very well Jerryattrick - but just remember that without a probing press, the likes of Nixon and Robert Maxwell would never have been exposed. The powers-that-be would love a situation where journalists don't ask awkward questions. That way, corruption lies.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree I am for real freedom of speech and the press but not to the extent where people are guilty without trial. Yes watergate, etc on the one side and McCarthyism and lynchmobs on the other.
 
dont think he is very bright, and completely out if touch with the real world. Does he think because he is a Royal the people will believe him. Go to Epsteins house for 3 or 4 days to end the friendship because it was the honorable thing to do.
I have no doubt Epstein was murdered anyway, too many high profile people involved yes Mr and Mrs Clinton.
 
EagerExile said:
Your attitude's all very well Jerryattrick - but just remember that without a probing press, the likes of Nixon and Robert Maxwell would never have been exposed. The powers-that-be would love a situation where journalists don't ask awkward questions. That way, corruption lies.
Click to expand...

Excellent work was carried out by Ronan Farrow on the whole Epstein deal.
My point is that since the allegations were made it should be a criminal case and all witnesses (no matter who it is) being required to attend police interviews and if warranted be charged and/or extradited if need be. The focus should be on why a witness is not being helpful.

The media and social media (not the investigative journalists) are just using it to fill air time by whipping up interest in the story.

Why is the same time and effort not being used for more important things that are going on. I don't see much around building cladding or people not paying adequate taxes or misuse of data or privacy intrusion or kids dying or ...... in fact they are decidedly silent most of the time.
 
Jerryattrick said:
Yes I agree I am for real freedom of speech and the press but not to the extent where people are guilty without trial. Yes watergate, etc on the one side and McCarthyism and lynchmobs on the other.
Click to expand...

No one has accused him of any crime but read what we know went on at Epstein's home, what every other visitor and member of staff knew. It is not McCarthyism to suggest he has questions to answer.

He is a very public member of the royal family and travels the world representing this country. He also has high level involvement with a number of charities and public bodies. There will be fallout and I suggest that some of his roles might quietly slip away. He's bad news.

He lives in at least two splendid publicly owned homes with his extended family and ex wife. It would need a Casualty type catastrophe to propel him anywhere near the throne. We didn't need him before this and now he is hanging by a thread. Look too at the claims of Virginia Guiffre; claims she has made under oath. He has questions to answer and neither you nor I has any idea what the opinion of the general public is on this issue, especially the female half of it.
 
jogills said:
No one has accused him of any crime but read what we know went on at Epstein's home, what every other visitor and member of staff knew. It is not McCarthyism to suggest he has questions to answer.

He is a very public member of the royal family and travels the world representing this country. He also has high level involvement with a number of charities and public bodies. There will be fallout and I suggest that some of his roles might quietly slip away. He's bad news.

He lives in at least two splendid publicly owned homes with his extended family and ex wife. It would need a Casualty type catastrophe to propel him anywhere near the throne. We didn't need him before this and now he is hanging by a thread. Look too at the claims of Virginia Guiffre; claims she has made under oath. He has questions to answer and neither you nor I has any idea what the opinion of the general public is on this issue, especially the female half of it.
Click to expand...

Why especially the female half, does that mean that mens opinions are less valid?

It does not matter who he is (all are equal before the law). He is a witness and should have already been interviewed at least.

Public opinion is the opinion they are Pushed towards by way of pushing that required set of ‘facts’ in front of us in place of other ‘facts’ or other news taking up the available new cycle.

The mention of McCarthyism was in the context of the freedom of journalists to find the story v witch hunts. Too many times now the media hounds someone based on something another individual claims. If somebody breaks the law then they need to go to court. Obviously too many times journalists or witnesses are interfered with.
 
Jerryattrick said:
Why especially the female half, does that mean that mens opinions are less valid?

It does not matter who he is (all are equal before the law). He is a witness and should have already been interviewed at least.

Public opinion is the opinion they are Pushed towards by way of pushing that required set of ‘facts’ in front of us in place of other ‘facts’ or other news taking up the available new cycle.

The mention of McCarthyism was in the context of the freedom of journalists to find the story v witch hunts. Too many times now the media hounds someone based on something another individual claims. If somebody breaks the law then they need to go to court. Obviously too many times journalists or witnesses are interfered with.
Click to expand...

It was you who claimed to know what the general public thought about this in the first place. Now you are claiming public opinion is made by the media, an argument frequently ridiculed on here. The crimes that Epstein commited were crimes against young girls and women. I can express disgust about what he did but I don't have the visceral reaction that my wife and daughters have.

I see that the distancing has begun. He's floundering and it's entirely of his own making from the beginning right up to that interview.
 
I believe all parties should have anonymity until verdicts are final, we have courts and a judicial system, we don't need trial by media. Victims of crime and the accused should both be have protection until after investigations and court proceedings are finished.
 
nitram77 said:
I believe all parties should have anonymity until verdicts are final, we have courts and a judicial system, we don't need trial by media. Victims of crime and the accused should both be have protection until after investigations and court proceedings are finished.
Click to expand...

Your posting on this MB proves that you inhabit the internet nitram. How do you propose to ensure this cloak of secrecy is made to work, what be4omes of an open and free press/media and what do you do when someone insists on appearing before an interviewer? No one has accused him of anything other than staggering stupidity at present, still less convicted him of anything.
 
nitram77 said:
I believe all parties should have anonymity until verdicts are final, we have courts and a judicial system, we don't need trial by media. Victims of crime and the accused should both be have protection until after investigations and court proceedings are finished.
Click to expand...

Thats what I was trying to say lol.
 
So, if you were her parents where were you? She apparently was 'under-age'. so why were her parents allowing her to socialise so much with adults?
 
jogills said:
It was you who claimed to know what the general public thought about this in the first place. Now you are claiming public opinion is made by the media, an argument frequently ridiculed on here. The crimes that Epstein commited were crimes against young girls and women. I can express disgust about what he did but I don't have the visceral reaction that my wife and daughters have.

I see that the distancing has begun. He's floundering and it's entirely of his own making from the beginning right up to that interview.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Jerryattrick said:
Excellent work was carried out by Ronan Farrow on the whole Epstein deal.
My point is that since the allegations were made it should be a criminal case and all witnesses (no matter who it is) being required to attend police interviews and if warranted be charged and/or extradited if need be. The focus should be on why a witness is not being helpful.
Click to expand...
I think the Epstein case is outside the statute of limitations [half heard on TV]
 
nitram77 said:
I believe all parties should have anonymity until verdicts are final, we have courts and a judicial system, we don't need trial by media. Victims of crime and the accused should both be have protection until after investigations and court proceedings are finished.
Click to expand...
HRH presented himself to quash any rumours against the advice of others.

There are NO court proceedings but, rather, an FBI hearing. If you do inhabit the internet then check your facts.
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
I think the Epstein case is outside the statute of limitations [half heard on TV]
Click to expand...

Evidently it is outside the statute but -
New York has a new law - ‘The Child Victims Act gives people a one-year window to sue for sex abuse damages, regardless of when the alleged acts happened. In addition to that, the law also extends the statute of limitations for criminal charges against child sex abusers’.

If thats the case then one would have (naively maybe) have expected Andrew to have been interviewed by the police either carried out by the UK force or a visit to the UK from the FBI.
 
Vodapadi Beef Sache said:
To be frank the Royal Family have shown themselves to be out of touch and IMO out of date with society for some time now.

This latest interview for me shows how they lack self awareness and also any decency.

I appreciate the “they are good for tourism” argument but in this day and age i am struggling to see the point of them.[/QUOTE

According to Forbes the Royal family are worth 1.8 billion quid to the UK economy.
Click to expand...
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
HRH presented himself to quash any rumours against the advice of others.

There are NO court proceedings but, rather, an FBI hearing. If you do inhabit the internet then check your facts.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should check your facts, Where in my post did I mention HRH? it was a general statement of the way media outlets try to make the news, instead of reporting it.
But as you have mentioned him, he has had the press making snide comments for a long time with no charge, no proof
 
I gather he is highly intelligent as he earned a place at Cambridge University. Even more clever than our own genius ST I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.