I was taking the piss. His A levels were worse than mine and I ended up at a Poly.highly intelligent but as with so many HT people, no common sense or understanding of the real world
I was taking the piss. His A levels were worse than mine and I ended up at a Poly.highly intelligent but as with so many HT people, no common sense or understanding of the real world
Yes but it was an excellent Poly.........I was taking the piss. His A levels were worse than mine and I ended up at a Poly.
What's education to do with intelligence?
That's a bit unfair on this site's posters!What's education to do with intelligence?
LOL!That's a bit unfair on this site's posters!
That's true and we did one of the "proper" degrees didn't we.Yes but it was an excellent Poly.........
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.
New York, New York, so good they named it twice!LOL!
(Bit ironic though that you quoted his post twice)
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?
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.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.
Nothing that was said during that interview would prevent a trial going ahead in the future. .
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.
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.