The Royal Family

[Carl the Llama]

20 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I actually googled age of consent and think you may be mistaken save for relationships governed by a situation of trust 

Age of consent =/= age of adulthood, so minors aged 16 and 17 can give consent, but royal family member aside imo the position of trust argument could be applied to pretty much any cavorting between a minor and someone significantly older than them purely on the seniority factor alone.

[String fellow]

33 minutes ago, bovril said:

Can you summarise what he said so I don't have to open the link and see Nigel Farage? 

I'm not sure this forum is a safe place for anyone to report on what Nige says if they show any signs of agreeing with any of it. However, here goes with one of the points he made. Edward Vlll never criticised his relatives the way Harry has.

[Mike Oxlong]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Age of consent =/= age of adulthood, so minors aged 16 and 17 can give consent, but royal family member aside imo the position of trust argument could be applied to pretty much any cavorting between a minor and someone significantly older than them purely on the seniority factor alone.

No. I think there are specific definitions relating to positions of authority such as teacher - student that are not permitted but generally the legal age of consent is 16 in relation to any other person also over 16 

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, Bamboo said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NjQznXdUl4w

 

What do people make of Nigel Farage’ take on this? 

Just Farage trying to stay relevant 

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, Bamboo said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NjQznXdUl4w

 

What do people make of Nigel Farage’ take on this? 

The usual for Farage really:

 

Some decent points (many of Meghan’s detractors turned against her because she was using her position to preach at people rather than because of the colour of her skin)

 

Some conspiratorial rubbish (Meghan planned to stab the royal family in the back from the beginning, evidenced by Oprah being at her wedding)

 

I was a bit surprised just how much he went after Harry, but if you’ve seen Farage before it was pretty much like that.

[Bamboo]

11 minutes ago, Dunge said:

The usual for Farage really:

 

Some decent points (many of Meghan’s detractors turned against her because she was using her position to preach at people rather than because of the colour of her skin)

 

Some conspiratorial rubbish (Meghan planned to stab the royal family in the back from the beginning, evidenced by Oprah being at her wedding)

 

I was a bit surprised just how much he went after Harry, but if you’ve seen Farage before it was pretty much like that.

I’m intrigued as to how this story is so divisive, is it hypocrisy? Racism? Colonialism? I appreciate the complexities and you may not care as to why but you gave me a knowledgeable answer the last time, so I thought I’ll ask another question, or 3, sorry. 

Edited 11 March 2021 by Bamboo

[Scotch]

1 hour ago, BoyJones said:

I cannot believe the turn this thread has taken attacking old white men who supposedly have failing minds and bodies and can’t empathise with so called minority groups. We also don’t care about the future of the country, many having voted leave in 2016.

 

I’m 70 next year and consider myself in sound mind and body. I am able to follow the news and how society is evolving without somebody to read me the papers. I have 10 grand children aged 2-11 and did indeed vote leave. This is because I felt the EU was asset stripping the country and once we had lost our armed forces (scheduled for 2030 if you read the various papers produced by Brussels), forced into the euro and had to open our borders, I honestly could not see any future for the UK. Opportunities would get less and less whilst the EU eroded our economy and the British way of life. I am not ashamed to say I am proud to be British. 

 

Like many people my age and older, I do empathise with the struggles of minority groups and 100% agree all forms of discrimination should be things of the past. This will take time, but I believe progress is being made. It doesn’t help when many minority groups and the younger generation constantly snipe at us oldies. I reckon we have more empathy for your age group than you do for us, especially going my the condescending and disparaging comments.
 

Turning to the Royal Family, I don’t think they are a nest of vipers and rotten to the core. Suppose I’m cosi cosi about them. They could help themselves more and be more open. However, the current situation has certainly put the cat among the pigeons and I believe we just have to wait for evidence to emerge. I don’t buy into the current thinking if that someone says something it’s automatically true. So easy to jump on the band wagon and say the Royal Family is racist, particularly when it’s what a lot of people want to be true. It suits their agenda. 
 

Anyway, I rarely comment on non football topics, but the general consensus that people my age and older are the problem is very annoying. Probably the wrong thread (is that the right word!), What grinds my gears? Also don’t forget many old white men and women have a young outlook on life, we are not pariahs, we still have a lot to offer. 

Are you sure about that because you've just quoted my comment, rambling on about all these things that I didn't even remotely suggest, much less say. 

 

What i said was "its not uncommon for old white men in this country to hold outdated beliefs about certain subjects" and I stand by that.  

 

I didn't say ALL old people thought this.

I didn't say all white people thought this. 

I didn't say you lacked empathy.

I didn't say you're minds were failing. 

I didn't say your body was weak.

I didn't say you didn't care about the future of the country. 

 

I merely stated that due to the era they were raised, it's not unusual to know at least one older person who is maybe of a certain opinion regarding certain topics (homosexuality, immigration, race for example)

 

[Dunge]

5 minutes ago, Bamboo said:

I’m intrigued as to how this story is so divisive, is it hypocrisy? Racism? Colonialism? I appreciate the complexities and you may not care as to why but you gave me a knowledgeable answer the last time, so I thought I’ll ask another question, or 3, sorry. 

I appreciate the ego stroke there so I’ll give it a go. :-D
 

Honestly, I think there’s an extent to which people had already picked a side and this has forced those sides into battle against each other. Some will sympathise with the Harry & Meghan side, what they stand for (typically representative of a younger, “woke” generation) and their narrative will resonate with them. On the other side, there will be others for whom the royals represent them better, perhaps with “older”, more traditional values. This interview has been tantamount to a declaration of war. One side will say “how dare you declare war on us”, the other will say “listen to what’s being said; it’s entirely justified”. When people on either side talk these days about a Culture War, this interview has drawn the battle lines. It could be said that racism and colonialism are a part of that, either through remaining influences in thinking of the “old” that have passed through generations, or through perceptions and accusations from the other side. Similarly that hypocrisy is one of the go-to accusations against the “woke” side. But I think they’re all part of the backdrop to the main issue.

 

Personally speaking, I tend to find myself naturally more on the side of the royals - just what I’ve grown up with I suppose. But I don’t think either side has come out of this particularly well for different reasons, (plus of course the Andrew issue lingering over the monarchy like a horrible smell). The one exception being that, although there will be staunch royalists who will never forgive Meghan for this, the community that she wants to be part of in America will lap it up and pull her to their bosom. If anyone’s looking for beneficiaries in all this, it’s Meghan in the context she wants, and Oprah.

 

I’m not greatly keen on Meghan, and I don’t think exposing everyone’s dirty laundry in public was a particularly respectful thing to do regardless, but I wouldn’t wish her and Harry anything other than well. I wish they’d go about their happy lives quieter; but I don’t believe Meghan wants that. As for Harry, I really feel for his position in all this, torn between families and understandably hating the British press, who he’d still blame for the tragic death of his mother. Let alone all the James Hewitt jokes over the years. Unfortunately, perhaps the whole situation was doomed to this the minute he and Meghan fell in love.

[Dunge]

Also, for what it’s worth, I don’t go for the narrative that Harry and Meghan were somehow not telling the truth. There may well be different perspectives of the truth, as has been alluded to in the response from the palace, but I don’t get the impression of cold and deliberate lies.

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

What are you stating is a 'relatively trivial crime' just out of interest?

Having sex with a 17 year old when the age of consent is 18.

 

I remember a few years back when Rebekah Wade launched her "lynch a paedophile" campaign, one of her papers featured three photos with names and addresses of paedophiles who deserved (in her opinion) what they got.  Two of them had raped little girls, and one of them had had consensual sex with a girl (who he subsequently married) when he was 17 and she was 15.  All could be described as paedophiles, but the latter one's offence was very much more trivial than the others.

Edited 11 March 2021 by dsr-burnley

[StanSP]

6 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Having sex with a 17 year old when the age of consent is 18.

 

I remember a few years back when Rebekah Wade launched her "lynch a paedophile" campaign, one of her papers featured three photos with names and addresses of paedophiles who deserved (in her opinion) what they got.  Two of them had raped little girls, and one of them had had consensual sex with a girl (who he subsequently married) when he was 17 and she was 15.  All could be described as paedophiles, but the latter one's offence was very much more trivial than the others.

Sorry but what Prince Andrew did is not a relatively trivial crime. What you describe there is different to what Prince Andrew did. He was much older when he was seen around and with Epstein

Not to mention his standing as an individual and position of trust as has been alluded to earlier. 

 

I can't believe you've trivialised what he's done. 

 

Wow. 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

No. I think there are specific definitions relating to positions of authority such as teacher - student that are not permitted but generally the legal age of consent is 16 in relation to any other person also over 16 

Carl is talking about a moral abuse not a lawful one.

 

Said it before on another thread in here, but having a single age of consent is very old fashioned and needs updating. The age of consent is supposed to be there from protecting people being taken advantage of due to the different developments of their brain.

 

We know now that we didn't know in 1997 when the age of consent was last updated (to rightly bring same sex consent to being in line with opposite sex consent) - that a human's full-frontal cortex - the main decision making, urge control and short-term memory part of the brain does not fully form until around 25 and is barely half-formed at 18 - 17 year olds still make the majority of their desicions from their amygdala which is driven by emotional impulse - it's the same reason we have age limits on addictive drinks and cigarettes.

 

Regardless of the age of consent, someone over 25 having sex with a teenager is clearly a fundamental abuse of power and someone who has the rational ability to comcent taking advantage of someone who does not have the same fundamental information available within their brain structure to concent in the same way.

 

There is nothing wrong with two 14 year olds having sex together - that is two teenagers experimenting and learning how their brains work, but someone in their 30s or older having sex with a 17 year old is clearly using their extra rational brain to take advantage of someone who makes dwaucions in a fundamentally different way.

[dsr-burnley]

11 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Sorry but what Prince Andrew did is not a relatively trivial crime. What you describe there is different to what Prince Andrew did. He was much older when he was seen around and with Epstein

Not to mention his standing as an individual and position of trust as has been alluded to earlier. 

 

I can't believe you've trivialised what he's done. 

 

Wow. 

I think you are accusing him and finding him guilty of the same as Epstein.  I'm not.  I'm accusing him and probably finding him guilty of sex with a 17 year old and having a very bad choice of friends.  

 

I don't think that being a member of the British royal family counts as a position of trust in the USA, any more than being (say) a US senator would be a position of trust for this purpose in the UK.

 

Finally, I think you have missed the "relative to what" part of the post.  I'm saying that paedophilia is a word that should be reserved for much more serious crimes than what Andrew is widely believed to have done.  What I believe Andrew has done in comparison to what I would call paedophilia, relatively trivial.  It's not so much Andrew's crime that is being trivialised, it's the offence of paedophilia itself, if sex with a 17 year old is considered to be paedophilia.

[Mike Oxlong]

26 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Carl is talking about a moral abuse not a lawful one.

 

Said it before on another thread in here, but having a single age of consent is very old fashioned and needs updating. The age of consent is supposed to be there from protecting people being taken advantage of due to the different developments of their brain.

 

We know now that we didn't know in 1997 when the age of consent was last updated (to rightly bring same sex consent to being in line with opposite sex consent) - that a human's full-frontal cortex - the main decision making, urge control and short-term memory part of the brain does not fully form until around 25 and is barely half-formed at 18 - 17 year olds still make the majority of their desicions from their amygdala which is driven by emotional impulse - it's the same reason we have age limits on addictive drinks and cigarettes.

 

Regardless of the age of consent, someone over 25 having sex with a teenager is clearly a fundamental abuse of power and someone who has the rational ability to comcent taking advantage of someone who does not have the same fundamental information available within their brain structure to concent in the same way.

 

There is nothing wrong with two 14 year olds having sex together - that is two teenagers experimenting and learning how their brains work, but someone in their 30s or older having sex with a 17 year old is clearly using their extra rational brain to take advantage of someone who makes dwaucions in a fundamentally different way.

Ah, ok. I didn’t catch on that he was referring to it moralistically. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, String fellow said:

I'm not sure this forum is a safe place for anyone to report on what Nige says if they show any signs of agreeing with any of it. However, here goes with one of the points he made. Edward Vlll never criticised his relatives the way Harry has.

I'm curious. Does Mark dig out the banhammer for folks extolling the virtues of Nige, then?

 

Because if he doesn't I'm not sure how here is somehow unsafe.

[Buce]

 

I don't intend to get involved in this topic, as I have zero interest in the Monarchy, but I do want to add something to the paedophile debate: Paedophilia is not a subjective term defined by whatever the age of consent currently is, rather it is a recognised psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

 

An older man (or woman) having sex with a 17 year old may raise questions of morality and propriety, but it does not make them guilty of paedophilia.

Edited 12 March 2021 by Buce

[Guest worth_the_wait]

22 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I reckon that, for now, we have enough other issues to deal with, including malfunctions in our democratic institutions, without needlessly opening a whole massive, dangerous can of worms by seeking to abolish the monarchy.

Unpopular view from a lefty, I know.... 

 

A good analysis ... and the last paragraph above is a very sensible and pragmatic summary.

 

There are some other subtle, but important, good points about our Constitutional Monarchy that often get overlooked.
 
Whilst in theory the King/Queen has some wide ranging powers; in effect these are never used.   If any of their powers were abused, they would be out on their ear faster than you can say "where's my crown gone?".
 
They stay out of all party politics, which means that any Government of the left or right, can trust them to just be "overseers" of the parliamentary process.   But the Monarch gets ministerial papers to read every day and keeps up-to-date on all Government goings-on, as well as what's happening in the world.   The Queen's knowledge and understanding of geo-politics is unparalleled.   There is no one on the planet who has followed world politics more closely on a daily basis.   She has had regular meetings with 14 different Prime Ministers, going back as far as Winston Churchill; a statistic worth thinking about for a moment.
 
This is a very useful thing for any British Prime Minister.   They get an hour's meeting every week with her, and can discuss anything, in absolute privacy.   No private secretaries are there, no notes are being taken, and nothing will be leaked to anyone.   There is absolute trust in the Queen's impartiality and discretion.
 
Now you might say "big deal"?  But every Prime Minister has said these meetings are really useful.  The reason being, is that the Queen is the only person the Prime Minister can really trust.   PMs can't even necessarily trust members their own cabinet, as they might be after their job!   Every Prime Minister alive has gone on record as saying how useful these meetings are.
 
The privacy of the meeting is expected to be absolutely 2-way, although PMs occasionally let slip the odd harmless thing.   My favourite account was from many years ago when the country was going through a really bad time, and the PM was visibly low in spirit.   (They are human after all).   The PM politely asked the Queen what she would do in his position.   Apparently the Queen picked up a flower from the garden, popped it into the top of his jacket, and said with a mischievous twinkle in her eye - words to the effect of "I couldn't possibly say.  That's why you are the Prime Minister, and I am The Queen!".    With that the PM laughed, and his spirits had been raised.   
 
Most PMs have come out with a similar harmless anecdote. 

 

The point is that they all really appreciate someone who is incredibly well versed in what's going on in the world, and someone who they can bounce ideas off, ask questions of, or just natter on aimlessly to for an hour.   A bit of therapy if you like.   But anything that helps keep our PMs a bit more sane, can't be a bad thing!

 

 

[String fellow]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm curious. Does Mark dig out the banhammer for folks extolling the virtues of Nige, then?

 

Because if he doesn't I'm not sure how here is somehow unsafe.

Fair question. Tbh, I've learnt from painful experience that agreeing with anything espoused by any right-wing politician engenders a lot of heat, but not much light. Having learnt to avoid expressing my opinion on certain subjects as a result, I often try to stick to stating facts, but even that sometimes annoys folk, e.g. my comments yesterday about the Covid death toll and the stat on the genders of murder victims. Maybe I'm gammon in a woke world and must therefore suffer the consequences.  

[Jimothy]

7 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Fair question. Tbh, I've learnt from painful experience that agreeing with anything espoused by any right-wing politician engenders a lot of heat, but not much light. Having learnt to avoid expressing my opinion on certain subjects as a result, I often try to stick to stating facts, but even that sometimes annoys folk, e.g. my comments yesterday about the Covid death toll and the stat on the genders of murder victims. Maybe I'm gammon in a woke world and must therefore suffer the consequences.  

I don't know what responses you have got, but people do seem to confuse having their opinion challenged with people having a go at them. You put an opinion out in public, people can challenge it. If you quote stats, people can respond with other facts that put yours into context. If people are just calling you names or dismissing what you say without actually offering a counter argument, then that's not right, if they are just disagreeing with you and putting their opposite opinion back to you, what's the problem?

 

I'm not saying this is you, but people need to learn that their opinions can be challenged, and having them challenged isn't a slight on you.

[Mike Oxlong]

27 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I don't know what responses you have got, but people do seem to confuse having their opinion challenged with people having a go at them. You put an opinion out in public, people can challenge it. If you quote stats, people can respond with other facts that put yours into context. If people are just calling you names or dismissing what you say without actually offering a counter argument, then that's not right, if they are just disagreeing with you and putting their opposite opinion back to you, what's the problem?

 

I'm not saying this is you, but people need to learn that their opinions can be challenged, and having them challenged isn't a slight on you.

This is wrong you noodle 

[Jimothy]

3 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

This is wrong you noodle 

Noodle is a great insult 

[David Guiza]

51 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Fair question. Tbh, I've learnt from painful experience that agreeing with anything espoused by any right-wing politician engenders a lot of heat, but not much light. Having learnt to avoid expressing my opinion on certain subjects as a result, I often try to stick to stating facts, but even that sometimes annoys folk, e.g. my comments yesterday about the Covid death toll and the stat on the genders of murder victims. Maybe I'm gammon in a woke world and must therefore suffer the consequences.  

Given that the bold part of your post relates to my response in a separate thread I thought it best to reply, however Facecloth has pretty much responded with exactly how I would have responded to this already.

 

I wasn't annoyed, just questioning an opinion/misleading statistic that I didn't agree with. The vast majority of my posts on here relate to debating in some shape or form because I enjoy seeing the differing views and challenging them if I feel I can offer a reasoned and intelligent (arguable) response. I think I've been posting on here, on off, for about 14/15 years now and have rarely read anything that has outright offended me, as even the posters I don't agree with seem like reasonable folk. Plus, ultimately, we're all worshipers of the same blue and white church. 

 

 

[String fellow]

2 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Given that the bold part of your post relates to my response in a separate thread I thought it best to reply, however Facecloth has pretty much responded with exactly how I would have responded to this already.

 

I wasn't annoyed, just questioning an opinion/misleading statistic that I didn't agree with. The vast majority of my posts on here relate to debating in some shape or form because I enjoy seeing the differing views and challenging them if I feel I can offer a reasoned and intelligent (arguable) response. I think I've been posting on here, on off, for about 14/15 years now and have rarely read anything that has outright offended me, as even the posters I don't agree with seem like reasonable folk. Plus, ultimately, we're all worshipers of the same blue and white church. 

 

 

I stand by my stat on the genders of murder victims. In fact, if you preclude domestic murders from the figures given below, then the bias towards male victims is even higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender 

[David Guiza]

27 minutes ago, String fellow said:

I stand by my stat on the genders of murder victims. In fact, if you preclude domestic murders from the figures given below, then the bias towards male victims is even higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender 

With all due respect, I thought my post was fairly clear as a 'draw a line under this and move on', but seeing as you have raised it again I will respond - in spite of the fact that this isn't even on topic with this thread so apologies.

 

I am not disputing that more men are killed. My dispute with the statistic is/was twofold:-

 

1. Those men are also being killed by men, at least in the majority of cases, therein men remain the problem in terms of the general public being fearful of attack. Buce had already pointed out before I responded.
 

2. It was irrelevant to what was being discussed at the moment in time. I cannot see that anybody has suggested that men are not vulnerable etc, but the conversation at the time of your post was about ways in which women can be made to feel more safe given the pertinent issue at the moment. The point you made wasn't incorrect, it was just irrelevant to the point in hand. I'm sure your point was that men deserve the right to feel safe too, and I, along with everybody else, wholeheartedly agree with that. 

That's why I referenced the BLM issue, as similar things happened during that conversation too. Whereby people would dig up statistics to show that white people were in fact more likely to die in police custody than black people, but again, whilst that statistic is true it's skewed, in that there are more white people than black, and irrelevant to the larger issue, in that it was about a systematic look at injustice faced by black people not about police custody. 

 

I hope that makes sense, as I can't be arsed to reply again and derail another thread .

[SecretPro]

13 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Having sex with a 17 year old when the age of consent is 18.

 

I remember a few years back when Rebekah Wade launched her "lynch a paedophile" campaign, one of her papers featured three photos with names and addresses of paedophiles who deserved (in her opinion) what they got.  Two of them had raped little girls, and one of them had had consensual sex with a girl (who he subsequently married) when he was 17 and she was 15.  All could be described as paedophiles, but the latter one's offence was very much more trivial than the others.

Wow.

There is genuinely a large difference between having sex with a 17 year old and having sex with an internationally trafficked under age sex worker being pimped out to and by a rich and famouse peadophile ring.

Edited 12 March 2021 by SecretPro