The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[blackydog]

On 14/01/2022 at 15:11, Anna B said:

These are the sort of things that need looking at. There's going to be a lot of legal shenanigans going on trying to wriggle out of liability etc. That's why it needs to be as transparent as possible.

Transparency and royalty don't go together. The queen has exemptions to the rules  that we have to adhere to.

[crookesey]

On 18/01/2022 at 13:59, poppet2 said:

Why don't they just exhume the victims bodies and do a retrospective DNA on them and compare it to the suspects? 

I’m  just imagining the Queen looking at photos of her great uncle Jack. 

[PRESLEY]

On 18/01/2022 at 13:59, poppet2 said:

Why don't they just exhume the victims bodies and do a retrospective DNA on them and compare it to the suspects? 

Are you joking!  Any finds being put infront of the royals would be hushed up and swept under the massive already lumpy axminster. 

[Chekhov]

I have put this post in here though, TBH, I think Andrew's present "difficulties" should probably have their own thread....

 

I have no love for Prince Andrew, but implying he is a paedophile for (possibly) having sexual relations with a 17 year old when he was a reasonably good looking 40 year old  prince - who many young women would have thrown themselves at - is taking it a bit far. In fact it annoys me because using the word in this context debases the word paedophile, people I obviously despise. To me, and most people I speak to, a paedo is someone much older having sex with a child. One's defintion of a child is a bit subjective but, to me, it does not include a 17 year old. Further, the age of the man matters, a 60 year old man sleeping with a 15 year old girl is creepy, but a 20 year old ? Not so much, and another 15 year old, not at all really.

Interesting sidelight, when I was about 13 I had a crush on my teacher. If I'd have got any where with her I can assure you it would not have had a negative effect on my life, though, being a bit sexist, I would not approve of a male teacher doing anything with a 13 year old girl.

[steve68]

22 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

60 year old man sleeping with a 15 year old girl is creepy

No its a crime underage rape carries a maximum of life imprisonment

[harvey19]

39 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I have put this post in here though, TBH, I think Andrew's present "difficulties" should probably have their own thread....

 

I have no love for Prince Andrew, but implying he is a paedophile for (possibly) having sexual relations with a 17 year old when he was a reasonably good looking 40 year old  prince - who many young women would have thrown themselves at - is taking it a bit far. In fact it annoys me because using the word in this context debases the word paedophile, people I obviously despise. To me, and most people I speak to, a paedo is someone much older having sex with a child. One's defintion of a child is a bit subjective but, to me, it does not include a 17 year old. Further, the age of the man matters, a 60 year old man sleeping with a 15 year old girl is creepy, but a 20 year old ? Not so much, and another 15 year old, not at all really.

Interesting sidelight, when I was about 13 I had a crush on my teacher. If I'd have got any where with her I can assure you it would not have had a negative effect on my life, though, being a bit sexist, I would not approve of a male teacher doing anything with a 13 year old girl.

I understand a paedophile is someone who has sex with a pre pubescent child.

 

 

[Chekhov]

Just now, harvey19 said:

I understand a paedophile is someone who has sex with a pre pubescent child.

Well  some are implying Prince Andrew is one !

Did Epstein have sex with a pre pubescent child ( I don't actually know) ?  The news regularly refer to him as a paedophile.

[cgksheff]

5 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Well  some are implying Prince Andrew is one !

Did Epstein have sex with a pre pubescent child ( I don't actually know) ?  The news regularly refer to him as a paedophile.

There are many examples of previously precise words now being being used, colloquially, with much wider understandings.

Not something to get annoyed about.

Edited January 20, 2022 by cgksheff

[steve68]

59 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

Interesting sidelight, when I was about 13 I had a crush on my teacher. If I'd have got any where with her I can assure you it would not have had a negative effect on my life, though, being a bit sexist, I would not approve of a male teacher doing anything with a 13 year old girl.

would not have had a negative effect? 

 

predatory behavior isn't a half choice for victims, male or female, adults have a responsibility to not engage in any sexual way will children, especially teachers, it sound like your teacher was a decent normal human being.

Edited January 20, 2022 by steve68

[harvey19]

14 minutes ago, cgksheff said:

There are many examples of previously precise words now being being used, colloquially, with much wider understandings.

Not something to get annoyed about.

I consider it is something to get very annoyed about.

The word has a specific meaning and this should be known by anyone using it.

Nowadays people who have suffered sexual abuse are referred to as survivors when in fact they are victims.

Edited January 20, 2022 by harvey19