Editor's Blog0 min ago
'in Defence Of Prince Andrew'
In today's Telegraph the estimable Charles Moore begins an article with the above caption & starts ;
'When the whole world condemns someone, it is a journalist’s duty to look at the other side. I therefore want to make the case for the Duke of York in his Newsnight interview. If you start from the position of a juror, rather than of our judge-and-jury media, you believe that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. On that basis, Prince Andrew did all right.'
Has anyone read it?
'When the whole world condemns someone, it is a journalist’s duty to look at the other side. I therefore want to make the case for the Duke of York in his Newsnight interview. If you start from the position of a juror, rather than of our judge-and-jury media, you believe that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. On that basis, Prince Andrew did all right.'
Has anyone read it?
Answers
Just a stupid arrogant man who has obviously not taken on board what being a royal is all about. No different from the old prince of Wales, who was a womaniser,
13:11 Tue 19th Nov 2019
//A fly caught in a web
Nevertheless, the Duke should never have given the interview, and particularly not in Buckingham Palace, which made it look like a matter of state. In his mind, I suspect, it was something seen in isolation – a way of stating his case which could clear the air. He and his advisers seem to have made no allowance for how the BBC – and the media in general – work.' //
Never a truer word written particularly the last sentence
Nevertheless, the Duke should never have given the interview, and particularly not in Buckingham Palace, which made it look like a matter of state. In his mind, I suspect, it was something seen in isolation – a way of stating his case which could clear the air. He and his advisers seem to have made no allowance for how the BBC – and the media in general – work.' //
Never a truer word written particularly the last sentence
Let's just say retro that she was born and lived very close to where I live and I worked for a lovely lady who mixed with the Royal Family here in Norfolk and didn't speak very kindly of her, but I only ever got a glimpse her coming out of a side gate on the estate in a car with the Queen mother. So I never knew her. But ì really cannot understand all the Diana worship that still goes on and all the nastiness about Camilla.
nm, that's OK
nearly there;
'Although he trusted the BBC with the interview, it immediately rubbished him once it had aired. By Monday morning, the Today programme had Nick Robinson trying to browbeat Andrea Leadsom into condemning the Prince, which the shadow minister, Barry Gardiner, going way outside normal political limits, had just done on the same show.
A journalist, who had himself interviewed Prince Andrew in 2017, came on air to say how “arrogant” he was. The usual sharp American lawyers who thrive on such cases popped up to express shock. Emily Maitlis, presumably without consulting the Duke’s office, revealed the background to the interview in a newspaper. The royal fly was caught in the spider’s web.'
.........
nearly there;
'Although he trusted the BBC with the interview, it immediately rubbished him once it had aired. By Monday morning, the Today programme had Nick Robinson trying to browbeat Andrea Leadsom into condemning the Prince, which the shadow minister, Barry Gardiner, going way outside normal political limits, had just done on the same show.
A journalist, who had himself interviewed Prince Andrew in 2017, came on air to say how “arrogant” he was. The usual sharp American lawyers who thrive on such cases popped up to express shock. Emily Maitlis, presumably without consulting the Duke’s office, revealed the background to the interview in a newspaper. The royal fly was caught in the spider’s web.'
.........
well done Chass Moore
I took refuge this am in a Brexit program aaaargh!
in order to get away from the inane drivelling about Randy Andy ( tho he may be - - randy that is)
a platinum blonde gave an interview on American teevee showing I didnt escape all off it.
She and randy-one had never met but then an older lady who should know better said - "so, randy andy MUST come and give evidence under oath !"
what about? Randy would be unable to shed any light on Epstein and the girl ....
oh but randy MUST do this and randy MUST do that !
why ?
he is clearly under no duty to contribute to american civil cases
I took refuge this am in a Brexit program aaaargh!
in order to get away from the inane drivelling about Randy Andy ( tho he may be - - randy that is)
a platinum blonde gave an interview on American teevee showing I didnt escape all off it.
She and randy-one had never met but then an older lady who should know better said - "so, randy andy MUST come and give evidence under oath !"
what about? Randy would be unable to shed any light on Epstein and the girl ....
oh but randy MUST do this and randy MUST do that !
why ?
he is clearly under no duty to contribute to american civil cases
I tend to agree Dave. I don't want to agree, because I basically like all the pomp and ceremony, and our Royal family is the best loved in the world and the most respected. But times change and there is simply no-one who can replace the Queen or get the respect she gets - although William, with Kate would probably be OK in time. At least they don't act like celebrities. It looks like the Queen might outlive Charles - she's one tough lady!
Here's the final bit; & before posting it I want to say that when I see a good man like Moore, defending someone who may have behaved stupidly, but is largely innocent of any serious crime & someone who isn't as articulate as he (Moore) is, then I feel proud to be an Englishman.
' One could not help being grimly amused by the harrying of the Prince, who has so little power to fight back, by a corporation which for many years ignored the sexual predations of its employee Jimmy Savile. It was Newsnight, the very programme on which the Prince appeared, which ditched its investigation into Savile under pressure from the top of the BBC.
In her piece, Maitlis absurdly claimed that this was a more amazing interview than the famous 1990s ones with the Prince of Wales and with his ex-wife, Diana. This suggests that she prejudged the case against the Duke; if she believed that his only offence was staying with Epstein, she would recognise this as an interesting, but minor story of a man who is only eighth in line to the throne.'
' One could not help being grimly amused by the harrying of the Prince, who has so little power to fight back, by a corporation which for many years ignored the sexual predations of its employee Jimmy Savile. It was Newsnight, the very programme on which the Prince appeared, which ditched its investigation into Savile under pressure from the top of the BBC.
In her piece, Maitlis absurdly claimed that this was a more amazing interview than the famous 1990s ones with the Prince of Wales and with his ex-wife, Diana. This suggests that she prejudged the case against the Duke; if she believed that his only offence was staying with Epstein, she would recognise this as an interesting, but minor story of a man who is only eighth in line to the throne.'
What a load of rubbish. There wasn't all this kerfuffle about Jimmy Saville and look what he did. Oh ,but then he was dead and it's not as much interest to the media and the public as hounding a living person.Prince Andrew should probably have cut ties with Epstein once he knew that he was a convicted sex-offender but there again I don't think he committed a crime by not doing so. Stupid and thoughtless but not wrong.
As for the women they could have left Epstein any time they wanted so why didn't they ? What made them stay ?Could it have been the expensive and lavish gifts or the enormous amounts of money .The only ones that I could feel any sympathy for, if what we are told is true ,are the very young foreign girls who provided paedophiliac fodder for Epstein's rich friends. I do not have any sympathy at all for the teenage girls who were being' trained 'by Maxwell to become prostitutes.
The public need to make their minds up as to how the Royals should behave. Lately there has been all the hype about Meghan and Harry bringing a breath of fresh air into the Monarchy . Yet Andrew is decried for being a 'party animal'. A lot of the pics. show him standing there amongst the other party animals, dressed in a dark suit and holding a bottle of water ?
As for the women they could have left Epstein any time they wanted so why didn't they ? What made them stay ?Could it have been the expensive and lavish gifts or the enormous amounts of money .The only ones that I could feel any sympathy for, if what we are told is true ,are the very young foreign girls who provided paedophiliac fodder for Epstein's rich friends. I do not have any sympathy at all for the teenage girls who were being' trained 'by Maxwell to become prostitutes.
The public need to make their minds up as to how the Royals should behave. Lately there has been all the hype about Meghan and Harry bringing a breath of fresh air into the Monarchy . Yet Andrew is decried for being a 'party animal'. A lot of the pics. show him standing there amongst the other party animals, dressed in a dark suit and holding a bottle of water ?
Just a sideline on Diana, for information & clarity. My late, ex-headmaster (Doctorate from Cambridge and a very experienced teacher) retired to Sevenoakes, where he took a part-time position in an independent school (teaching History - he was excellent at that - interested me in Tudor politics). One of his pupils was the then Diana Spencer. At a reunion some years later I met him and his assessment of her was "Thick as 2 short planks and as sly as they come - not worth half of any of you Northern Grammar School girls". I've never met her, but I am quoting him exactly.
//hereIam -But Nellie, you said she had 'a series of lovers' and then you say 'it wasn't the fact that she had a series of lovers'! Make up your mind ..//
I said //It wasnt the fact she had lovers, HereIam, just her continous courting of the press.// Probably not clear, but I meant she had no problems with keeping her lovers quiet. She courted the press with her activities with them. She was manipulative, and played to her audience. Charles was pretty stupid to marry her, put he was pushed into it. These days it wouldn't happen. Charles was a product of a different era of royalty - poor bloke.
I said //It wasnt the fact she had lovers, HereIam, just her continous courting of the press.// Probably not clear, but I meant she had no problems with keeping her lovers quiet. She courted the press with her activities with them. She was manipulative, and played to her audience. Charles was pretty stupid to marry her, put he was pushed into it. These days it wouldn't happen. Charles was a product of a different era of royalty - poor bloke.
That's what a lot of kings and future kings have done though Emmie -chosen to keep their mistresses who they loved, and married who were said to be more suitable. Charles is a product of that royal culture. Fortunately though he ended up with the love of his life, but only because of tragic circumstances.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.