SEAorPWM wrote:

GDB wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What's also hilarious is that he's reportedly selling property to foot legal bills. All that says is Mummie Dearest has closed the spigot.

Had she, that is the taxpayer, paid for Andrew's legal bills in this sordid case, that would have been unacceptable. Brenda hasn't navigated nearly 70 years of massive social change here without knowing that.
It's not that he was well liked before all this.

But Brenda and the Firm massively screwed up with Harry, they know of his deep seated loathing for the tabloids, he after all largely blames them for his Mother's death.
All he wanted from them, was backing when he warned said tabloids that any untoward intrusion and also typical of them, racism, towards Megan would not be tolerated.

Of course, equally typically, The Daily Mail not only compared her to Compton Gang Bangers but got her errant father involved, surely that was her concern, not theirs.
An audit of reporting on their relationship from the start found the great majority of tabloid reporting to be hostile to her.
They are who they are, a previous girlfriend, white, posh, more typical, also got huge levels of press harassment including illegal phone hacking.

So their inaction lost them, with the younger demographic, their most popular member.
And the same inaction with Andrew until the whole scandal there blew up but far more leeway given to him, for far longer, than Harry.
Until it's become untenable.
Of the two Princes, who's the bad guy now?
Harry never consorted with a billionaire nonce and his accomplice girlfriend, herself another from that family of wrong 'uns.
Even after he was convicted and got that pathetic slap of the wrist non punishment, in the best legal system MONEY can buy.

Going after a 16 or 17 year woman is completely acceptable in the UK though. Hardly "noncy".

SEAorPWM wrote:

GDB wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What's also hilarious is that he's reportedly selling property to foot legal bills. All that says is Mummie Dearest has closed the spigot.

Had she, that is the taxpayer, paid for Andrew's legal bills in this sordid case, that would have been unacceptable. Brenda hasn't navigated nearly 70 years of massive social change here without knowing that.
It's not that he was well liked before all this.

But Brenda and the Firm massively screwed up with Harry, they know of his deep seated loathing for the tabloids, he after all largely blames them for his Mother's death.
All he wanted from them, was backing when he warned said tabloids that any untoward intrusion and also typical of them, racism, towards Megan would not be tolerated.

Of course, equally typically, The Daily Mail not only compared her to Compton Gang Bangers but got her errant father involved, surely that was her concern, not theirs.
An audit of reporting on their relationship from the start found the great majority of tabloid reporting to be hostile to her.
They are who they are, a previous girlfriend, white, posh, more typical, also got huge levels of press harassment including illegal phone hacking.

So their inaction lost them, with the younger demographic, their most popular member.
And the same inaction with Andrew until the whole scandal there blew up but far more leeway given to him, for far longer, than Harry.
Until it's become untenable.
Of the two Princes, who's the bad guy now?
Harry never consorted with a billionaire nonce and his accomplice girlfriend, herself another from that family of wrong 'uns.
Even after he was convicted and got that pathetic slap of the wrist non punishment, in the best legal system MONEY can buy.

Going after a 16 or 17 year woman is completely acceptable in the UK though. Hardly "noncy".

scbriml wrote:

You really don’t seem to get the subtle difference between consensual and non-consensual, do you?

While it may be legal for a 40yo man to have consensual sex with a 16 or 17yo, I suspect a significant majority of Brits would not find it “acceptable” and would likely describe such as “pervy” or “noncy”.

Using the expression “going after” says a lot and just piles the sleaze on.

GDB wrote:

How many more times? ‘Consent’ to slightly quote ‘girls man’ R Kelly, is not about a number.

art wrote:

GDB wrote:

How many more times? ‘Consent’ to slightly quote ‘girls man’ R Kelly, is not about a number.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. In the real world two people can agree to do something. In the world of the law such agreements do not hold if they contravene the law. I cannot in England legally consent to someone killing me (thus so called 'mercy killings' are not legal in English law). Nor can a person legally consent to sexual intercourse if the number (age of a participant) is below 16 - in English law.

Ghislaine Maxwell will no longer fight to keep the names of eight 'John Does' secret and will leave it to the court to decide whether the names should be unsealed, according to a letter dated January 12.

The documents are part of a 2015 defamation lawsuit against Maxwell brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claimed Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused her while she was a minor and that Maxwell aided in the abuse.