Jump to content

Spare Harry


Bris Vegas

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

It is. No doubt. That’s why it always needs to be fully investigated, taking into account all the circumstances. There are very few black and whites (professional abuse would be fairly clear cut). But any adult shagging a 17 year old is a red flag that will instigate an investigation. 

Average age for someone losing virginity in the Uk is 18. So by your book maybe half the Uk population needs investigating.

I think you may have too wide an interpretation maybe. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Average age for someone losing virginity in the Uk is 18. So by your book maybe half the Uk population needs investigating.

I think you may have too wide an interpretation maybe. 
 

 

“Although sexual activity in itself is no longer an offence over the age of 16, young people under the age of 18 are still offered protection under the Children Act 1989/2004.

Consideration still needs to be given to issues of sexual exploitation and abuse of power in circumstances outlined below. Young people, of course, can still be subject to offences of rape and assault and the circumstances of an incident may need to be explored with a young person. It is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for an adult to engage in sexual activity with any person in respect of whom they are in a position of trust – this still applies if the person is over the age of 18, and whether or not the person consented.”

Thats the child protection procedures for the West Midlands. Closest I could find with a quick google. Who knows, maybe it’s a free for all in East Midlands.

All depends on the circumstances really, and any parent, cater or professional involved needs to weigh up all the factors. This is a good litmus test, if an 18 year old is shagging a 17 year old, and the parents know they’re in a relationship and they’re coming round for tea, then it’s probably okay. If the adult in that relationship wants to hide the relationship from other responsible adults, like parents or professionals, then there’s probably something dodgy going on. 

The point of the whole argument is that I very much doubt that Prince Andrew encouraged the 17 year old to discuss with her parents what he had planned for her before she jetted off to his island, and didn’t exactly want the relationship broadcast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

awkward-cringe.gif  that-was-a-low-blow-rainn-wilson.gif

I'm being purposely facetious, but I'm just pointing out that all his objections are about how things have affected him. Of course the press's role in the death of Diana was outrageous, but imagine if he'd come out and championed everyone who the press have turned against? If he'd outlined the grand problems we have with the role of the media in this country? But no, it doesn't seem like he has a problem with the role of the press at all, he has a problem with the role they've played in his life personally. He's interested in their phone hacking because his phone was hacked, not because of the tragedies that were caused by the greed of the media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Or old queens ?

Nah, most UK monarchs have been Kings, with their Queen being related by marriage. The two most recent Queens are very recent, so most of us won't be descended from them. The other major Queen, Elizabeth, had no kids, so no descendents there.

The fact they have changed the heir now to oldest born child, rather than son, shows how stupid the whole thing was. A pathetic invention like royal blood line can't just change because we are no longer as sexist. Either the first born son carries the pure royal blood, or they do not.

Actually, perhaps someone could work out who the monarch should be now, if the eldset child rule had always held. Then do a swap! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

“Although sexual activity in itself is no longer an offence over the age of 16, young people under the age of 18 are still offered protection under the Children Act 1989/2004.

Consideration still needs to be given to issues of sexual exploitation and abuse of power in circumstances outlined below. Young people, of course, can still be subject to offences of rape and assault and the circumstances of an incident may need to be explored with a young person. It is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for an adult to engage in sexual activity with any person in respect of whom they are in a position of trust – this still applies if the person is over the age of 18, and whether or not the person consented.”

Thats the child protection procedures for the West Midlands. Closest I could find with a quick google. Who knows, maybe it’s a free for all in East Midlands.

All depends on the circumstances really, and any parent, cater or professional involved needs to weigh up all the factors. This is a good litmus test, if an 18 year old is shagging a 17 year old, and the parents know they’re in a relationship and they’re coming round for tea, then it’s probably okay. If the adult in that relationship wants to hide the relationship from other responsible adults, like parents or professionals, then there’s probably something dodgy going on. 

The point of the whole argument is that I very much doubt that Prince Andrew encouraged the 17 year old to discuss with her parents what he had planned for her before she jetted off to his island, and didn’t exactly want the relationship broadcast. 

Hiding from your parents the fact that you are having sexual relations with someone is what many people do whether under 18 or not. 
 

i’m afraid I do not know what Andrew’s circumstances were. The photo shows  him and the young lady in London. 
 

if a criminal offence took place why has there been no criminal charge? 

Either way I think Andrew should be stripped of all his titles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I'm being purposely facetious, but I'm just pointing out that all his objections are about how things have affected him. Of course the press's role in the death of Diana was outrageous, but imagine if he'd come out and championed everyone who the press have turned against? If he'd outlined the grand problems we have with the role of the media in this country? But no, it doesn't seem like he has a problem with the role of the press at all, he has a problem with the role they've played in his life personally. He's interested in their phone hacking because his phone was hacked, not because of the tragedies that were caused by the greed of the media. 

I agree,  the central core of all of Harry’s  issues is, Harry, and how those issues affect Harry’s little world, he doesn’t appear to be able to grasp a wider view.
 
As I have previously posted I do think he needs to seek help, I realise that it has been reported that he has been in therapy before but obviously that hasn’t helped. Whatever his demons are, he needs help dealing with them.

Megan’s sister and father have said that she deals with her problems by running away from them. My worry is what happens when Harry’s mental state becomes a problem for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Wokers? What does that even mean ??

Not entirely clear is it, but a simple substitution of one letter and addition of another provides a very suitable term to describe it's users.

Even simpler for those who prattle on about 'cults'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the stuff about 'Spare' Harry's book and came across this review.

"...But taken as a whole, beyond the excerpts, a much warmer picture emerges of his father, King Charles, even when it seems that the narrator is giving him a hard time.

Charles is seen padding around in his slippers, listening to his audio-books, obsessed with Shakespeare, wearing Dior scent and falling asleep at his desk. He's seen as having faced terrible school bullying, still keeping a teddy bear as a totem of a lonely childhood.

His father tries to provide some emotional support for Harry after Diana's death, sitting up with him until he falls asleep at night, but it feels as though his good intentions had to navigate some tricky barriers.

Charles leaves notes for him trying to say nice things - but Harry questions why he couldn't say them in person. He goes to see Harry in a school play and laughs uproariously and is then criticised by his son for laughing in the wrong places.

When the adult brothers are feuding, Charles begins to sound like something of a Shakespearean figure himself, King Lear in tweed, begging his sons not to make his old age a misery.

The King is presented as old fashioned and rather unworldly. But he might be learning a new bit of text speak. TMI. Too much information..."

Kinda warmed to him, unlike Harry. Lol.

Edited by RoyMac5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...