That's a bit of an open question and I'm not quite sure what you're asking, Rohaan.
If he were unknown there likely would be no public denigration, so his fame does have an impact.
Any wealthy, or otherwise powerful person is likely to be perceived as thinking themselves above the law and untouchable in these circumstances, but I suppose being a British royal compounds that. The royal family had to cut him loose (at least in part) to demonstrate he wasn't protected by their particular brand of privilege.
Having been ousted by the monarchy, it creates a perception that he's guilty, or more is going on behind the scenes than in public. That will amplify public criticism.
Anyone in an ambassadorial role will be expected to be squeaky clean, but maybe not quite as much as the Chief of Police would be as an ambassador for the legal system, for example. There would be higher level of hypocrisy associated with the latter.
Had a judge been caught associating with Epstein and Maxwell, or been photographed with Guiffre, I think perhaps the public outrage would have been greater, not only in terms of hypocrisy, but because of the particular power a judge wields over other people's lives.
I'm sure Andrew has copped a lot of flack because of his position, but not necessarily without reason, or unfairly so.
'Freelancer' is used to describe a certain type of journalist on this side of the pond, too. Thanks for checking.
Your objecton is based upon your perception of Guiffre's attack is on the fabric of society, epitomosed by challenging the behaviour of a British monarch.
If it helps, remember the Royal family have kicked Andrew out and no longer want him to represent them, or the establishment.
We can still be jolly decent Britsh citizens, if not more so, if our core principles are upheld. The Queen understands that, which is why she sent him packing. The monarchy is nothing if it doesn't uphold it's duty to serve it's citizenry and that's more important than any individual royal personage.
It was one of her bones of contention wth Diana. She strongly held the opinon that crowds cheered the instituton, not herself as an indvidual: she thought the personal fulfilment she perceived Diana reaping from her popularity as inappropriate.
Personally, I think Diana did rather well at representing the monarchy and herself as a human being, but Andrew appears to have done neither.
If the description of 'gaslighting' is a reality for you, am I gaslighting you by suggesting the description is a model constructed from empirical observation and not a reality at all?
What leads the description of gaslighting to be a personal realty?
Errr...you started the trouble, Tom, breaking many of the other rules.
So, calling people names hasn't stopped people from discussng the thread topic; calling Giuffre names isn't going to stop her from seeking justice for herself and women in general; and waving the rule book at people because they object to the rules you've broken isn't going to shut anyone up, either.
Maybe you should leave the thread and spend a bit of time in self-reflection.
And yet the way you attempt to 'sort' people into categories like you're arranging your Dinky cars over and over again, has to be one of the most infantile behaviours I've ever seen from an adult.
Yeah, my 11 year old grandaughter is about your height.
I think of her as being really tall for her age, especially compared with my daughter, but she tells me all the girls in her class have over-taken her now and she's one of the shortest.
online today!jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
RE: The day you raise your hand to a woman that's the day you're officially no longer a man?
I disagree.They'd still be a man, just not one you'd want to be around.
And if they're not a man, what reason would they have to create change and act like one?
We don't say if a woman raises her hand to a man that she's no longer a woman.
Perhaps gender stereotyping is not a productive means of dealing with violence, but rather a big part of the problem.