Spare a Moment for H&M Part 2

[Heartofice]

Every time I see passages from Spare all i can hear is the voice of Alan Partridge reading aloud from ‘I Partridge’

Its all so cringe.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

For the effect upon and outcome for victims which makes it OK for them: the power demonstrated by their rapist rather than their own vulnerability and lack of power? that the rapist isn't actually attracted to them because they are powerless children? that the rapist has chosen them because he is attracted by their youth?

Gosh -- support monarchy be all sympathetic to those who attack those below age of consent -- not infrequently coercively and violently, and be totally finicky -- and supportive -- about whom and which are textbook paedophiles -- and, well others who do what the textbook paedophile does.  Somehow you all have persuaded me that the two go together, along with all the other hideous exploitation exercised by monarchs, royalty and titled douches.

If you’re speaking to me, I’d appreciate it if you’d for once talk about what I’m actually saying instead of these weird interpretations. I was not remotely offering sympathy to anyone who sexually assaults children, I specifically called them monsters…speaking as a father of 2 toddlers this has very clear and real meaning to me and I wish you’d stop with these truly insulting diatribes when you feel peeved with me.

 

I don’t know Z, I honestly can’t tell with you if it’s a matter of can’t or won’t. Here, for fwiw:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, including any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development.^[1][2][6] This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.^[7][8] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles,^[6][9] child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children,^[7][10][11] and some pedophiles do not molest children.

[Cas Stark]

I beg you guys if you want to discuss pedophelia, to start a thread on it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

37 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Every time I see passages from Spare all i can hear is the voice of Alan Partridge reading aloud from ‘I Partridge’

Its all so cringe.

How would you react if Queen Elizabeth was documented worrying about the skin tone of her grand children?

[Heartofice]

48 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

How would you react if Queen Elizabeth was documented worrying about the skin tone of her grand children?

Depends what was said, the context and the intent doesn’t it 

[Varysblackfyre321]

32 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Depends what was said, the context and the intent doesn’t it 

Got it you’d immediately play defense for racism because old white conservative figurehead.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Depends what was said, the context and the intent doesn’t it 

Really? What context would cause you to react by completely ignoring what she said and just make fun of her "cringe" accent?

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Got it you’d immediately play defense for racism because old white conservative figurehead.

You know, not that I'm defending these idiots, but there is a context where the comment, as insensitive as it is, would actually be well meant. As in, the person making the comment has an awareness of how xenophobic and racist some members of the public can be and how the press can feed that. This coming from people who read the papers every day hoping they're not in them. Genuine concern for the couple and the child would prompt concern over the viciousness of the public reaction to an English prince/princess of color. Hence the question. 

It's a stretch. It's probably too generous by half. But I could see it. 

Case in point:

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

38 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Really? What context would cause you to react by completely ignoring what she said and just make fun of her "cringe" accent?

You know, not that I'm defending these idiots, but there is a context where the comment, as insensitive as it is, would actually be well meant. As in, the person making the comment has an awareness of how xenophobic and racist some members of the public can be and how the press can feed that. This coming from people who read the papers every day hoping they're not in them. Genuine concern for the couple and the child would prompt concern over the viciousness of the public reaction to an English prince/princess of color. Hence the question. 

It's a stretch. It's probably too generous by half. But I could see it. 

Case in point:

 

Whoah you’re calling someone racist just because they equate an interracial child with a monkey?

 

 

Woke.

[Wall Flower]

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

He would have been fairly young, because I think it became public about the affair with Hewitt while Diana was still alive, I'm not sure about that.

Diana confirmed the affair in her now infamous interview with Martin Bashir.

I think this is were Harry has the strongest claim to sympathy and the strongest reasons for his hatred of sections of the British media. It's hard enough for kids to go through a parental divorce without details of the parental love life and actual intercepted conversations with lovers being splashed over the front pages. That even before you get to the ghastly public spectacle that was Diana's death and funeral. To give the Queen her due, I think she did try to keep the kids at Balmoral as long as possible but public mass hysteria ended with the William and Harry being paraded like human sacrifices before people madly grieving for someone they'd never even met. I remember being pretty horrified and disgusted at the time.

[Madame deVenoge]

Just to save y’all from buying and reading this book, I offer myself as sacrifice.

I just spent $17.99 on the US e-book version, and am now going to go and get a’ reading.

[Varysblackfyre321]

33 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Just to save y’all from buying and reading this book, I offer myself as sacrifice.

I just spent $17.99 on the US e-book version, and am now going to go and get a’ reading.

Thank you for your service 

[Madame deVenoge]

1 hour ago, Wall Flower said:

…I think this is were Harry has the strongest claim to sympathy and the strongest reasons for his hatred of sections of the British media. It's hard enough for kids to go through a parental divorce without details of the parental love life and actual intercepted conversations with lovers being splashed over the front pages. That even before you get to the ghastly public spectacle that was Diana's death and funeral. (paragraph break added)
 

To give the Queen her due, I think she did try to keep the kids at Balmoral as long as possible but public mass hysteria ended with the William and Harry being paraded like human sacrifices before people madly grieving for someone they'd never even met. I remember being pretty horrified and disgusted at the time.

THIS, and I am only on page 28.

[Heartofice]

Martin Clarke, Editor of the Daily Mail fires back at Harrys book:

https://www.thefp.com/p/prince-harry-proves-one-thing-the

 

Quote

But all this goes to the heart of Harry’s delusion. Uncomfortable facts can never be allowed to intrude. He ignores the yards of hysterical, gushing coverage that surrounded his wedding. He fails to mention the UK press’s treatment of him as a hero for fighting the Taliban. He doesn’t mention all the ludicrously dumb articles we wrote lauding the so-called “Fab Four” when they were actually at each other’s throats.

It's why he won’t subject himself to anything tougher than fawning interviews, which allow him to pile nonsense upon nonsense. It’s why he can write an entire memoir bemoaning the invasion of his privacy while cheerfully trampling on that of his dearest and nearest, including his niece Princess Charlotte—now still only seven—whom he drags into the book to explain Meghan’s version of the infamous row with Kate over the ill-fitting bridesmaid dresses.

Even now he claims in interviews that Meghan wasn’t accusing the Royals of racism with her arch revelation to Oprah that unnamed members of the family speculated about what shade of skin color their baby would be. 

Oh no. According to Harry now: “The British press said that, right? Did Meghan ever mention ‘they’re racists’?”

 

[Wall Flower]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Martin Clarke, Editor of the Daily Mail fires back at Harrys book:

https://www.thefp.com/p/prince-harry-proves-one-thing-the

 

 

'Of course, the fact that he and his wife are suing or have sued us has absolutely nothing to do with our 5000 articles whinging about Harry whinging. Also, the fact that we dragged Princess Charlotte into negative articles about Meghan making people cry and trying to poison the kid with her wedding flowers is completely beside the point'.

[BigFatCoward]

20 hours ago, Zorral said:

That was a buncha word salad w/o sense.

The gall on you. 

[BigFatCoward]

 

[DanteGabriel]

On 1/14/2023 at 6:48 PM, Heartofice said:

 Moanaholic, narcissistic, compulsive lying, virtue signalling, victimhood complex, self made martyrs, privileged but completely ungrateful or aware of it, hypocritical, attention seeking… idiots.

Not sure what there is to like. 

You are very sure about your assessment of these two, which is fine. We've all made character judgments about famous people. So to recap, a whiny overprivileged prince whose mother was essentially hounded to death by paparazzi is an unreservedly awful person. Him and his American actress wife. They should both take lessons in conduct from the editor of the Daily Mail.

 

On 1/14/2023 at 6:55 PM, Heartofice said:

I’m not sure it does sound like a royal actually. I wouldn’t have described Liz 2 in that way. 
 

It absolutely does sound like Harold and Meg, who have made sure everyone listens to them.. whereas the rest of the royals make sure to stay quiet the entire time 

Ah yes, the royal family are definitely just meek, unassuming people who definitely don't use pet tabloid journalists and PR people to fight their battles and keep their hands clean.

 

19 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah it’s not helpful if people are going to confuse paedophilia, being attracted to prepubescent infants, to someone how has sex with a 17 year old. ( I suspect Andrew also assumed that girl was 18 as well)
 

While both are gross, there is clearly a difference. Worth also mentioning that 17 is over the age of consent in many countries, including the UK. 
 

If you can’t make that distinction then it’s not worth talking about it. 

Sweaty Prince Andrew, though, who rode Jeffrey Epstein's plane to Jeffrey Epstein's island to have sex with pubescent girls who were definitely there willing and happy to have sex with creepy middle-aged fucks, deserves some defense. This overprivileged prince who married a disgraceful American himself deserves the benefit of the doubt that he believed the young girls he raped on a sex criminal's private island were 18 and not 16. Who cares if he told the most transparent and contemptible lies to conceal conduct that would have been contemptible even if the girls were of legal age?

The mental gymnastics and doubled standards you royal-defenders will entertain is amazing.

[DanteGabriel]

On 1/14/2023 at 7:12 PM, Cas Stark said:

The woman who worked until 2 days before she died at 96?  If that is your idea of a good grift, I don't know what to say.

When your royal lifestyle is your grift, yeah, not hard to keep working. 

On 1/14/2023 at 7:12 PM, Cas Stark said:

I don't know whether the queen was a good person or not because she managed to keep her mouth shut for 70 years.  I do know that her grandson, Harry, is not a good person, although he clearly thinks he is a wonderful, great person who has triumphed over so, so, many obstacles.

She managed to keep her mouth shut for 70 years, except for those times she covered up and enabled her sex criminal son's crimes.

Discretion is not always the better part of valor.

On 1/14/2023 at 7:19 PM, Cas Stark said:

That's the world we live in.  Whether it is business, entertainment or aristocracy.  Some people are born into an A++ situation.  Many of those, as we see with Harry, will still be unhappy, others will self destruct despite the millions or the fame.  But, that's me.  I just don't get hating the late queen because she was the queen or because England was once an imperial power.

Is it okay to hate her for throwing Diana to the wolves and protecting Andrew?

On 1/14/2023 at 7:19 PM, Cas Stark said:

*Having sex with a 17 year old is not pedophelia.  Come on.  Andrew may be and probably is a dumb POS, but he's not a pedophile even if he did everything he was accused of.

He's "probably" a dumb POS. Well, it's very noble of you to now decide we can't be absolutely sure of Andrew's character. I mean, the "I don't sweat" and "I took my daughters to pizza" lies are definitely dumb POS lies. I can't imagine his decisions to do interviews defending himself were in keeping with being quiet, reserved, and dignified, but what are you gonna do? He was, after all Sainted Elizabeth's favorite.

20 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I understood it.  There is some wisdom in having compassion for a person who has a difficult to control compulsion to do something that society condemns and that harms others.  

Yes, compassion for Andrew, but not the person whose mom died in public and was forced into public performance of grief by said discreet and dignified family when he was younger than Andrew's victims.

So we've defined pedophilia and ephebophilia, what's the definition for sacrificing your teenage grandsons to the demands of publicity at their mother's funeral? "Royalty."

[Heartofice]

17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Sweaty Prince Andrew, though, who rode Jeffrey Epstein's plane to Jeffrey Epstein's island to have sex with pubescent girls who were definitely there willing and happy to have sex with creepy middle-aged fucks, deserves some defense. This overprivileged prince who married a disgraceful American himself deserves the benefit of the doubt that he believed the young girls he raped on a sex criminal's private island were 18 and not 16. Who cares if he told the most transparent and contemptible lies to conceal conduct that would have been contemptible even if the girls were of legal age?

We don't have to start every sentence with 'Prince Andrew is a shit', because it's obvious and incontrovertible. I doubt anyone here is defending him, and when he did his little Pizza Express interview I was right there ripping into him. 

Thing is, the reason we talk about Harry and Meghan, is because they won't shut up. 

The entire reason they keep talking is because they basically cannot grasp the idea that people don't like them and they find it incredibly unfair. Their whole schtick is 'waaa waaa, why won't you love meeeeeee?'

Well.. I just gave you some reasons why I don't love them (and why most people in the UK are not fans either). Hope that clears it up.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The mental gymnastics and doubled standards you royal-defenders will entertain is amazing.

But the black bitch American wife!!! Who really hasn't said anything outside of that sometimes she's experienced racism because she's a black woman!!! She's the problem!!! Not the royals, who have a super racist past no one can deny.