Prince Charles and his knob

I don't think anyone would think it was him unless he'd gone and denied it. BTW, you ought to boot those royals -- it won't fix all your problems, but it will relieve you of the obligation to support those well pedigreed wastes of skin.

Edit: suing those who have accused you of immoral or merely socially unacceptable behavior for libel is almost always a losing strategy. Witness the experience of David Irving and Oscar Wilde.

[Edited on Nov 10, 2003 by plonk]

I think that the fact that the british press can't talk about this is much bigger than whatever the prince did or did not do. I could give a crap who gets some from who. I can't really understand why anyone cares who does what with who in the sack. But stopping it from going to press is not the right course of action

Was the servant who gave him the royal hummer a man or woman? I think this would only be news if Charles was getting head from a woman.

I was wondering what all that was about. all i got in the fifteen seconds of CNN was a British reporter saying "the alleged incident that we can't discuss"

I thought it was funny. but that's kinda worrying that they can repress media to that extent...not that it does them any good.

I couldn't care if Charlie blew goats in his spare time to be honest...anything has to be a better option than Camilla.
The newspaper gagging order is a great thing though...if a newspaper can publish any unfounded allegations about people on the front page, and if they are later proved wrong they print a 2 line retraction on page 20, then we'd be living in an increadibly unjust society.

I thought we just kept the royals around to attract American tourists anyway...

Dog shows are all well and good... but you aren't supposed to fuck the contestants!
I guess it makes sense tho... the average British royal is the two-legged equivalent of a Pekingnese... fundamentally ugly, exquisetly overbred, well made up, remarkably noisy, and completely useless for anything other than obscure entertainment.

You are joking, right?

Nope, I'm perfectly serious.

In an intelligent society people would read the retractions of stories that turned out not to be true but most people are too stupid and believe everything they read. If someone is accused of doing something and it's splashed all over papers then the unthinking masses assume they're guilty immediately even if it's eventually proved that they're innocent. Trial by media is unjust and in no-one's interests.

ALBATROSS!!!!!!!!!

Ironic that people in Britain have been highly critical of the Bush Administration's alleged manipulation of the media here in the U.S. regarding the war in Iraq.

The US has libel laws as well, which are enforceable in court. However, they have three characteristics which differentiate them from British libel laws.

1) Truth is an absolute defense in the US. In Britain, it is possible to win a libel case even if the allegations are true, if they were made in a 'mean-spirited' fashion.

2) Political and other public figures in the US have very little recourse under libel laws. This increases the freedom of the press to expose public figures and their foibles to the public.

3) US libel laws do not permit prior restraint, as has happened here.

Therefore, the US has just libel laws that are fully compatible with a free society... and Britain does not.

Dont the British tabloids pay a lot of money for stories like these? Could that have been a factor?

This is news because...? I think it's so hilarious it's on CNN.

What if the situation is reversed? Do we have to listen to canadian opinions or should we even bother to?

No offense to canada, you're just easier to spell than some countries.

May I ask why? Obviously it's how you feel so there's nothing valid for me to argue and as such I won't make an attempt. I'm just curious.

But its the only way we'll learn....

Or maybe it's the answering for other people thing we do? haha. I'm sorry I just had to say it. The opportunity just slapped me giddy.

*edited for the following*

hmmmm, now that I think about it, I think it's more the attention we get or can command. It actually relates to the Susan/Hillary/media discussion. If we had another country with the same resources we do, I'm pretty sure they'd behave the same. I mean it's been done before by other countries, France, Italy, England and many others. They had the resources and tried to manipulate things in other countries to suit themselves for one reason or another. And some still do to this date only on a smaller scale

But couldn't this be fixed with a simple procedure of ignoring the "trolls"? I mean they grow by attention. Not giving it to them detracts from them. Consider the US unimportant and insignificant and don't let them affect you?

[Edited on Nov 10, 2003 by Troll]

Okay, so it's specific things, not merely advice from americans in general? I can understand that and agree.

Don't get me started on the royal family i could be here for weeks on end ranting.
A couple of things strike me as odd. Charles wanted to let the paper print the allegations and be damned, but someone else came in an took out an injuction banning printing of the allegations. Being that we are a 'UNITED' Kingdom, the fact that this only covered England and Wales but not Scotland just makes this concept of a united country obsolete.

In England, we are able to be told that the allegations against the prince are false, but not of what he is accused. Nuckin Futs!!

Surprised more has not been said about the media strategy of the royals as portrayed in a reality show here recently. A venerable Royal correspondent, James Whittaker said that when it came to control of their empire the Mafia had nothing on the royal family.

Charles is thinking of speaking to the nation about his troubles, all i'd say to him is 'remember soft eyes and tilt neck to one side and look sheepish'....worked for the media whore that was his wife!!.

Always thought someone that would give up the aestheticness of Di for camilla was nutty, but shows i guess he's deeper than i thought.

One last thought ... one rule for the establishment and one for the plebs.

And I said i wouldn't rant!!

Gizzy

xx

Because no other country in the world does that at all.

Personally, for the most part I hate hearing Americans talk, period.

That said however:

We're moving the pieces, but British colonialism set up the board. This is in living memory and true for about 60% of the developing world. They don't get a pass.

Americans are astoundingly ignorant of the world around us, but only marginally more so than anyone I've ever met anywhere else in the world. Better to vet opinions on an individual basis than what color your passport is.

Wait a minute, do sense a schism amongst the liberal elite?