So with the league all but over, let's switch to another subject - Jeffrey Epstein?

[IUFG]

is it just me or have some people lost their perspective a little?

As abhorrent as he may have been, surely having contact with an abhorrent cretin is not illegal? And speaking of abhorrent, the former prince is by all accounts an entitled c*nt of the highest order, but that is also not illegal.

I see the latest evidence shows an email in which Epstein suggests he have dinner with a 25 year old Russian woman. And a few pics of him on the floor next to another woman whose age we do not know, both fully clothed.

This is starting to get a little to metoo for my taste, if I'm honest. He's dead, and good riddance, but that hardly means that everyone who ever knew him is a criminal.

Just watched today's PMQs. Starmer is a dead man walking, Shirley..?

[Peter]

Yeah, tell that to the French, or the Germans lol

That's different. They have to live next door to each other.

[Peter]

We have a right to be ignorant as knowledge only means complicity in wrong-doing. There's dignity in ignorance.

Americans, see. So undignified

The lingering effects of class structure. Our betters know better, and we should not concern ourselves with such affairs.....

Americans are burdened by their difficult and eternal struggle with the notion of freedom. For whom, from whom, to what?

At least we dont have to waste time worrying whether or not we are free

[redgunamo]

Right. But that set out a very limited right to privacy along stated grounds. Of course, they could not have imagined the nature of privacy in the modern era. They did stick the word unreasonable in there, just to ensure that the courts were kept busy

Maddison's argument was that the rights they were discussing were natural rights and were protected by the spirit of the constitution. To enumerate some rights was to suggest that those unenumerated did not exist or did not deserve protection. He has a point, and it is one I still argue today when discussing law, regulations, contracts.

We have 'safeguards' based around the need to know and the right to know. As you know

We have a right to be ignorant as knowledge only means complicity in wrong-doing. There's dignity in ignorance.

Americans, see. So undignified

[Peter]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated..."

It's a start

Right. But that set out a very limited right to privacy along stated grounds. Of course, they could not have imagined the nature of privacy in the modern era. They did stick the word unreasonable in there, just to ensure that the courts were kept busy

Maddison's argument was that the rights they were discussing were natural rights and were protected by the spirit of the constitution. To enumerate some rights was to suggest that those unenumerated did not exist or did not deserve protection. He has a point, and it is one I still argue today when discussing law, regulations, contracts.

We have 'safeguards' based around the need to know and the right to know. As you know

[redgunamo]

You hit the nail on the head there right at the end.

It is a question of nobility. Noblesse oblige means that deference rests on the belief that gentlemen are decent fellows who recognise their responsibilities to society as part of their privilege. Standards, both in public and private life.

Your American elite believe their privilege is entirely self earned and that as a result they owe nothing to society or others in general.

Wealth is merely power and status, not position. New money.

Yeah, tell that to the French, or the Germans lol

[redgunamo]

Although right to privacy is not an enumerated right under the constitution. We are back to fhe James Maddison conundrum.....

Official information may belong to the Crown but it rests in the hands of officials, and officials decide whether and when official information is officially released, or whether it is officially withheld. In each case it is an official decision, officially decided, by the officials.

We also have a Supreme Court that holds virtually no authority and which a government can ignore. That was a good idea, wasnt it

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated..."

It's a start

[Peter]

Spot on.

In this question I answered on Quora:

Why didn't British aristocrats use their wealth to escape the draft during World War I?

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-British-aristocrats-use-their-wealth-to-escape-the-draft-during-World-War-I

part of my reply was "..... As I say, for the upper class elite, it was seen as a club, and anyone who’d tried to avoid fighting when everyone else did would have been blackballed from society for life.

The US as a country started without an aristocracy. The elite that became rich had no noblesse oblige, and saw their wealth as a way to cheat society, whether thinking taxes are for little people or avoiding the draft.

The British aristocracy saw their military service as a justification for their right to rule the plebs. Earl (which is Count in European aristocracy) is an anglo-saxon word for warrior. ....."

We're saying exactly the same thing. And in this regard, I don't think the Andy/Fergie/Mandy thing is some sort of conspiracy to protect bigger fish, I think it's down to the difference in attitudes between Brit and Septic elites as the Torygraph chap was saying. That makes more sense to me.

You may be right. I guess we will see how it unfolds.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

You hit the nail on the head there right at the end.

It is a question of nobility. Noblesse oblige means that deference rests on the belief that gentlemen are decent fellows who recognise their responsibilities to society as part of their privilege. Standards, both in public and private life.

Your American elite believe their privilege is entirely self earned and that as a result they owe nothing to society or others in general.

Wealth is merely power and status, not position. New money.

Spot on.

In this question I answered on Quora:

Why didn't British aristocrats use their wealth to escape the draft during World War I?

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-British-aristocrats-use-their-wealth-to-escape-the-draft-during-World-War-I

part of my reply was "..... As I say, for the upper class elite, it was seen as a club, and anyone who’d tried to avoid fighting when everyone else did would have been blackballed from society for life.

The US as a country started without an aristocracy. The elite that became rich had no noblesse oblige, and saw their wealth as a way to cheat society, whether thinking taxes are for little people or avoiding the draft.

The British aristocracy saw their military service as a justification for their right to rule the plebs. Earl (which is Count in European aristocracy) is an anglo-saxon word for warrior. ....."

We're saying exactly the same thing. And in this regard, I don't think the Andy/Fergie/Mandy thing is some sort of conspiracy to protect bigger fish, I think it's down to the difference in attitudes between Brit and Septic elites as the Torygraph chap was saying. That makes more sense to me.

[Peter]

Interesting article in the Torygraph 2-3 days ago that totally fits with my knowledge of the historic attitudes of the GB elite and the little I've heard of US draft dodging.

When caught out we expect our guilty to do the decent thing. Think Profumo's charity work, or Aitken now a prison vicar. Think of all the cads locked in the library with a bottle of scotch and a service revolver. Cos if they don't, our elites will throw them under a bus to protect themselves.

While the yank elites, irrespective of party, will circle the wagons and protect their own.

Which explains why 4 Brits have had their lives ruined but not one Yank, even though Eppy was a Septic with an island in the Septic Virgin Islands.

Yanks gonna yank, basically. While our elites will endeavour to appear to behaving like gents, even if it's only to maintain the fiction that they are gents deserving of deference.

You hit the nail on the head there right at the end.

It is a question of nobility. Noblesse oblige means that deference rests on the belief that gentlemen are decent fellows who recognise their responsibilities to society as part of their privilege. Standards, both in public and private life.

Your American elite believe their privilege is entirely self earned and that as a result they owe nothing to society or others in general.

Wealth is merely power and status, not position. New money.

[Peter]

First Amendment, G. Probably the Fourth too. It's not circling the wagons, it's the law.

For us, the starting presumption is that official information belongs to the king (the Amies assume it belongs to The People). So he, his government, must prove a specific harm, a tangible identifiable injury, to keep it hidden from the public. We cannot simply argue that it may be embarrassing. In America, blandly releasing names on a list with no probably cause would be an egregious invasion of the privacy of many, mostly innocent, individuals.

Laws do reflect attitudes though, I suppose. Blame William the Conqueror.

Although right to privacy is not an enumerated right under the constitution. We are back to fhe James Maddison conundrum.....

Official information may belong to the Crown but it rests in the hands of officials, and officials decide whether and when official information is officially released, or whether it is officially withheld. In each case it is an official decision, officially decided, by the officials.

We also have a Supreme Court that holds virtually no authority and which a government can ignore. That was a good idea, wasnt it

[redgunamo]

A man who can take his chances can earn 200 grand a week

Even if he can't too apparently

[redgunamo]

No. Septic vs GB attitudes. See above.

First Amendment, G. Probably the Fourth too. It's not circling the wagons, it's the law.

For us, the starting presumption is that official information belongs to the king (the Amies assume it belongs to The People). So he, his government, must prove a specific harm, a tangible identifiable injury, to keep it hidden from the public. We cannot simply argue that it may be embarrassing. In America, blandly releasing names on a list with no probably cause would be an egregious invasion of the privacy of many, mostly innocent, individuals.

Laws do reflect attitudes though, I suppose. Blame William the Conqueror.

[Peter]

It's the small fish we're worried about. Big fish can look after themselves, take their chances.

A man who can take his chances can earn 200 grand a week

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

It's the small fish we're worried about. Big fish can look after themselves, take their chances.

No. Septic vs GB attitudes. See above.