Brits wanting to know who the "blackmailed royal" was.....

[marcjacob]

i just feel that i want to post this all over as apparently the good old law court has decided that us Brits are not mature to cope with this incredible knowledge (?!!?!) (who the fuck are they )

The British press therefor cannot report this, but the Royal who was blackmailed was the son of HRH Princess Margaret, the Queens nephew, Viscount Linley.

The news here made out that he was unknown but ive heard of him, although (i am a Royalist).

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4256786a10.html

[Lee]

Linley is a huge fag (i dont use that word to often) he's been in the press a lot in the last 5-6 years with 'gay' ties

Regards,

Lee

[marcjacob]

You have to wonder who else was there.

I dont get why he should get special treatment, it was a premiere league footballer it would be all over the papers and news.

[Kushiel]

You have to wonder who else was there.

I don't get why he should get special treatment, it was a premiere league footballer it would be all over the papers and news.

Because if I remember correctly, I read something about him being twelfth in line for the throne, since he's the Queen's nephew. I believe he's Princess Margaret's son.

If it were, say.. David Beckham that got shagging teammate, the gilded chair wouldn't be involved... Although I think it would be nearly as interesting.

Cheers

[Squirt]

Isn't it the elite that give up the right to privacy in return for power and priveledge? Shouldn't we know what people of influence are really up to behind closed?

[Kushiel]

Isn't it the elite that give up the right to privacy in return for power and priveledge? Shouldn't we know what people of influence are really up to behind closed?

Isn't it also the elite who have the privilege to use the influence they have however they can and get away with it? While there are some whose goings-on happen affect their position, there are others that it doesn't really matter.

Who you're in bed with at night? I think that's a private matter, if you choose for it to be; it doesn't necessarily affect your abilities. Just because Chad is gay, doesn't mean he can't litigate. If you're putting something up your nose in office? Yes, I think that's something people need to know about.

Once something is revealed, though... I think it's wrong to deny it if it's true.

The fact is... people love gossip and sensationalism, whether the news is something that defines the person's character or not. I know he has a family, two kids and is in line (however far removed) for the throne, and this affects that.

Noblesse oblige, and all.

[Squirt]

Isn't it also the elite who have the privilege to use the influence they have however they can and get away with it?

Ha ha excellent point. Just goes to show all the power and influence of the royal family and British legal system couldn't keep this story from breaking.

I am confused though how it's ok to know what someones putting into their body, and not ok to know who someone is sleeping with. I mean both have to do with judgement and what you're doing to/with your body, or someone elses body. A good majority of people on legal drugs are fucked out of their mind due to mulitple conflicting perscriptions etc.

What does some guy 12th in line to the throne caught doing cocaine and having sex on camera have to do with anything when the president of the united states is a "recovering" alcoholic? Our previous president admitted to smoking pot.

I think it's all very interesting though and I'm just as curious as the next guy

[Kushiel]

Ha ha excellent point. Just goes to show all the power and influence of the royal family and British legal system couldn't keep this story from breaking.

I am confused though how it's ok to know what someones putting into their body, and not ok to know who someone is sleeping with. I mean both have to do with judgement and what you're doing to/with your body, or someone elses body. A good majority of people on legal drugs are fucked out of their mind due to mulitple conflicting perscriptions etc.

What does some guy 12th in line to the throne caught doing cocaine and having sex on camera have to do with anything when the president of the united states is a "recovering" alcoholic? Our previous president admitted to smoking pot.

I think it's all very interesting though and I'm just as curious as the next guy

Judgment is the key word here, I think. It's one thing if you're bringing home a hooker that more than likely has already had sex or seven Johns that night... It's quite different if you're just dating someone. I'm not saying that who is in your bed is -never- indicative of your ability to *ahem* preform the tasks given to you... I'm just saying that sometimes people misconstrue a 'privileged' person's personal relationships with entertainment.

Illicit substances are a slightly different matter, I should think. Having a lover isn't illegal, to my knowledge. Have an eight-ball in your fob-pocket rather is.

That would be the difference. One is a judgment of ethics, the latter of morals.

This brings me back to judgment.. perhaps one of the reasons that the privileged are so private is because of all the people dissecting every move they make. I mean.. they are only human. Not that this is an excuse to act like a twat when you think no one is looking.

Don't even get me started on celebrities.

[Squirt]

This brings me back to judgment.. perhaps one of the reasons that the privileged are so private is because of all the people dissecting every move they make.

I totally agree

One word about ethics and morals, it's all about what stick you're measuring with. For example; if you're Gay and live in a state where sodomy is illegal, then you're immoral and breaking the law. Another example; if you visit Amsterdam and do drugs, you're not breaking the law and, all things being equal, are a moral and ethical person in that respect.

I guess my point is I know people who've done drugs and seing them lose their job, or worse, for doing them kinda makes me feel bad. It doesn't seem right. And on the other hand... I LOVE knowing what people don't want you to know.. very interesting! Know what I mean?

[marcjacob]

People in Britian care less about a public figures sexuality and more about how honest they are. MP's who claim to be straight but are caught sleeping with a male PA have to resign, but there are gay MPs in the Cabinet who have always been honest about it.

If you lie and say you are straight but then get caught with your trousers down, thats when the press will go after you.

[Kushiel]

I totally agree

One word about ethics and morals, it's all about what stick you're measuring with.

And whether you take them both into account, and how you define each...
For me, morals are set of rules delineating between right and wrong, as defined by a particular group. Whether this is a religious group, a social group, or a nation.

Ethics, I believe are defined by a person's character and his/her choices and logic. Like a doctor, for example, and the laws involving confidentiality.

Morally, a doctor is obligated to stand by their oath of confidentiality.... even if it goes against the noble ethic that prompted the doctor to choose his profession. If information a doctor has can save a life, but the recipient of the confidentiality refuses to allow him to break it, he would be abiding the law... but breaking not only his own set of ethics, but another set of morals entirely. Which is more important? Which has the higher priority? That's why I used both of the terms in my prior post. They're both important - and I suppose in an objective manner, interesting to see which one people stand stand by. Ironic at times, but I think that it speaks a great deal about our culture that so many of us consider it entertainment.

Kindest regards,

Kush.

[Squirt]

And whether you take them both into account, and how you define each...
For me, morals are set of rules delineating between right and wrong, as defined by a particular group. Whether this is a religious group, a social group, or a nation.

Ethics, I believe are defined by a person's character and his/her choices and logic. Like a doctor, for example, and the laws involving confidentiality.

Morally, a doctor is obligated to stand by their oath of confidentiality.... even if it goes against the noble ethic that prompted the doctor to choose his profession. If information a doctor has can save a life, but the recipient of the confidentiality refuses to allow him to break it, he would be abiding the law... but breaking not only his own set of ethics, but another set of morals entirely. Which is more important? Which has the higher priority? That's why I used both of the terms in my prior post. They're both important - and I suppose in an objective manner, interesting to see which one people stand stand by. Ironic at times, but I think that it speaks a great deal about our culture that so many of us consider it entertainment.

Kindest regards,

Kush.

I like your viewpoint very well said, and I feel the same.

Just remember, ethics and morals are not a constant, and change over time, which is even more of a quagmire. What is legal today can be illegal tomorrow, and vice versa. I loved ethics class in college, and debate was even more fun :thumbsup: