Poor baby - run home to mummy!

You needed to post that Alegrias1

Ohh look, a squirrel.

Labour Party inquiryEdit
Main article: Chakrabarti Inquiry
After her appointment in April 2016 as chair of an inquiry into antisemitism and other forms of racism in the Labour Party, Chakrabarti announced that she had joined the party in order to gain members' trust and confidence, and expressed confidence that this would not compromise her independence.[35] Chakrabarti criticised the Conservative Party for not conducting their own enquiry into Islamophobia, following allegations from Sayeeda Warsi in the London's 2016 mayoral election against Sadiq Khan.[36] The Chakrabarti Inquiry report was published in June 2016 and concluded that Labour was "not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of racism," but that there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere".[37]

Jeremy Corbyn announced her as the only Labour appointment to the House of Lords in August 2016. This was a necessary step to her subsequent appointment as Shadow Attorney General. However, some (including Labour MPs Tom Watson and Wes Streeting) saw this as creating the potential for bias in what should have been an independent inquiry.[38] When asked about the appointment, a spokesman for Corbyn said that Chakrabarti was "an ideal appointment to the Lords".[39]

The Royal Family are a bunch of over privileged egotists who use their position to further their own ends, be they financial or sexual. The idea that they are somehow self sacrificing and that they serve the nation is just a well crafted publicity stunt. Occasionally the mask slips and the awful truth is revealed.

This is a hugely significant story and very different from previous ones questioning royal charitable donations. The allegation that a key royal aide offered to secure a knighthood and British citizenship for a billionaire Saudi donor is deeply troubling.

@RepublicStaff
We’ll be looking into this in more detail. Does look like the Charity Commission should be investigating, and possibly the police. Honours in exchange for favours is a criminal offence. Also more reason to end royal secrecy.

Deeply damaging claims in both the Mail on Sunday and Sunday Times that Prince Charles's closest aide Michael Fawcett fixed honours for a Saudi Tycoon who donated £1.5million to royal charities. Fawcett has tonight resigned. But how deep does this go?

Let’s be clear. It’s inconceivable that one of Charles’s aides did this without his full knowledge and urging. Charles needs to be the subject of the investigation.

And then there’s the Queen’s dinner for despots. thetimes.co.uk/article/outrage-over-queens-dine-with-a-despot-jubilee-lunch-89w3nwgmbg2

FannyCornforth

Zennomore I haven’t read the full thread, but I saw your post.
I left school in 1988. During my time at school, one male teacher was jailed for having sex with a female pupil /s. Another married teacher got a vulnerable girl pregnant.
When I moved onto A levels, a married lecturer in his late fifties had an ‘affair’ with a 17 year old student. He subsequently divorced his wife and married his student.
Meanwhile, a very high profile man married a 17 year old girl, potentially with SEN.

Mine is a very different experience. I taught for over 25 years in large inner city secondary schools with over 120 teachers at each one, not one teacher was jailed, sacked or accused of inappropriate behaviour with a pupil. It’s not as common as some people think although undoubtedly it does happen. There were however a number of relationships between members of staff which caused some problems.

trisher ‘ it’s been said ‘ does not mean ‘it is true ‘ .

My point is, that’s just my experience of a few years schooling

Zennomore I haven’t read the full thread, but I saw your post.
I left school in 1988. During my time at school, one male teacher was jailed for having sex with a female pupil /s. Another married teacher got a vulnerable girl pregnant.
When I moved onto A levels, a married lecturer in his late fifties had an ‘affair’ with a 17 year old student. He subsequently divorced his wife and married his student.
Meanwhile, a very high profile man married a 17 year old girl, potentially with SEN.

She didn’t ‘shack up’ with him, she was one of his mistresses and he set her up in the house which had previously been occupied by Christine Keeler. She knew what she was doing. Who knows if things would have been different if he had not died - she never said she regretted that time, the Profumo trial was her only regret as far as she said. You’re projecting scenarios with no evidence to back them up.

@JenniferEccles, How many male schoolteachers’ careers have been ruined because of a malicious accusation from a female student with an axe to grind ?

But it's OK for under 18s to shack up with brothel keepers with criminal records? She was lucky Rachman died soon after they got together. Things could have been very different.

^And what has the Ward case to do with the
royals ?^
A member of the RFwas said to be involved in Ward's parties Annie and the files are sealed until 2046 most of those involved are already dead so what could need protecting for so long?

She was a thriver, not just a survivor, you are using pejorative language where it doesn’t apply. Surely what’s most important is the way she defined herself and her own life experiences, not your opinion?
There’s a difference when young people (boys as well as girls) are in education because teachers are in a position of trust, I’d certainly agree that is a criminal offence.

JaneJudge

16-18 yo having relationships with older men is surely a different subject to them being bought to perform sex at parties?

I would think it would depend on the older man JaneJudge any idea that Rachman was the sort of man you would want any young woman to be associated with is ridiculous. He had links with London criminal gangs, and was prosecuted twice for brothel keeping. But MRD was in charge!
I think she was a survivor but I don't think because one woman survives and manages to make a success of her life it means it was OK for her to be associating with men like Rachman at such a young age. I asked before just because one survives does that make it OK?
Annie thinks it is Ok for teachers to have relationships with under 18s something illegal now.

16-18 yo having relationships with older men is surely a different subject to them being bought to perform sex at parties?

I will repeat yet again MRD was not an innocent trisher.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/19/mandy-rice-davies
She was not in abusive relationships, she was in a number of relationships where despite her age she was in charge. All the evidence points to this, yet you persistently deny it because it doesn’t fit with the ‘norm’ you believe in.
I’m not at all saying that the vast majority of 16-18 year olds in a similar situation wouldn’t be in an abused/exploited position, I believe they would be. You just picked possibly the worst example you could have and refuse to admit it, which I don’t understand.

Any idea that this is just Andrew is doubtful, the family isn't the shining light it pretends to be

Only too true Charles had two very close friends and confidants paedophiles Peter Ball a Bishop and Jimmy Savile.

Not a good judge of people or character and supposedly to become our Head of State, despite being involved with politics and has queen too, which is not in the job description. Wasn't it always said that RF is above politics

Isit it time the monarchy is abolished and we can choose our Head of State

And when are RF going to rewild the vast amounts of land instead of carrying on with burning the land for grouse shooting that Victoria had introduced.

trisher are you in the real world ? You are now accusing all men who live with a girl of giving them financial reward .

I find this offensive. And what has the Ward case to do with the
royals ?

Agree with Casdon and germanshepardsnum

I will add my relationship with a teacher who I met at the golf
club was a loving relationship which lasted several years.

trisher, not all girls of 16-18 who have relationships with powerful men (not entirely sure what you would define as ‘powerful’) are acting under undue influence. They might feel flattered and make unwise choices (wasn’t it ever thus?) but unless violence is involved or they have been drugged it’s not illegal unless it’s a teacher-pupil or healthcare professional-patient relationship.

You referred in an earlier post to ‘rich, powerful white men’. I believe far more harm has been done, and probably still is being done, to very young girls in care by predominantly Asian gangs who have groomed and abused them. These are very young and vulnerable girls with broken lives who think they are being shown love when they are bought gifts. I don’t think what Epstein, and certainly Ward, did compares.

I agree that the missing police documents in Ward’s case is suspicious and I believe he committed suicide just before he was due to be arrested, perhaps tipped off. It does smack of corruption but of course at least one top politician was amongst those involved in the parties and doubtless many other powerful men, also there was far more police corruption in those days.

MRD was only 16 when she went to London Casdon she worked as a dancer sometime between 1960 and 1962. She moved in with Rachman (who she met in the nightclub) just before her 18th birthday.
The men she had relationships with offered her financial rewards Annie like a home. And Rachman wasn't a man many people said "No" to.
I'll ask you again Casdon just because some people survive abusive relationships between 16-18 does that mean they are acceptable?

You know trisher. The men Mandy Rice Davies had relationships with offered her money for sex ?

MRD was 18 when she was a dancer at Murray’s trisher.

Annie I believe girls aged 16 to 18 are not a suitable age to decide to sell their sexual services to men who offer them money, no matter how much money may be involved. At 18 they are adults and may decide for themselves until then they are minors. I believe the age thing was one reason the Rochdale offences went on for so long because some considered them prostitutes selling their sexual services.

Annie such a relationship is now illegal. thesexualoffenceshandbook.com/2013/10/08/teachers-and-sexual-relationships-with-students-aged-16/
And arguably as an employer is in a position of trust so, so might be an employer's relationship with an employee aged 16-18

The law is clear. A sexual relationship between someone who is in a position of trust and a person to whom that trust extends, is criminal.

The 2003 Act amended the law in relation to position of trust offences. It enacted the following offences:

s 16 (abuse of trust: sexual activity with a child)
s 17 (abuse of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity)
s 18 (abuse of trust: sexual activity in the presence of a child)
s 19 (abuse of trust: causing a child to watch a sex act)
It is worth noting that the offences cover children and young persons up to the age of 18 and so extend beyond the 16 and 17 year olds with which this post is concerned.