ScottC

Yes, as moderator I am outraged!

These threads were tolerated in the past and I have absolutely no intention of changing anything there. There are 100's if not 1000's of threads that don't belong here and as long as they stay within the Flyertalk TOS and are somewhat related to BA or the UK I certainly won't be moving them.

LHR Tim

Well I did discuss this over Sunday lunch with a good friend of mine who is a CSD at BA. Does that count?

Jenbel

And it seems to be not nearly as interesting as I was imagining!

PUCCI GALORE

Me and my promises! I said that I would not post here, but I wish to state that LHR Tim and I are Just Good Friends.

Timmy Tiptoes, I believe that the man formerly known as Mr Pucci Golare reads these pages so we must keep our dates and tete a tetes secret. Can you keep a secret? Do you promise not to tell? Or must I get an injunction - no better yet, I will get my maid to issue one and I will deny everything that no one else knows about.

Love


Mandy Mouse

(Sorry to be frivolous!)

Yes, she's back!

whmere

For the benefit of CharlesMD:

bigears buggers butty-boy butler makes movie muzzles media mad manservant makes money

For the benefit of airships:

manifest destiny, segregation, puerto rico, slavery, McCarthy, redistricting, the IRA, the 13 'words', Inuits, Patriot, Pinochet, Palestine, Cuban travel, Waco, Watergate, Washington DC...

airships

I never said we were perfect; I said we have freedom of speech, no more and no less.

It is absurd that newspapers from other countries are not being sold in the UK because they discuss this nonsense (whatever it may be) about Prince Charles. And it is even more absurd that British newspapers can't discuss this matter themselves. If there is any subject about which the British voters and taxpayers have a right to full information, it is the character of the man who expects to be their head of state, who consumes a large amount of the taxpayers' money and will consume even more if he ascends the throne, and whose future position as monarch is at the pleasure of Parliament, and therefore at the pleasure of the voters.

Please do not misinterpret me; I am not taking any position about whether the monarchy in general or this Prince in particular are good or bad. As a foreigner, it is not my place to make such a judgment, which belongs solely to the voters and taxpayers of the United Kingdom. But I can point out the absurdity of denying full information to the people in whose hands those decisions ultimately rest, the citizens of the United Kingdom. You may not like everything about America, and many of your criticism may be valid; but one thing we Americans can say is that we are free to discuss the character and qualities of the people who seek to lead our government. Just ask Bill Clinton if you have any doubts.

And as for the issue of Prince Charles's right to "privacy": he forfeits that right when he assumes a public position, funded by the taxpayers, and expects one day to serve as his nation's head of state. Prince Charles cannot expect to have his face on a coin while demanding a life free from public scrutiny. He can have a public role, or he can have a private life, but he cannot, and should not, expect both.

[This message has been edited by airships (edited November 11, 2003).]

whmere

Very well put airships.

I agree with you entirely and certainly have no sympathy for the public spotlight bearing on these people. When I hear complaints from them or their office (and that includes the Princess) of their treatment in the media I can only think that there are tens of thousands of people who would sacrifice a limb to be in their position. Poor little rich kids. Most people work their entire lives to achieve the tiniest fraction of what they are born with. I'm hoping that when the Aussies finally do away with the Queen as the head of state, they will go over to the UK and help us get rid of her too.

The question at hand is not however one of free speech, it is one of libel. The individual in question is asserting - without a shred of evidence - that the assertee performed homosexual acts with a manservant. I believe there is also an allegation that the assertee's then wife also videoed the proceedings. These allegations could cause substantial damage to the reputation of the individual concerned whether substantiated or not. Given that at present there is absolutely no evidence that they are true, the court has provided temporary injunctive relief to the victim in order to help protect his reputation, pending a full hearing of the facts. There is nothing to stop the accuser of coming before the court and providing evidence of the allegations and indeed had he done so, the injunction would be illegal and could be appealed. And believe you me the deep-pocketed UK media and their lawyers are vociferous defenders of their right to publish whatever they like, whether it is true or not.

In the UK, you are as free to discuss the character and qualities of your leaders as we are in the US, and as McCarthy proved, sometimes more so. You are equally free to publish damaging information in both countries, and in both countries you are equally limited in your ability to publishing damaging and unsubstantiated lies (look at Tom Cruise's battery of lawsuits and injunctions).

I think where we differ, and where you have elicited a reaction on these boards, is in the assumption that the US is superior in these matters. There is really little or no difference. And frankly, the remarks about superiority complexes and George Washington's French mercenaries were inflammatory...

GUWonder

Where is peace in our time? Are we not allies? ;-)

The Economist has a great survey on America in it's current issue. It could be a slightly better article, but it makes for a good read during Sunday afternoon tea at the Four Seasons Garden Terrace in DC.

I think all our countries have plenty of faults... but that is good. It leaves room for improvement -- or so say the CI/Six Sigma gurus.

By the way, greetings again Whmere.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited November 11, 2003).]

BahrainLad

Just a small point airships, you praise the ability of the United States to examine and criticise your democratically elected head of government. Quite proper.

But the Royal's become Head of State; a distinction which lies at the heart of Britain's uncodified constitution. And I don't think that we have a right to know every detail about their most private parts, simply that they can do their 'job' properly. But it sells newspapers and magazines to the inbred illiterate cretins we have in this country which is an absolute shame.

Indeed, personally, comparing the cost of the Royal Family (including all the benefits it brings of tourism, prestige, charity work) with the money wasted on the Dome, the railways, the average government computer system, it's small change and well worth the money!

LondonElite

"what else do I need to say..."

LondonElite

airship, I think you are missing the point a bit, which whmere addresses.

This injunction has nothing to do with free speech. Even in the US, judges will from often rule that bits of information are witheld from the public until the full enquiry has been completed.

Jenbel

And it is also a little ironic for airships to be lauding the US's policies of defending free speech when the US are trying to prevent any anti-war, anti-Bush demos when Bush is here later this month. You (the US) may have freedom of speech, but you (again the US, not personally!) are certainly trying to stifle it in other countries.

The only thing worse is if we let you get away with it.

LondonElite

The thought of these Secret Service goons bossing people around in London just makes my blood boil.

mymiles2go

Please ensure you don't confuse "the US" with Bush. We are not one in the same.

Jenbel

I try not to, but when one government is talking to another, then I believe it appropriate to consider this an offical position of the country making the request. You personally may also not agree with this, but your government (or a government agency=government) is requesting this.