Omid Scobie's new book

[boxedandribboned]

Heads up, Omid is back on the PR trail...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-meghan-author-omid-scobie-31362434

BTW, can anyone explain why he's Harper's Royal reporter when he only seems to have access to or report on Harry and Meghan? It's a bit strange.

@Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar

This is what you said :

’Whatever PA has done, he hasn't actually gone out of his way to hurt and lie about his family, has he.’

Clearly our values are very different . Andrew having sex with trafficked teenagers and staying in Epstein’s house AFTER Epstein has been convicted is leagues worse than anything Harry has done . Harry told the truth . You wish it were lies .

But you do you ….

Allegedly….

Not defending , just stating facts.

I don’t know what point you are trying to make here but Andrew stayed with Epstein after Epstein had been convicted of offences against a minor .

Andrew’s reasons for staying with the convicted sex offender were ‘ it was convenient’ and also it was ‘honorable ‘

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/16/prince-andrew-believed-staying-with-jeffrey-epstein-right-thing-to-do

If you mean Andrew hasn’t been convicted , well , hold your nose and join the ranks of all the other Andrew apologists.
We know why he wasn’t convicted. He is on record as saying he’d help the FBI and then spent years running from them and hiding behind his mother who showed her true colours

Why is everything labelled as a straw man on here? It's just difference of opinion and it's tedious and dare I say it... goading... because it's been said by the same poster against anyone and everyone continually when they don't agree!

Don’t you dare call me an Andrew apologist; I have said numerous times he is an odious man .
i am merely pointing out a legal fact . If that’s too hard to understand that’s not my problem .

We know why he wasn’t convicted. He is on record as saying he’d help the FBI and then spent years running from them and hiding behind his mother who showed her true colours

Funniest thing I’ve read in ages. To avoid action being taken against you by the FBI, with its huge staff and extensive international jurisdiction and network of Memoranda of Understandings with local law enforcement agencies, all you have to do is….ignore them?

Why on earth do people waste so much money on defence lawyers then? Must all very stupid, if you can just pretend it’s not happening and it will all go away.

Andrew himself stated in his BBC interview that he would help the FBI in any way he could .
Yes of course it’s an incredibly stupid promise and one which he would not keep - surprise surprise

And anyone who thinks the ‘royals’ face the same legal structures as the rest of us is stupid .

From Wikepedia

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[4]

So repeatedly on this thread:

Proposition: I'm not surprised the RF are reluctant to have H&M at Xmas, after all they have publicly criticised and gossiped about the family through print and documentary. There is no trust there that Xmas won't become the subject of a future book/documentary by H&M.

Stand up straw Man: Prince Andrew is there, he's a pervert.

Response: Prince Andrew is not part of this equation, and in any event, whatever hideous suff he has done, he has not criticised and gossiped about his family, which is the topic being proposed as the reason not to be there at Xmas.

Knock down straw man: Arrggg, you rapist apologist, you have no values, you think Harry's actions are the equivalent to rape!!!!

There's a reason why I keep saying straw man. Because these arguments are straw men. It's not a difference of opinion. It's a deflection from the topic, and an attempt to smear me as a rapist apologist.

@Serenster I haven’t been posting but want you to know I appreciate your posts.

Every person on this thread was not convicted for exactly the same reason as Andrew, actually.

@Mumsnet please can you tell me via email why my very long post has been deleted. It contains nothing but a factual account and a dictionary definition.

@Mylovelygreendress
Yes but this ‘legal fact’ is exactly the one the Andrew apologists use
Neglecting of course to point out that ‘royals’ are not subject to the law in the same way as the rest of us are .

I am a person of colour too, and personally I am happy when people who have previously been racially insensitive and/or racist, particularly if they've lived in a very white bubble as Harry and his family have, are willing to learn and to then go on to actively stand up against racism. In Harry's case, as the father and husband of mixed race people, I would absolutely expect him to stand up for his family and speak out against it and I think people would rightly criticise him if he never did.

I really hate it when someone who has been on the receiving end of racism is the one scrutinised for how they've dealt with that racism, rather than the person who is actually responsible for it. However they dealt with it, the problem is the racism itself. Some people have called the person vocalising their 'concerns' over Archie's possible skin colour as racist, some have called it unconscious bias but most decent people have said it's not appropriate and could and likely would, make Meghan herself feel very uncomfortable , and clearly Harry too. The person who made that comment should feel ashamed of how it made them feel.

Sistah Space was cleared by the charity commission of any wrongdoing, and happily it runs to this day. Anyone suggesting otherwise should stop spreading misinformation. Its not the first time that falsehood has been repeated here.

Ngozi Fulani was right to raise her claim. I believe she met with Lady Hussey and accepted her apology. So given that, Harry and Meghan's perspective on it seems to align with their belief in unconscious bias and bringing awareness to it so someone can then rectify it, apologise and move on with a better understanding of a culture they may have been unfamiliar or ignorant of. Its easy to point fingers and call out things, it's a lot harder to be the person that finds and promotes solutions.

I know exactly what it means, thank you. I don't need your explanation.

So you are agreeing I am not an Andrew apologist ?

Maybe we should shortcut this discussion by asking which associates of Epstein, apart from Ghislaine Maxwell, have actually been convicted then?

It didn't sound from your post like you did. Otherwise you would not have made the comment you did.

Saying PA wasn’t convicted is leaving out a major fact, no?

Well.... there is another friend and associate of Andrew's who has been convicted of sexual offences. Peter Nygard

There's pics of PA and him and they holidayed together in the Bahamas at his place, and Andrew, Sarah and daughters visited there.
PA seems to make a bit of a habit of this doesn't he..

You call it straw man. I call it opinion and discussion of differing facts. And I'd be grateful if you didn't question what I know and what I don't know.

I s Nygard an associate of Epstein, Roussette?

(still good to know the FBI do seem able to convict some sex traffickers, at least!)

If you are going to passively aggressively refer to my posts in the third person and accuse me of goading, then expect to have your knowledge called into question.