Julius and Ethel Rosenberg certainly assisted.....Your original post was:
"Even then its a complicated relationship as the US did provide the UK with nuclear technology, as really the only other country to have access to it at that time."
By 1962 the UK, France and the Soviet Union had all developed nuclear weapons of their own without assistance from the US.
A good summary & shows how things are not perhaps as straightforward as they seem, from the 'unabused' standpoint. Especially the 'painting your future' threat aspect.Grooming is the element of drawing them in
Threats are further down the line
Start with befriending, make a bond, give some presents.
Alcohol and drugs can be two fold - the groomer is ‘giving’ the victim something, it can be a secret they keep to themselves. It can also incapacitate, remove inhibitions and make the victim dependant
Money is a gift - but then it also has to be earned
A ‘poor’ groomer preys on the vulnerable victim who is unloved, or dependant. They have a ‘lifestyle’ to offer that can be as basic as paying some attention rather than ignoring the victim
A ‘rich’ groomer has a higher ‘lifestyle’ to offer, luxury, travel, glamour etc
Both may be reprehensible - one looks less seedy than the other
Sex can be exchanged in a number of ways:
In a relationship two people provide emotional support, perhaps one is the bread winner and the other is the homemaker
In prostitution the sex is exchanged for money but no further relationship
In grooming the gifts or money may be given but the obligation is to be under control and pay back in other ways
She may well have known what she was doing but at 17 she was not legally competent to consent.Mrs Clubs tells me that he (Andrew) was a single man up for it at the time of the alleged offence. The girl in question was 17 going on 21 and certainly knew what she was doing if said offence took place. And she was certainly old enough to say no if she objected.
The cynic in me says she was "banking" the experience to cash in on at a later date, which she is now doing. Fair play.
Not really entitled to his wings either as he didn't do All Arms P Company and serve with an Airborne unit. The light bulb on his sleeve at the most. The same with Charles but as he is Colonel in Chief of the Parachute Regiment he can wing it.Finally he has to stop wearing the Commando dagger he’s not really entitled to.
King George VI and Winston both wore unentitled RAF pilots wings when in RAF uniform. Imagine Boris sticking a set up.Not really entitled to his wings either as he didn't do All Arms P Company and serve with an Airborne unit. The light bulb on his sleeve at the most. The same with Charles but as he is Colonel in Chief of the Parachute Regiment he can wing it.
Stories without any verifiable evidence are just stories.And I don't think many of us saw the royal family as racist until the attitude of at least some of them towards Harry's (slightly) dusky maiden began filtering into the media.
That's quite a leap there or maybe you're just easily swayed by whomever shouts loudest.Harry's resignation/sacking/whatever made folk realise that there was a fair bit of nastiness going on at the top end of the Mall.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg certainly assisted.....
Ahem,I remember the almost universal respect and affection in which the royals were held prior to the stories about Charles' treatment of Diana (and I'm not even thinking about any conspiracy stories regarding her death). That respect was misplaced, but it was there.
Their ratings took a nosedive when……….
I remember the almost universal respect and affection in which the royals were held prior to the stories about Charles' treatment of Diana (and I'm not even thinking about any conspiracy stories regarding her death). That respect was misplaced, but it was there.
Their ratings took a nosedive when the stories of Charles' dalliances came out. That might have been fair or it might not. Perhaps she was a waste of space, but if so then she was a highly popular waste of space. The rumours (however unjustified) of royal involvement in her death did some more damage, purely on the principle of "if you throw enough mud".
And I don't think many of us saw the royal family as racist until the attitude of at least some of them towards Harry's (slightly) dusky maiden began filtering into the media. Harry's resignation/sacking/whatever made folk realise that there was a fair bit of nastiness going on at the top end of the Mall.
I agree - but a lot of the damage in relation to those 2 is because extremely rose tinted goggles are applied to the pair of them by many.Any stuff about "Yeah but Diana and Meghan were this or that", even if true, won't repair the reputation of the royal family in general and the Queen in particular.
Yes, there's still a generally positive public attitude towards royalty, but it's nothing like it was 40 years ago. And I'm not sure the Queen's dumping her son with quite such a bump will endear her either, even to those who agree that he's a total idiot.
Because arrse is seen as a mahoosive penis in the internet world (remember complaints to police, Parliament and Chief of Staff) and needs to project it onto someone to feel better about itself. It is only a handful of people on this site who behave like demented apes like you but unfortunately the whole site is tarred with the same brush.
Except of course
We have to ignore that they went out of their way to welcome her - making extra efforts to ensure no one felt discrimination was a factor
The Queen already has non white relatives
Many didnt realise Meghan was non white until it was pointed out
The racial slurs amounted to a queery as to the childs colouring - on a par with asking will it be blue eyed or ginger which post fact Meghan has decided was terrible racism - supported by BLM activists - wheras 99.9% of mixed raced couples who commented ""well we asked our selves the same things in normal conversation.
Couple to that other demonstrably untrue facts shes come out with and one cant help but think that recollaction may vary as when Meghans version of events was formed she was sat at her typewriter.
I agree - but a lot of the damage in relation to those 2 is because extremely rose tinted goggles are applied to the pair of them by many.
See the Meghan hounded out of the country by racist brits
Not at all - nobody cared - she was a media darling then (like di) the media turned on her - the bulk of public opinion went against her - not so much because of what she did - or because of the media attacks - but because her actions were ignored and criticism became racism in the eyes of the usual crowd.
It is sad but true that Meghan was caught up in the flack from the woke playing the race card - long before she did it herself and i will accept that just maybe as opinion of her was coloured by this - perhaps her perceptions were coloured by a backlash she was told was because shes non white?
On the other hand if they hadent dropped Andy it would only be a matter of time before facts were distorted and the accusation made Andy wasnt sacked but Meghans was because shes Brown / female etc
Look at the furore of Archie not being titled prince -
We may well be looking at more than one type of damage limitation.
edited for some truly mong spellings - i dare say theres other mistakes - but that only highlights how dumb the ones corrected were