I dunno. Bill Cosby was a pretty famous guy, who suffered a pretty severe loss of status, but when he got out of jail, I don't think there was any obligation of the state to prevent him from being hounded for the specific purpose of protecting his mental health.
Harassment is a crime, whether or not the person being harassed is a convicted criminal.
Well, if people are doing X, Y, or Z to Bill Cosby, and X, Y, and Z are illegal, then the police should deal with it. But any propensity to suicide on Cosby's part shouldn't be a determining factor in whether the police get involved.
In the UK we don’t have the death penalty for a reason, therefore as a matter of principle, we should not be hounding people to their deaths. In the past, it has usually been considered a serious failing to allow that to happen.
In the UK we don’t have the death penalty for a reason, therefore as a matter of principle, we should not be hounding people to their deaths. In the past, it has usually been considered a serious failing to allow that to happen.
So, if eg. Andrew now tries to make a career on the lecture circuit, and a group of people go around to all his venues and hold up signs on the public sidewalk denouncing him in language that would otherwise be legal, police in the UK would be able to stop the protests if they get a call from Andrew's psychiatrist saying they're making him suicidal?
No, I was talking about our behaviour as a society - by extension what I meant by basic duty of care.
Functionally, if police see anyone in a public space who they believe to be acutely mentally unwell to the point of being a risk to themself or others they can detain them under section 136 of the mental health act, and take them to a place of safety for a medical assessment. This is the power by which police detain people attempting to jump off bridges etc. Likewise, you can be detained against your will for mental health treatment if you are considered to be a risk to yourself or others as a result of a treatable mental illness.
If someone in that state is not treated, and then dies by suicide, it would be considered a failing of public services. It is in those kind of services that coroners do things like issue a prevention of future deaths notice.
No, I was talking about our behaviour as a society - by extension what I meant by basic duty of care.
Functionally, if police see anyone in a public space who they believe to be acutely mentally unwell to the point of being a risk to themself or others they can detain them under section 136 of the mental health act, and take them to a place of safety for a medical assessment. This is the power by which police detain people attempting to jump off bridges etc. Likewise, you can be detained against your will for mental health treatment if you are considered to be a risk to yourself or others as a result of a treatable mental illness.
If someone in that state is not treated, and then dies by suicide, it would be considered a failing of public services.
Oh, okay. You were using the legal protocol around suicide in order to extrapolate how people should personally govern themselves with regards to those vulnerable to suicide.
IOW...
Since the police would intervene to stop Andrew Mountbatten Windsor if he was standing on a bridge threatening to jump, it makes moral sense that you, as an individual, should voluntarily avoid speech or actions toward Andrew Mountbatten Windsor that would encourage him toward suicide in the first place.
That said, if I were to get into the habit of publically lambasting someone with the personal record of Mountbatten Windsor, I'm not sure I would think myself obligated to stop just because I heard it was making him suicidal, even as I might acknowledge an obligation of the authorities to intervene to protect him from himself in the event that he actually does try to commit suicide.
No, I was suggesting that it makes sense for a member of his family - ie the king - to have regard to his welfare even in the process of implementing consequences for his alleged behaviour.
No, I was suggesting that it makes sense for a member of his family - ie the king - to have regard to his welfare even in the process of implementing consequences for his alleged behaviour.
Thanks for further clarifying. BUT...
Does "having regard for his welfare" just mean...
...going the extra mile to ensure the deterrence of activities already classified as criminal, eg. granting Mountbatten Windsor a voucher to hire private security to stop haters from trespassing onto and vandalizing his property, OR...
...would it also include prohibiting certain activities which, while normally considered okay, have been designated criminal specifically when carried out against Mountbatten Windsor, eg. my earlier hypothetical of declaring no-protest bubbles around his speaking venues?
I think this was published just before AMW was stripped of his titles, hence the reference to Prince Andrew.
I have to admit this has a bad smell to it… an organization with an obvious political agenda seeking to bring a private prosecution without any sign of an actual complainant.
I think this was published just before AMW was stripped of his titles, hence the reference to Prince Andrew.
I have to admit this has a bad smell to it… an organization with an obvious political agenda seeking to bring a private prosecution without any sign of an actual complainant.
Whenever I hear the phrase "private prosecution", I assume it's gonna be based on evidence somewhere in the vicinity of the 1970s TV show In Search Of....
(Granted, the only cases that come to mind are, in order of my hearing about them, are: some animal-rights militants in Canada prosrcuting some lab scientists in the 1980s, and Mary Whitehouse vs Gay Jesus in the 1970s.)
I think this was published just before AMW was stripped of his titles, hence the reference to Prince Andrew.
I have to admit this has a bad smell to it… an organization with an obvious political agenda seeking to bring a private prosecution without any sign of an actual complainant.
An interesting aspect to this I was thinking about in bed.
The King has essentially ostracised his own brother. In previous centuries this would be locking him into the tower.
Ok yes there's some cash attached to the arrangement, but then it sounds like there is no royal security and maybe minimal staff. Which sounds ridiculous to ordinary working people, but maybe the truth is that Andrew will be paying for his own effective imprisonment.
We don't know what he has been told, but it might not be a stretch to imagine that the King has put restrictions on Andrews activities. Maybe he's not welcome in London. Maybe he's not expected to hobnob with the set he is use to being in.
Maybe, in fact, he's not expected to leave the Sandringham estate.
Of course the alternative is that the King has given Andrew a rundown cottage in a remote royal estate with the understanding that he will never accept that life and instead will jet off to Bangkok, Brunei or Dubai and become someone else's problem.
I rather like the idea that Charles has discovered he still has some levers to punish wayward relatives with his own form of imprisonment.
I rather like the idea that Charles has discovered he still has some levers to punish wayward relatives with his own form of imprisonment.
It does rather sound like he is being placed under "house arrest".
As to him jetting off to Dubai or Bahrain or some otherwhere to become somebody else's problem, he will always share the royal family's blood and name. He will always be a "family problem".
Also - he knows what he knows and can name other names. I wonder if he will ever be tried in a constitutional court.
Regardless of whatever our intentions or internal motivations might be, we're all still responsible for (and judged according to) our actions, and the kind of cheap grace @Marvin the Martian describes is one of the big factors enabling elite impunity. One of the most appalling thing about Jeffrey Epstein's* infamous "birthday book" is the way it indicates that a lot of Epstein's wealthy friends knew that he was sex trafficking minors and their reaction isn't one of horror or judgment but something along the lines of "there goes Jeffrey again, with his amusing sex trafficking". They essentially put @Marvin the Martian's principle into action, regarding Epstein not as a sex trafficker but rather as a good person who sometimes sexually trafficked underage girls. None of them thought that Epstein "doing something morally repugnant [ made him ] a morally repugnant person" and, more importantly, none of them seem to have done anything like reporting this to the authorities.
That's not "my principle" - nothing I've said means one shouldn't condemn evil or report/prosecute crimes, and indeed truly loving someone can mean helping them to repent of the evil they've done and make restitution to those affected (which may include a lengthy prison sentence where appropriate). I just don't agree that people are forever defined as people by the worst things they've ever done. A person is who they are on their worst day, true, but they are also who they are on every other day of their life. The bad and the good coexist within us all - to greater and lesser extents, yes, but never to the extent that one completely obliterates the other.
Do we not believe in a God who forgives sins? Do we not follow Christ, who refused to condemn even those who nailed him to the cross, instead praying for them to be forgiven? Did He not say "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."? How can we believe that and yet pronounce eternal condemnation on others? How can we proclaim that Christ died for us without understanding that He also died for Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and yes even Adolf Hitler. Should that understanding not influence our own attitude towards those people?
Be very careful when refusing cheap grace for others, lest you find the price of grace for yourself to be too expensive.
I think this was published just before AMW was stripped of his titles, hence the reference to Prince Andrew.
I have to admit this has a bad smell to it… an organization with an obvious political agenda seeking to bring a private prosecution without any sign of an actual complainant.
The problem is that their press release gives the impression they intend to prosecute him for something but they don’t yet know for what and on what basis. Which is pretty much the opposite of ethical prosecution practice.
Comments
Well, if people are doing X, Y, or Z to Bill Cosby, and X, Y, and Z are illegal, then the police should deal with it. But any propensity to suicide on Cosby's part shouldn't be a determining factor in whether the police get involved.
So, if eg. Andrew now tries to make a career on the lecture circuit, and a group of people go around to all his venues and hold up signs on the public sidewalk denouncing him in language that would otherwise be legal, police in the UK would be able to stop the protests if they get a call from Andrew's psychiatrist saying they're making him suicidal?
Functionally, if police see anyone in a public space who they believe to be acutely mentally unwell to the point of being a risk to themself or others they can detain them under section 136 of the mental health act, and take them to a place of safety for a medical assessment. This is the power by which police detain people attempting to jump off bridges etc. Likewise, you can be detained against your will for mental health treatment if you are considered to be a risk to yourself or others as a result of a treatable mental illness.
If someone in that state is not treated, and then dies by suicide, it would be considered a failing of public services. It is in those kind of services that coroners do things like issue a prevention of future deaths notice.
Oh, okay. You were using the legal protocol around suicide in order to extrapolate how people should personally govern themselves with regards to those vulnerable to suicide.
IOW...
Since the police would intervene to stop Andrew Mountbatten Windsor if he was standing on a bridge threatening to jump, it makes moral sense that you, as an individual, should voluntarily avoid speech or actions toward Andrew Mountbatten Windsor that would encourage him toward suicide in the first place.
That said, if I were to get into the habit of publically lambasting someone with the personal record of Mountbatten Windsor, I'm not sure I would think myself obligated to stop just because I heard it was making him suicidal, even as I might acknowledge an obligation of the authorities to intervene to protect him from himself in the event that he actually does try to commit suicide.
Thanks for further clarifying. BUT...
Does "having regard for his welfare" just mean...
...going the extra mile to ensure the deterrence of activities already classified as criminal, eg. granting Mountbatten Windsor a voucher to hire private security to stop haters from trespassing onto and vandalizing his property, OR...
...would it also include prohibiting certain activities which, while normally considered okay, have been designated criminal specifically when carried out against Mountbatten Windsor, eg. my earlier hypothetical of declaring no-protest bubbles around his speaking venues?
I have to admit this has a bad smell to it… an organization with an obvious political agenda seeking to bring a private prosecution without any sign of an actual complainant.
Whenever I hear the phrase "private prosecution", I assume it's gonna be based on evidence somewhere in the vicinity of the 1970s TV show In Search Of....
(Granted, the only cases that come to mind are, in order of my hearing about them, are: some animal-rights militants in Canada prosrcuting some lab scientists in the 1980s, and Mary Whitehouse vs Gay Jesus in the 1970s.)
To be fair there have been publicly discussed concerns about Andrew’s business deals for many years - most recently this affair.. He was pressured to stop being trade envoy in 2011 and then there were concerns about him hanging out with a Chinese spy.
The King has essentially ostracised his own brother. In previous centuries this would be locking him into the tower.
Ok yes there's some cash attached to the arrangement, but then it sounds like there is no royal security and maybe minimal staff. Which sounds ridiculous to ordinary working people, but maybe the truth is that Andrew will be paying for his own effective imprisonment.
We don't know what he has been told, but it might not be a stretch to imagine that the King has put restrictions on Andrews activities. Maybe he's not welcome in London. Maybe he's not expected to hobnob with the set he is use to being in.
Maybe, in fact, he's not expected to leave the Sandringham estate.
Of course the alternative is that the King has given Andrew a rundown cottage in a remote royal estate with the understanding that he will never accept that life and instead will jet off to Bangkok, Brunei or Dubai and become someone else's problem.
I rather like the idea that Charles has discovered he still has some levers to punish wayward relatives with his own form of imprisonment.
It does rather sound like he is being placed under "house arrest".
As to him jetting off to Dubai or Bahrain or some otherwhere to become somebody else's problem, he will always share the royal family's blood and name. He will always be a "family problem".
Also - he knows what he knows and can name other names. I wonder if he will ever be tried in a constitutional court.
AFF
That's not "my principle" - nothing I've said means one shouldn't condemn evil or report/prosecute crimes, and indeed truly loving someone can mean helping them to repent of the evil they've done and make restitution to those affected (which may include a lengthy prison sentence where appropriate). I just don't agree that people are forever defined as people by the worst things they've ever done. A person is who they are on their worst day, true, but they are also who they are on every other day of their life. The bad and the good coexist within us all - to greater and lesser extents, yes, but never to the extent that one completely obliterates the other.
Do we not believe in a God who forgives sins? Do we not follow Christ, who refused to condemn even those who nailed him to the cross, instead praying for them to be forgiven? Did He not say "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."? How can we believe that and yet pronounce eternal condemnation on others? How can we proclaim that Christ died for us without understanding that He also died for Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and yes even Adolf Hitler. Should that understanding not influence our own attitude towards those people?
Be very careful when refusing cheap grace for others, lest you find the price of grace for yourself to be too expensive.
The problem is that their press release gives the impression they intend to prosecute him for something but they don’t yet know for what and on what basis. Which is pretty much the opposite of ethical prosecution practice.
Be very careful when refusing cheap grace for others, lest you find the price of grace for yourself to be too expensive.
I don't always agree with Marvin, but I think he is saying Wise Words here.