Andrews fall from grace.
Comments
-
Mandelson just arrested !! I actually have hope in the justice system i bet alot of uk elites are very worried for a knock on thier doors as this runs deep
0 -
It certainly does - including other "royals" and ex-PM's (now deceased)
0 -
Released on bail!
0 -
Of course. He only had to 'no comment ' for multiple hours, but let's hope there are charges before too long.
1 -
Oh yes indeed just caught lammys speech saying how sorry they are pls thier sorry they got caught imagine being them they know mandelson will spill the beans on all involved
1 -
I've always thought Mandelson had something on an awful lot of MPs & high ups, as he's had dirty dealings before over the years & yet he pops up like a nasty smell in high positions. So, at last, the gravy train has stopped at the final station as far as he's concerned. Hopefully, as we'll never know what palms he's greased & there is a lot of slime around.
0 -
It is truly wonderful when women donโt feel powerless. However, calling it โa manโs worldโ is not a matter of opinion; it is a statement of fact, not only historically, but still today.
Of course, there are women who feel in control and powerful, and I love that for them. And there are men who feel powerless and without control, and my heart goes out to them.
But moving beyond individual feelings, it is factually accurate to say that this is a manโs world. Men still hold the majority of official titles and positions of power, socially, economically, and politically. Men continue to dictate, legislate, and make laws about womenโs reproductive rights and bodies. Equal pay still does not exist. Women are significantly more likely to experience sexual abuse and domestic violence.
There are countries where women face severe restrictions on clothing, education, employment, medical care, and even their freedom to appear in public, restrictions that the broader, male-dominated global system often ignores. There are still nations where women face extreme legal inequalities. There are no state-level legal systems anywhere that repress men in ways even remotely comparable.
I acknowledge that men, in general, face certain gender-based disadvantages, such as mandatory military conscription in some countries, higher incarceration rates (though also higher rates of committing crimes), and higher workplace fatalities. However, most of these disadvantages stem from patriarchal systems and could be changed by the men who hold power within them.
Returning to the individual level: not all men control or benefit from every system, and not all women feel repressed or controlled. But worldwide, and even within this country, men disproportionately hold institutional and policing authority. Men are, overall, less restricted and less likely to experience gender-based abuse.
So yes, it is a manโs world. To claim otherwise is to speak from a position of privilege and to ignore the direct suffering of women and girls around the world.
Two additional points Iโd like to add:
Class likely matters more than gender in many contexts. However, the class system itself is largely maintained by men in positions of power.
And although I acknowledge that it is indeed a manโs world, I do not, and will not, live as if that defines my limits. I refuse to be silenced or controlled, and I consciously choose to โnot get the memo.โ
8 -
I think we are talking at cross purposes. The thread is about Andrewโs fall from grace and the allegations of misconduct in public office. The comment I responded to was: โItโs a manโs world and the only people who disagree are men.โ
That was the specific claim I challenged. I was not commenting on global inequality, the wider history of patriarchy, or the very real restrictions women still face in some parts of the world.
My point is simply that many women would disagree with that statement because it does not reflect their lived experience. Women now run businesses, chair boardrooms, serve in the armed forces, work as police officers and firefighters, drive HGVs, fly commercial aircraft, and sit as MPs. They also lead major government departments, ย roles once considered the exclusive domain of men.
Many of the women currently sitting around the No.10 Cabinet table did not come from privilege either. Whatever one thinks of their politics, it is a matter of public record that several began with very little and built their careers from the ground up.
Your point about class is fair. Class still matters in Britain and, in some situations, it likely shapes outcomes more than gender.
Where I disagree is with the idea that the class system is โlargely maintained by men in positions of power.โ That does not reflect how power operates in modern Britain. Women hold senior roles across politics, the courts, business, and the civil service. If elements of the class system persist, they are sustained within institutions where both men and women exercise real authority.
None of this denies the broader structural issues you raise, but that was not the point under discussion. I was responding to a sweeping claim that only men would challenge the โmanโs worldโ framing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
When I left school in 1976, it genuinely was a manโs world. Women were routinely excluded from opportunities, and the barriers were obvious and entrenched. But this is 2026, not 1976. Women now exercise authority, shape institutions, and lead at the highest levels in ways that were simply not possible fifty years ago.
Power is no longer the preserve of men alone, and many women would not recognise their own lives or achievements in the description of modern Britain as a โmanโs world.โ On that point, we may simply have to agree to disagree.
3 -
Improvements have definitely been made; the world is very different from the one I grew up in. But we are still a long way from reaching equality, let alone moving beyond what is inarguably a manโs world.
Until we reach a time where men (and a 'world leader'!) donโt feel comfortable laughing and guffawing at the idea that gold medal-winning Olympians have to be invited to the White House alongside the male team, we are not equal. Until countries no longer repress womenโs rights to even be seen in public, we are not equal. Until world leaders are no longer complicit in the trafficking and abuse of women, we are not equal.
3 -
"That does not reflect how power operates in modern Britain. Women hold senior roles across politics, the courts, business, and the civil service. If elements of the class system persist, they are sustained within institutions where both men and women exercise real authority."
With an almost 50/50 split between men and women in Britain, fewer than 10% of FTSE 100 CEOs are women. There has definitely been huge progress in politics and the judiciary, particularly at lower levels, but the majority of positions of power are still held by men.
It does not impact my everyday life as much as it used to and I am very priviledged for that to be the case. I strongly disagree that because things are โmore equalโ in Britain than they once were, that it is no longer a manโs world. I feel it could not be further from the truth. As I previously said, that arguments feels like it comes from a place of privilege and ignores the very real victims of power, greed, and abuse, worldwide.
2 -
Thanks, @Emilee. I think we are approaching this from different angles, and that is fine. I do not disagree with the broader issues you have raised. I spent years volunteering in a women's refuge, so I am very aware of the systemic problems you are talking about. But that is a much larger and deeper conversation.
With respect, you keep widening this into global inequality, trafficking and repression in other countries. Those are serious issues, but they were not the point under debate. The specific claim I challenged was this: โIt is a man's world, and the only people who disagree are men.โ
That statement says the world belongs to men and that no woman would challenge that view. I and millions of women would challenge it, which means the claim collapses as soon as it is tested.
You say my argument comes from a place of privilege. I would gently push back on that. I have sat with women in a refuge who had nothing. Telling them โit is a man's worldโ did not empower them. It reinforced the idea that the world belonged to someone else and they were only surviving in it. That phrase does not challenge power, it gives in to it.
You mention the FTSE 100 and the small number of women CEOs. That is true, but most men are not in those boardrooms either. If we measure the world by who holds extreme wealth and influence, then it is not a man's world. It is a rich person's world. Treating it as only a gender issue lets the real power structures escape scrutiny.
This morning we watched Hannah Spencer, a plumber who has also just qualified as a plasterer, become the MP for Gorton and Denton. She clearly does not see herself as defined or limited by her gender. She did not accept that it was a man's world. She walked into rooms that were not built for her and made them hers.
It is not a man's world. It is the world. And it belongs to whoever has the courage to claim their place in it.
1 -
This is a man's world and almost all who disagree are men.
Thank you Emilee ๐ค
1 -
I felt sympathy for Beatrice and Eugenie for what their dad has either done, or not done, especially when he was arrested. They've now been banned from attending Ascot and the Royal Family are not to be photographed with them this year (but I definitely understand there's far more important things going on in the world than whether one can go to Ascot or not ๐๐ซ ๐).
I read they've both been asked to allow scrutiny of their personal investments which they've, allegedly, refused to allow. Considering AMW and his advisers were advising them on their investments as well as there own links to Epstein, I think they're very short-sighted to not allow scrutiny and I have no sympathy until they do. I suspect that at some point, a lot more scrutiny and transparency of the royal family's fiances etc generally, will become the norm, as it should be in my humble opinion.
0 -
Years ago it was a man's world, theres no doubt about that. But in todays society that is far from the truth and hinders any opportunity for improvement, everyone has opportunities in this life regardless of gender. Instead of telling other women "its a man's world" (Which only limits their thinking to they can never achieve anything) we should all be encouraging women to believe its anyones world, so everyone can reach their potential.
Theres good and bad in everyone, sex, race, religion etc doesn't make that person bad, is it the sole persons actions that define them.
This kinda reinforces my point with this forum at the moment, even this simple conversation talking about Andrew has turned into a sexist attack on all men.
2 -
There are many parts of the world where it absolutely is a man's world, where woman are treated as chattel.
1 -
IT STILL IS A MAN'S WORLD!
We (women) can't fix the problem and YOU can't fix the problem if you don't believe there is one!
2 -
This conversation about Andrew cannot be framed as simple or irrelevant to women's rights, it is directly connected and serves as both a wonderful (and horrendous) example of the issues women face today.
It is not sexist to acknowledge that women are still oppressed. It is not an "attack on all men" to point out that, globally, women continue to face vast and dangerous inequalities. This is not inaccurate, nor is it a matter of opinion.
I believe this is the most firm stance I have ever taken on this forum, because itโs a topic I feel strongly about.
Empowering women doesnโt come from pretending the problem doesnโt exist. Ignoring the issue only perpetuates the status quo.
4 -
You are probably right and the daughters should be left alone with their lives and personal finances !
It's not their fault that their father did what he didโฆand if they were involved in any way - it's because of their father.
0 -
I wonder if their refusal is due to uncertainty about what might be revealed. Perhaps they've taken advice from AMW and his advisers and are now worried that their investments and connections will come to light, with their only real fault being naivety and ignorance (equally they could have been fully aware and fully complicit too!). I agree that itโs short-sighted not to allow scrutiny, and there should be more transparency regarding the finances of the Royal Family (and government).
2 -
Mmm, good points, I hope for their sake they do allow the scrutiny even though that could also be opening a massive can of worms. I would have sympathy if they really didn't know any of the investments were from dubious sources, if indeed they are. I think it will all 'come out in the wash', as they say, at some point. They're the only two who can 'prove' it's all legitimate; their decision not to only raises suspicion and maybe leads to this 'separation' they're facing from the family. Quite sad really.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.8K Start here and say hello!
- 7.5K Coffee lounge
- 105 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 158 Announcements and information
- 25.2K Talk about life
- 6.2K Everyday life
- 508 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 873 Education and skills
- 2K Work
- 579 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 642 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 878 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 939 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.8K Talk about your benefits
- 6.1K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.3K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.1K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.3K Benefits and income