Jump to content

'Prince' Andrew

carlafindle

By carlafindle
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Seabag Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > keano77 Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > There?s something dodgy about that photo

> that

> > I

> > > > can?t quite put my beetroot-stained paws on

> > >

> > >

> > > Maybe the hands around the waist of a 17 year

> > old,

> > > maybe?

> >

> > Yet legally that's not a problem even if you're

> a

> > teacher (as long as they aren't under your

> care)

> >

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/15/

>

> >

> tribunal-awards-700k-to-headteacher-sacked-over-ga

>

> > y-dating-app-activity

>

>

> His defence of ?I don?t recall that photo being

> taken? is breathtaking. He then goes on to say

> ?yes that is me? or something to that effect. And

> whether the girl is in his care or not, she?s 17

> years old.

>

> I also agree Maxwell is as deeply in it as him.


Someone tried to argue it was fake (I don't think so).


17 might be different in the states to the UK (TV seems to suggest that) - but it is alleged that is the tip of the iceberg and the consensual thing seems a question too.


I think weight of accusations makes a difference - Kevin Spacey is still technically innocent too.


https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/kevin-spacey-sexual-assault-case-death-accuser-massage-therapist-a9177121.html

cella

cella

Posted
Posted

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> cella Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > > fishbiscuits Wrote:

> > >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > Isn't the allegation essentially

> "non-consensual sex"?

>

> > No, so much more obviously

>

> What, specifically? That the Virginia Giuffre

> thing is just the tip of the iceberg, and that he

> was actually a part of a child sex ring?


So many things - dodgy dealings in his business relationships as a so called envoy. His purchase of a ?15m ski lodge a couple of years ago. Loads of people attest to his arrogance, sense of entitlement and racism. Completely removed from how most people have to live their lives. Giving a car crash to interview against the advice of most. Association with characters like Epstein, a convicted paedophile who procured under age girls for sexual favours to rich older men and maintaining contact after he left prison. Lying continuously. Bringing the Royal Family into disrepute. Etc etc Now that he's been stood down from royal "duties" are we still expected to pay him from the Civil List?

carlafindle

carlafindle

Posted
  • Author
Posted

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> fishbiscuits Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > cella Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > > fishbiscuits Wrote:

> > > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > > Isn't the allegation essentially

> > "non-consensual sex"?

> >

> > > No, so much more obviously

> >

> > What, specifically? That the Virginia Giuffre

> > thing is just the tip of the iceberg, and that

> he

> > was actually a part of a child sex ring?

>

> So many things - dodgy dealings in his business

> relationships as a so called envoy. His purchase

> of a ?15m ski lodge a couple of years ago. Loads

> of people attest to his arrogance, sense of

> entitlement and racism. Completely removed from

> how most people have to live their lives. Giving a

> car crash to interview against the advice of most.

> Association with characters like Epstein, a

> convicted paedophile who procured under age girls

> for sexual favours to rich older men and

> maintaining contact after he left prison. Lying

> continuously. Bringing the Royal Family into

> disrepute. Etc etc Now that he's been stood down

> from royal "duties" are we still expected to pay

> him from the Civil List?


I think he only gets money from the civil list re his protection officers etc... the Queen gives him ?250k a year pocket money?

mrwb

mrwb

Posted
Posted

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So a victory for the Guardian and Twitter...what's

> has he done?apart from be friends with a criminal?


Pretty much?


Justice in the 21st century is great, isn't it?


Who needs due process anyway?


I'm sure he's an idiot, is that a crime?


Not seeing a story myself. Maybe being used to distract from other things going on?

Jules-and-Boo

Jules-and-Boo

Posted
Posted

no, no news - just another public figure in a prominent position being shady - this one connected to a paedophile and their larger crime of trafficking children/ child prostitution - and in total denial - to the point of making up ludicrous alibis.


nothing to report no.


we would hope that anyone (let alone a member of the royal family) would do the right thing, at the right time.


the scandal is he didn't and is denying knowledge - being stupid is not an excuse.

Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted

I haven't followed the story closely, but as I understand it: Andrew was close friends with Epstein and spent a lot of time with him at his various properties / on his yacht, where young girls (we are told), were a bit of a fixture. Many of these girls were coerced / controlled by Epstein and at least one says she was paid to have sex with Andrew whilst she was still a teenager. Andrew defended Epstein despite clear evidence of his crimes.

Andrew's attempts to address questions about his own behaviour left a strong impression in the minds of many that he had things to hide. This is why some people don't necessarily want to be associated with Andrew.

Andrew has not been charged with anything, but he has been asked to retreat from the limelight as a result of all this. It seems pretty fair enough to me. He seems to be under less sustained pressure than Meghan Markle, whose main 'crime' seems to be the fact that she is mixed race and has the temerity to come from the US.

pk

pk

Posted
Posted

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I haven't followed the story closely, but as I

> understand it: Andrew was close friends with

> Epstein and spent a lot of time with him at his

> various properties / on his yacht, where young

> girls (we are told), were a bit of a fixture. Many

> of these girls were coerced / controlled by

> Epstein and at least one says she was paid to have

> sex with Andrew whilst she was still a teenager.

> Andrew defended Epstein despite clear evidence of

> his crimes.

> Andrew's attempts to address questions about his

> own behaviour left a strong impression in the

> minds of many that he had things to hide. This is

> why some people don't necessarily want to be

> associated with Andrew.

> Andrew has not been charged with anything, but he

> has been asked to retreat from the limelight as a

> result of all this. It seems pretty fair enough to

> me. He seems to be under less sustained pressure

> than Meghan Markle, whose main 'crime' seems to be

> the fact that she is mixed race and has the

> temerity to come from the US.


I agree with most of this

Seabag

Seabag

Posted
Posted

I think there more than ?just? the lies or the perception of them going on here. It?s the perception of him and his position, specially when there?s the question about the birthday party.


?Birthday party?! No no, no birthday party, just a shooting weekend!?


?A shooting weekend??


?Yes, a straight forward shooting weekend?


If ever there?s a small conversation pivot point that takes the viewer out of the picture, it?s this. Because I?m pretty sure 99.99% of the population don?t get to go on shooting weekends with members of the Royal family. The fact that he?s so disconnected from reality to put ?just a regular? in front of ?shooting weekend? is what slipped his boat of reality, away from most people?s mental mooring.


In doing so he lost the public, not just on this but on all of the rest. I?ve watched the interview a couple of times, and there?s bits in there that just numb my mind. I?m sat there thinking WTF, I?m going to have to watch this again, like a car crash in super slow motion.


And we know we?ve not likely heard the last of this. Should the US lawsuits leak into the U.K. , which is possible, then what?s next for this story. People will keep on digging when there?s stuff like this.


Rightly so? Maybe when someone has the balls to ?not remember? so much, others with the job of finding evidence will find a way to prompt that lack of memory.


For now it?s presumed innocence, and in all of this, any sympathy he might have had, has faded to little more than contempt in many people?s minds.

intexasatthe moment

intexasatthe moment

Posted
Posted

The photograph looks odd to me as well . Roberts's left hand isn't touching her body and P.A.and Roberts seem to be looking in different directions .


But neither P.A.or experts are going for the manipulated line ,so either there's a reason for this or I'm imagining things .

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...