Forum home› Road cycling forum› The cake stop

Prince Andrew, the pedo and corroborated allegations

slowmartslowmart Posts: 4,238
edited December 2019 in The cake stop
And Prince Andrew still hasn’t been spoken to by the police and nor has Ms Maxwell regarding their relationship and allegations from numerous individuals

Makes you proud of our justice system eh.
“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”

Desmond Tutu
«13

Posts

  • ddraverddraver Posts: 24,809

    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 16,735
    My mother lived in a village where the locals were convinced they had a wrong’un in their midst. I was surprised she was not joining the lynchmob but she explained that she did not want to appear in the local rag with an incorrect spelling on her banner.
  • john80john80 Posts: 2,965
    I think the procedure is that a victim has to report a crime before they do something about it unless that is you are suggesting that they were in the room at the time and failed to stop it. I kind of like a justice system that does not just wander round arresting people on the basis of media interviews.
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,991
    john80 said:

    I think the procedure is that a victim has to report a crime before they do something about it unless that is you are suggesting that they were in the room at the time and failed to stop it. I kind of like a justice system that does not just wander round arresting people on the basis of media interviews.

    Does it have to be the victim or just anyone who has evidence of a crime?
  • surfercyclistsurfercyclist Posts: 893
    I guess only the girl and Andrew know the truth for sure but it looks rather iffy. He's a leech on society and a disgrace to the monarchy.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 20,716
    She’s saying he did it. He’s saying he didn’t.
    Where do you go from there without further evidence?
    “He looks dodgy.” is not enough.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,991
    pblakeney said:

    She’s saying he did it. He’s saying he didn’t.
    Where do you go from there without further evidence?
    “He looks dodgy.” is not enough.

    Probably some sort of police investigation

    No idea how they actually prosecute historic sex crimes though
  • amrushtonamrushton Posts: 1,182
    edited December 2019
    Is it not a case under US law? In which case he would have to speak to the US authorities. However unless he sets foot on US soil that is unlikely to happen. He also will have some kind of diplomatic immunity and has he broken the (US) law? Doubt the Met have the inclination to pursue this unless something happened in the UK that was against UK law and even then I suspect the Home Office will not be pressing too hard. What Ghislaine Maxwell has to say (if questioned) may change the situation but I wont hold my breath
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,991
    I thought I heard the UK police said most of the alleged crimes happened elsewhere so they aren't looking into it.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 20,716
    haydenm said:

    pblakeney said:

    She’s saying he did it. He’s saying he didn’t.
    Where do you go from there without further evidence?
    “He looks dodgy.” is not enough.

    Probably some sort of police investigation

    No idea how they actually prosecute historic sex crimes though
    Unfortunately they would need hard evidence to proceed further as it is one word against another.
    I am not defending anything, just saying that it is hard to prosecute.
    Damage had been done though.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • fenixfenix Posts: 5,437
    Spelling !
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,498
    pblakeney said:

    She’s saying he did it. He’s saying he didn’t.
    Where do you go from there without further evidence?
    “He looks dodgy.” is not enough.

    Age of consent in the UK is 16 - so even if they did - she was 17 and would have had to say she didn't consent? Or they'd have to prove that PA knew that she wasn't a willing participant.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 50,980
    haydenm said:

    I thought I heard the UK police said most of the alleged crimes happened elsewhere so they aren't looking into it.

    I guess the OP can go back to moaning about Trump now?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 63,561 Lives Here
    pblakeney said:

    She’s saying he did it. He’s saying he didn’t.
    Where do you go from there without further evidence?
    “He looks dodgy.” is not enough.

    There are a lot of third party witnessed describing him getting various services from women who were in various stages of being traficked by Epstein, a convicted sex offender, whose house he was staying in.

    So it is plenty more than a he said she said.
    _
  • david7mdavid7m Posts: 636
    It will be covered up because of who he is, we'll probably never know the truth! He's not going to jail, that's for sure.

    What annoys me though, is why it takes so long for these stories to come out?
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 20,716
    edited December 2019
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    She’s saying he did it. He’s saying he didn’t.
    Where do you go from there without further evidence?
    “He looks dodgy.” is not enough.

    There are a lot of third party witnessed describing him getting various services from women who were in various stages of being traficked by Epstein, a convicted sex offender, whose house he was staying in.

    So it is plenty more than a he said she said.
    That’ll be the further evidence then.
    Has a formal complaint been made for charges to be pressed?
    My main concern is that trial by media is a worrying precedent.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 63,561 Lives Here
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    She’s saying he did it. He’s saying he didn’t.
    Where do you go from there without further evidence?
    “He looks dodgy.” is not enough.

    There are a lot of third party witnessed describing him getting various services from women who were in various stages of being traficked by Epstein, a convicted sex offender, whose house he was staying in.

    So it is plenty more than a he said she said.
    That’ll be the further evidence then.
    Has a formal complaint been made for charges to be pressed?
    My main concern is that trial by media is a worrying precedent.
    The question the media so far has been asking, and it's fairly obvious, is what was a prince, who gets money from the state for being the price, doing being best mates with a convicted sex offender, and staying at his house when he has a royal house 2 streets down whilst a lot of offences were occurring?

    It gets to the heart of the issue of royals. WTF are they actually for.
    _
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 940
    rick_chasey said:

    It gets to the heart of the issue of royals. WTF are they actually for.

    We make money from them.

    The rest of your post seems to suggest that somehow minor Royals are not allowed friends, sleepovers or to make errors in judgement? We don't know if he's guilty even though he's been tried by the Media already. I certainly think he has some very serious questions to answer, but let's make them the right ones rather than prejudiced anti-royalist ones that aren't pertinent to the case (if there ever is one).

    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 63,561 Lives Here
    You'd make the same amount of money without them.

    I'd like to know why a representative of the British state is happy to stay at a convicted nonce's house, and why you think that is excusable as an 'error of judgement'.

    The man literally has entire teams who are there to advice him against those stupid judgements, and he did it anyway.
    _
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 8,134
    The trouble is many don't have confidence that our police and justice system would pursue this thoroughly because of who he is.

    There's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest it's very likely he was having sex with teenage girls at Epstein's properties. Given what we know about Epstein it's a reasonable assumption to make that these girls had been coerced in some way into doing so. What we don't know perhaps with certainty is how much Prince Andrew knew of the girls' situation but even that, well, it's hard to believe someone wouldn't have had a word with Prince Andrew and asked him if he realised what was going on. I'm sure our intelligence services have a role in keeping tabs on what royalty are up to and Andrew is hardly a minor member of the family he was second in line to the throne for quite a time.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 940
    rick_chasey said:

    You'd make the same amount of money without them.

    I'd like to know why a representative of the British state is happy to stay at a convicted nonce's house, and why you think that is excusable as an 'error of judgement'.

    The man literally has entire teams who are there to advice him against those stupid judgements, and he did it anyway.

    OK, when I said "we" I mean the country, not me personally. We've been through this before - we make a profit out of the Royals.

    Who said it was excusable? Your biases are showing through and you've convicted the guy long before the court does.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • tangled_metaltangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    haydenm said:

    pblakeney said:

    She’s saying he did it. He’s saying he didn’t.
    Where do you go from there without further evidence?
    “He looks dodgy.” is not enough.

    Probably some sort of police investigation

    No idea how they actually prosecute historic sex crimes though
    If a member of the establishment they wait for a made up allegation that could be relatively easily ruled out and then run with it for a few years. Leaking information to the red tops to sensationalise things in order to gain public approbrium for the innocent figures who were wrongly accused.

    I wonder if something like this is happening with this royal? There's been posts basically saying he looks guilty.

    I guess people want someone to punish and the main man killed himself so let's look at anyone who has associated with him. This increasingly becoming more minor royal is perfect candidate. But how many others associated with him? I heard an interview where one of Tony Blair's spin doctors had a private dinner with the guy possibly in that NY property. How many other great and powerful around the world have associated with him? Did Blair, Clinton, W Bush, Obama, Trump? I don't really know if they did I just picked prominent names out of the hat.

    Why aren't they giving dodgy interviews to try and save their reputation? I believe at least 2 on that list had associations with the guy over a few years.
  • arthur_scrimshawarthur_scrimshaw Posts: 2,596


    OK, when I said "we" I mean the country, not me personally. We've been through this before - we make a profit out of the Royals.

    Who said it was excusable? Your biases are showing through and you've convicted the guy long before the court does.

    It's a bit like the trickle down effect, lots of people say it happens but seem unable to quantify it?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 63,561 Lives Here
    edited December 2019
    Longshot said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You'd make the same amount of money without them.

    I'd like to know why a representative of the British state is happy to stay at a convicted nonce's house, and why you think that is excusable as an 'error of judgement'.

    The man literally has entire teams who are there to advice him against those stupid judgements, and he did it anyway.

    OK, when I said "we" I mean the country, not me personally. We've been through this before - we make a profit out of the Royals.

    Who said it was excusable? Your biases are showing through and you've convicted the guy long before the court does.
    What have I convicted him of? Being a prince and being mates with and staying over with a convicted nonce?

    Come on.

    That's not biased. That's fact. He has literally done this and went on TV to say so.

    And I didn't mean you personally. If the royals disappeared tomorrow people will still rock up in their thousands to see their premises.

    He's a representative of the state and he ought to behave like one. He gets paid for it. If he's not doing his job properly he ought to lose his job like everyone else.

    Ultimately I'm unconvinced that he is getting the same treatment say, as someone you'd more likely see on on Jeremy Kyle would received either by the public or by the rozzers, and that rankles.
    _
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 63,561 Lives Here
    In case it wasn't prominant in Prince Andrew's memory that Epestein spent time in prison for his offences, he had a mural depicting “a photorealistic prison scene that included barbed wire, corrections officers and a guard station, with Mr. Epstein portrayed in the middle.” on the second floor, where the photo of Andrew with that girl was taken.
    _
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 20,716
    rick_chasey said:


    What have I convicted him of? Being a prince and being mates with and staying over with a convicted nonce?

    Come on.

    That's not biased. That's fact. He has literally done this and went on TV to say so.

    The trouble that none of that is actually illegal.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 63,561 Lives Here
    edited December 2019
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:


    What have I convicted him of? Being a prince and being mates with and staying over with a convicted nonce?

    Come on.

    That's not biased. That's fact. He has literally done this and went on TV to say so.

    The trouble that none of that is actually illegal.
    Who's saying it is?

    Christ. What I am saying is, as a prince he represents the state and with his literal privilege comes responsibility, and so he is being rightfully getting pressed on why he was doing it and what that says about his judgement.
    _
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 10,588
    His long-standing sobriquet 'Randy Andy' sort of points in one direction.
  • slowmartslowmart Posts: 4,238
    Can anyone draw correlations to Jimmy Saville, too well connected and highly thought of at the time to be actually guilty of any illegality or questionable conduct?

    Andrew comes across as thick as sh1te enveloped in self entitlement which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, which is not a crime, but seriously, no police enquiry into trafficking minors, a charge his mate was guilty of and what was witnessed by Andrew.

    Andrew states he does the honourable thing, unfortunately this it seems doesn’t extend to testifying in any civil case being bought by the victims against Epstein’s estate.
    “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”

    Desmond Tutu
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 20,716
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:


    What have I convicted him of? Being a prince and being mates with and staying over with a convicted nonce?

    Come on.

    That's not biased. That's fact. He has literally done this and went on TV to say so.

    The trouble that none of that is actually illegal.
    Who's saying it is?

    Christ. What I am saying is, as a prince he represents the state and with his literal privilege comes responsibility, and so he is being rightfully getting pressed on why he was doing it and what that says about his judgement.
    Sorry, but until there is evidence produced in court to illegal proceedings then I don't give two flying figs.
    Once there is, bring down the full force of the court.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
Sign In or Register to comment.