The Royals
Comments
-
Am I a royal?john80 said:
A page back you thought the queen was in on it and should answer questions. Should I be allowed to ask you relatives whatever I like about you life and cast aspersions in the media along the way. Seems reasonable.rick_chasey said:Given 2 of the 4 accused have so far been found guilty for running a paedo ring, I’d at least like a proper investigation.
It would also do wonders to show that they, the royals, in their privileged position (which is not deserved - they have not earned it) are not above being fairly investigated.
Different rules for royals.
The point, in case it’s not obvious, is there is a whiff of Andrew not being taken to task because of who is mother is.
That’s why it’s relevant and why it’s not relevant for me, as the only thing my mother’s status would do is make it quicker to have me banished from the country with no notice thanks to Patel, that’s it.
Now if he’s innocent then welcome the investigation.
The royals live their lives in a different way and the queen ought to address the issue. They’re public figures. I am not.0 -
If you can't realise that when you treat some to different rules then you have a problem. So by all means if you have evidence that Cannae sweat man is not being investigating due to his status then please lay it out. If not don't try to hold others to interrogations you would find unacceptable.rick_chasey said:
Am I a royal?john80 said:
A page back you thought the queen was in on it and should answer questions. Should I be allowed to ask you relatives whatever I like about you life and cast aspersions in the media along the way. Seems reasonable.rick_chasey said:Given 2 of the 4 accused have so far been found guilty for running a paedo ring, I’d at least like a proper investigation.
It would also do wonders to show that they, the royals, in their privileged position (which is not deserved - they have not earned it) are not above being fairly investigated.
Different rules for royals.
The point, in case it’s not obvious, is there is a whiff of Andrew not being taken to task because of who is mother is.
That’s why it’s relevant and why it’s not relevant for me, as the only thing my mother’s status would do is make it quicker to have me banished from the country with no notice thanks to Patel, that’s it.
Now if he’s innocent then welcome the investigation.
The royals live their lives in a different way and the queen ought to address the issue. They’re public figures. I am not.
The problem in this case as I understand it is that those he is alleged to have interactions with were over 18 which makes them adults. This puts any interaction into the suspected rape category as they are adults. As you and many others know this is a much harder case to prove in a she said he said case. As I am not a royalist then I don't seek to protect the sweater however I am wary of shifting the bounds of what is definitely morally contemptable into that of the criminal sphere.0 -
Whether he knew she was trafficked or not is one thing but it seems fairly certain he had sex with her and probably other girls Epstein had trapped - and it stretches credibility to think Andrew didn't lie through his teeth in his BBC interview.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I don't doubt he had sex with her but given she had done this multiple times with Epstein associates the question remains was it consensual from his perspective. Andrew has likely lied but does it pass the bar for getting him on the stand I don't know. It is a dangerous game to assume that he knew the extents of which Epstein had subjected this woman to years of abuse that they knew the full extents at this point. Watching the documentary series on netflixs is eye opening.DeVlaeminck said:Whether he knew she was trafficked or not is one thing but it seems fairly certain he had sex with her and probably other girls Epstein had trapped - and it stretches credibility to think Andrew didn't lie through his teeth in his BBC interview.
0 -
I don't think that's how it worksjohn80 said:< the question remains was it consensual from his perspective
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Lol.
No one
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
john80 said:
I don't doubt he had sex with her but given she had done this multiple times with Epstein associates the question remains was it consensual from his perspective. Andrew has likely lied but does it pass the bar for getting him on the stand I don't know. It is a dangerous game to assume that he knew the extents of which Epstein had subjected this woman to years of abuse that they knew the full extents at this point. Watching the documentary series on netflixs is eye opening.DeVlaeminck said:Whether he knew she was trafficked or not is one thing but it seems fairly certain he had sex with her and probably other girls Epstein had trapped - and it stretches credibility to think Andrew didn't lie through his teeth in his BBC interview.
Wouldn’t mind watching this documentary. What’s it called?Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
I think it is called Epstein. It is a five part series on Netflix.Ben6899 said:john80 said:
I don't doubt he had sex with her but given she had done this multiple times with Epstein associates the question remains was it consensual from his perspective. Andrew has likely lied but does it pass the bar for getting him on the stand I don't know. It is a dangerous game to assume that he knew the extents of which Epstein had subjected this woman to years of abuse that they knew the full extents at this point. Watching the documentary series on netflixs is eye opening.DeVlaeminck said:Whether he knew she was trafficked or not is one thing but it seems fairly certain he had sex with her and probably other girls Epstein had trapped - and it stretches credibility to think Andrew didn't lie through his teeth in his BBC interview.
Wouldn’t mind watching this documentary. What’s it called?1 -
Thanks John.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
tailwindhome said:
Didn’t he say he was there with one of his daughters? A birthday party or something similar? If so, does this mean his own daughter won’t vouch for him?0 -
Pretty sure someone would come forward saying they saw him there - if you work at Woking Pizza Express you aren't going to forget Prince Andrew visiting are you. It'll probably be on someone's social media from that day - young people put anything like that on social media.kingstonian said:tailwindhome said:
Didn’t he say he was there with one of his daughters? A birthday party or something similar? If so, does this mean his own daughter won’t vouch for him?
Or he will have a bank statement showing he bought a pizza. Either way he'll be able to prove it - if it happened.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
It was 20 years ago so no smartphones and no social mediaDeVlaeminck said:
Pretty sure someone would come forward saying they saw him there - if you work at Woking Pizza Express you aren't going to forget Prince Andrew visiting are you. It'll probably be on someone's social media from that day - young people put anything like that on social media.kingstonian said:tailwindhome said:
Didn’t he say he was there with one of his daughters? A birthday party or something similar? If so, does this mean his own daughter won’t vouch for him?
Or he will have a bank statement showing he bought a pizza. Either way he'll be able to prove it - if it happened.0 -
MSN. But Nokia 1110.surrey_commuter said:
It was 20 years ago so no smartphones and no social mediaDeVlaeminck said:
Pretty sure someone would come forward saying they saw him there - if you work at Woking Pizza Express you aren't going to forget Prince Andrew visiting are you. It'll probably be on someone's social media from that day - young people put anything like that on social media.kingstonian said:tailwindhome said:
Didn’t he say he was there with one of his daughters? A birthday party or something similar? If so, does this mean his own daughter won’t vouch for him?
Or he will have a bank statement showing he bought a pizza. Either way he'll be able to prove it - if it happened.0 -
True - but someone would remember you'd think - Prince Andrew said himself popping in to Pizza Express was not a common occurrence.surrey_commuter said:
It was 20 years ago so no smartphones and no social mediaDeVlaeminck said:
Pretty sure someone would come forward saying they saw him there - if you work at Woking Pizza Express you aren't going to forget Prince Andrew visiting are you. It'll probably be on someone's social media from that day - young people put anything like that on social media.kingstonian said:tailwindhome said:
Didn’t he say he was there with one of his daughters? A birthday party or something similar? If so, does this mean his own daughter won’t vouch for him?
Or he will have a bank statement showing he bought a pizza. Either way he'll be able to prove it - if it happened.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Plus I’m sure his security detail would record his whereabouts, so those records would likely be available.
But there’s no records, and no witnesses, cos he wasn’t there.0 -
It is a special kind of stupid that goes on TV with an alibi they cannot support.0
-
How long would any such records be kept?kingstonian said:Plus I’m sure his security detail would record his whereabouts, so those records would likely be available.
But there’s no records, and no witnesses, cos he wasn’t there.
The no witnesses bit is the hook, not any lack of records.0 -
Long to reign over usjohn80 said:It is a special kind of stupid that goes on TV with an alibi they cannot support.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
I didn't think the London incident was part of the claim due to the differences in ages of consent. If that is true, Prince Andrew doesn't need to put forward witnesses for pizza express, in which case, I'd guess it's a reminder of how much more pain will come from the case.0
-
Age of consent is irrelevant if the charge is abuse tho’.0
-
Well, it's either part of the case or not. I thought it wasn't, but I could be wrong.secretsqirrel said:Age of consent is irrelevant if the charge is abuse tho’.
0 -
AFAIK, this'll be why the case has to held in the U.S.A. and not the U.K.TheBigBean said:
Well, it's either part of the case or not. I thought it wasn't, but I could be wrong.secretsqirrel said:Age of consent is irrelevant if the charge is abuse tho’.
They have to decide what the case will be. Abuse, rape, or statutory rape.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.0 -
Surely the age of consent in the country the incident is alleged to have happened is the only thing that counts in the case of statutory rape?pblakeney said:
AFAIK, this'll be why the case has to held in the U.S.A. and not the U.K.TheBigBean said:
Well, it's either part of the case or not. I thought it wasn't, but I could be wrong.secretsqirrel said:Age of consent is irrelevant if the charge is abuse tho’.
They have to decide what the case will be. Abuse, rape, or statutory rape.0 -
It is what I would call a “fvck you lie” ie it is transparently untrue but you don’t care because you are who you are.DeVlaeminck said:
True - but someone would remember you'd think - Prince Andrew said himself popping in to Pizza Express was not a common occurrence.surrey_commuter said:
It was 20 years ago so no smartphones and no social mediaDeVlaeminck said:
Pretty sure someone would come forward saying they saw him there - if you work at Woking Pizza Express you aren't going to forget Prince Andrew visiting are you. It'll probably be on someone's social media from that day - young people put anything like that on social media.kingstonian said:tailwindhome said:
Didn’t he say he was there with one of his daughters? A birthday party or something similar? If so, does this mean his own daughter won’t vouch for him?
Or he will have a bank statement showing he bought a pizza. Either way he'll be able to prove it - if it happened.
FWIW I would not expect any organisation to keep detailed records more than 20 years ago0 -
The whole thing is muddy. The events happened in London where there was no offence unless it was rape. No rape charges have been filed. Abuse will be hard to prove without rape I would have thought.Pross said:
Surely the age of consent in the country the incident is alleged to have happened is the only thing that counts in the case of statutory rape?pblakeney said:
AFAIK, this'll be why the case has to held in the U.S.A. and not the U.K.TheBigBean said:
Well, it's either part of the case or not. I thought it wasn't, but I could be wrong.secretsqirrel said:Age of consent is irrelevant if the charge is abuse tho’.
They have to decide what the case will be. Abuse, rape, or statutory rape.
The court case is in the U.S.A. where laws are different but can't be applied abroad. Surely?
Further, neither party currently live in the U.S.A. which is a requirement to take it to court.
Confused? You will be after this episode of Soap.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.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
FWIW I would not expect any organisation to keep detailed records more than 20 years agoDeVlaeminck said:
True - but someone would remember you'd think - Prince Andrew said himself popping in to Pizza Express was not a common occurrence.surrey_commuter said:
It was 20 years ago so no smartphones and no social mediaDeVlaeminck said:
Pretty sure someone would come forward saying they saw him there - if you work at Woking Pizza Express you aren't going to forget Prince Andrew visiting are you. It'll probably be on someone's social media from that day - young people put anything like that on social media.kingstonian said:tailwindhome said:
Didn’t he say he was there with one of his daughters? A birthday party or something similar? If so, does this mean his own daughter won’t vouch for him?
Or he will have a bank statement showing he bought a pizza. Either way he'll be able to prove it - if it happened.
That’s fair. But when it comes to witnesses, surely he’d be able to call his security detail that had been on duty at the time as they’d remember something as out of place as him going to Pizza Express.
All this is hypothetical anyway.0 -
Will be interesting to see if the case is dismissed today.0
-
Not today, that court decision due Tuesday.
V odd way of 'protecting' one's reputation as a fine upstanding bastion of traditional Britush valyous. What woman? Never heard of her, never met her, never touched.... bzzzt well known photo. Oh, let me rely on my paedo pal's NDA instead. Nothing to see here.0 -
I’ve only read snippets on the BBC website, but keen to understand where the case now lies seeing that the accuser has apparently signed a “don’t pursue” agreement and taken a $500K payment for the privilege. Sadly I think Andy’s lawyers might have a decent chance of getting the case thrown out.
For Andy the damage to his reputation is done - regardless of whether the case continues or not.0
