The Royals

1…2930323435…54

Comments

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    kingstonian said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    kingstonian said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Lol.

    No one


    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?
    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.

    Or he will have a bank statement showing he bought a pizza. Either way he'll be able to prove it - if it happened.
    It was 20 years ago so no smartphones and no social media
    True - but someone would remember you'd think - Prince Andrew said himself popping in to Pizza Express was not a common occurrence.

    FWIW I would not expect any organisation to keep detailed records more than 20 years ago

    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.
    That bloke is dead.

    Rather amusingly neither his daughter or her friends mother (hosting the party) can remember him being there.
  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstonian said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    kingstonian said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Lol.

    No one


    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?
    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.

    Or he will have a bank statement showing he bought a pizza. Either way he'll be able to prove it - if it happened.
    It was 20 years ago so no smartphones and no social media
    True - but someone would remember you'd think - Prince Andrew said himself popping in to Pizza Express was not a common occurrence.

    FWIW I would not expect any organisation to keep detailed records more than 20 years ago

    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.
    That bloke is dead.

    Rather amusingly neither his daughter or her friends mother (hosting the party) can remember him being there.

    Who is dead? Presume you mean the copper that was providing him personal security at the time.

    I’m really not surprised there is no one jumping to his defence. He’s been such a self-important prick throughout his life, and that behaviour hardly ingratiated him to those he came into contact with, so why would they put themselves out to support him in his time of need?
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,196

  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    Judge kicked out Andew's 'my paedo mate already paid you off' argument and the civil cases proceeds
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,031
    tailwindhome said:

    Judge kicked out Andew's 'my paedo mate already paid you off' argument and the civil cases proceeds

    Bit surprised but glad he's going to have to face a court of some sort.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,641
    DeVlaeminck said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Judge kicked out Andew's 'my paedo mate already paid you off' argument and the civil cases proceeds

    Bit surprised but glad he's going to have to face a court of some sort.
    It's civil so entirely likely he'll use his royal millions to settle out of court.

    Good use of his mum's money, right?
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,525
    tailwindhome said:

    Judge kicked out Andew's 'my paedo mate already paid you off' argument and the civil cases proceeds

    Not completely. Said it was unclear and a jury can decide on whether Prince Andrew was included in the previous agreement.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,660
    edited January 2022
    My my ..

    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    tailwindhome said:

    Judge kicked out Andew's 'my paedo mate already paid you off' argument and the civil cases proceeds

    was a ballsy move to say that Epstein got immunity for all his noncing mates and that obviously includes me
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    are we assuming the absence of ski trips is due to not knowing what warrants may be out for his arrest and playing it safe on what countries would let him be grabbed by the long arm of the US law
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,153
    I still don't get why he didn't just go with "I obviously met her as I had a photo taken with her but don't remember meeting her and certainly didn't sleep with her" as a response and if asked where he was on any alleged dates just say "I don't know, it was years ago. I can check diaries to see if I have anything noted and it was my daughter's birthday so may have taken her out somewhere".

    Would have been hard for anyone to prov anything and would have been far more plausible than the interview and ridiculous responses he did give.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,525
    surrey_commuter said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Judge kicked out Andew's 'my paedo mate already paid you off' argument and the civil cases proceeds

    was a ballsy move to say that Epstein got immunity for all his noncing mates and that obviously includes me
    It was a reasonable move, but the judge said the agreement was poorly drafted. This can be appealed or decided on by a jury.
  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    Pross said:

    I still don't get why he didn't just go with "I obviously met her as I had a photo taken with her but don't remember meeting her and certainly didn't sleep with her" as a response and if asked where he was on any alleged dates just say "I don't know, it was years ago. I can check diaries to see if I have anything noted and it was my daughter's birthday so may have taken her out somewhere".

    Would have been hard for anyone to prov anything and would have been far more plausible than the interview and ridiculous responses he did give.


    Yes, agreed.

    For his own sake he really needs to avoid being interviewed by a tenacious US lawyer, because he’s already proved that even a fairly gentle interview With a tv journo he can’t handle.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,153
    He'll have the benefit of not breaking into a sweat under pressure so will look less guilty though.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,525
    tailwindhome said:

    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really

    Is it standard to interview all the mums of the accused?
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    TheBigBean said:

    tailwindhome said:

    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really

    Is it standard to interview all the mums of the accused?
    No, but it's standard to ask the Head of State about the illegal activities of their family.



    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,525
    tailwindhome said:

    TheBigBean said:

    tailwindhome said:

    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really

    Is it standard to interview all the mums of the accused?
    No, but it's standard to ask the Head of State about the illegal activities of their family.



    Even if it was a criminal matter as opposed to civil, I don't think it is. It's the sort of thing Trump did to Biden.
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,387
    tailwindhome said:

    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really

    When was the last time the Queen did an interview with a journalist?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    tailwindhome said:

    TheBigBean said:

    tailwindhome said:

    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really

    Is it standard to interview all the mums of the accused?
    No, but it's standard to ask the Head of State about the illegal activities of their family.



    Simply curious. When was the last time?
    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.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    I was gonna say WWII perhaps when a member of the royals was a Nazi sympthiser.
  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    tailwindhome said:

    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really


    I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

    From my perspective, I can’t see why the mother of a guy in his 60’s who is accused of a crime should be asked about it if she has no direct knowledge or evidence of the case.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Pross said:

    I still don't get why he didn't just go with "I obviously met her as I had a photo taken with her but don't remember meeting her and certainly didn't sleep with her" as a response and if asked where he was on any alleged dates just say "I don't know, it was years ago. I can check diaries to see if I have anything noted and it was my daughter's birthday so may have taken her out somewhere".

    Would have been hard for anyone to prov anything and would have been far more plausible than the interview and ridiculous responses he did give.

    To understand his answers you have to think about his upbringing. How many people have told him he is talking nonsense to his face to temper his behaviour over his lifetime.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,196

  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    edited January 2022
    kingstonian said:

    tailwindhome said:

    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really


    I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

    From my perspective, I can’t see why the mother of a guy in his 60’s who is accused of a crime should be asked about it if she has no direct knowledge or evidence of the case.
    Even if she's head of state, he's in a line of succession for that role, he's on a list of 4 who can act in her place, and its in her gift to bestow (or remove) a range of titles and patronage upon him?

    And no one can ask her about it.

    A statement is issued, that's your lot.

    If it was the middle east, the former Soviet Union, an African country or France it would be the object of ridicule.

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    tailwindhome said:

    kingstonian said:

    tailwindhome said:

    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really


    I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

    From my perspective, I can’t see why the mother of a guy in his 60’s who is accused of a crime should be asked about it if she has no direct knowledge or evidence of the case.
    Even if she's head of state, he's in a line of succession for that role..

    Is he?
    Surely after Charlie there is William, then his children. A lot of unfortunate events would have to happen for Andrew to come off the subs bench.
    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.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    pblakeney said:

    tailwindhome said:

    kingstonian said:

    tailwindhome said:

    We live in a country in which a journalist asking the Head of State about her son's sex abuse case would never work again.

    Absurd really


    I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

    From my perspective, I can’t see why the mother of a guy in his 60’s who is accused of a crime should be asked about it if she has no direct knowledge or evidence of the case.
    Even if she's head of state, he's in a line of succession for that role..

    Is he?
    Surely after Charlie there is William, then his children. A lot of unfortunate events would have to happen for Andrew to come off the subs bench.
    He's in that line nonetheless

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    edited January 2022
    He could be acquitted nonetheless.
    It's that likely. I'd suggest even more so.
    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.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    pblakeney said:

    He could be acquitted nonetheless.
    It's that likely. I'd suggest even more so.

    William flies his family backwards and fords to Norfolk so that could improve his chances dramatically
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    edited January 2022
    surrey_commuter said:

    pblakeney said:

    He could be acquitted nonetheless.
    It's that likely. I'd suggest even more so.

    William flies his family backwards and fords to Norfolk so that could improve his chances dramatically
    That will stop once Charlie pegs it.
    Protocols.
    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.

Categories