The Royals

1…3233353738…54

Comments

  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,031
    Well he's not paid out what he's rumoured to have paid out because she has no evidence.

    It's a fair assumption that he knows there's worse to come out than we already know - so worse than him having sex with a trafficked teenage girl.

    The idea that he is some rogue member of an otherwise upstanding family is what makes me laugh - that lot would fill a whole season of Jeremy Kyle. The association with Savile, the Diana murder, Charles marrying whilst carrying on a longstanding affair with a married woman, the illegitimate ginger haired son, the feuding brothers etc etc. None of it is any more far fetched than if 30 years ago you were told Andrew was for many years part of a high profile sex trafficking ring.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

    You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

    After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.


    You really can't grasp why it is important to produce the original picture so that it can be shown to be undoctored or that it has been manipulated?

    If someone mocked up a pic of a short chap in cycle gear having sex with a shetland pony in Cambridge and then took a photo of it, you'd want the original faked image entered as evidence so that you could show it to be mocked up wouldn't you?
    Sorry, on what basis are you saying it's doctored?
    I am not saying it is doctored. At present the only people who know are the people depicted and the person who allegedly took the original photograph.
    That is the point. For it to carry any evidential value it has to be shown to be undoctored.

    A photo of a photo doesn't carry evidential weight.
    So you don't think it's doctored?

    You spend a lot of time hiding your opinions behind technicalities or theoretical arguments.

    Do you think, on balance, he's a nonce?

    We're not in court. We can't prove or disprove anything. This is just a forum to share opinions.
    It's a fairly meaningless question. The complainant has received a settlement that they feel is acceptable. That's literally all we've learnt since the Maitlis interview.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,644
    I'm not asking the question for the reason you think I'm asking the question.
    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

    You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

    After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.


    You really can't grasp why it is important to produce the original picture so that it can be shown to be undoctored or that it has been manipulated?

    If someone mocked up a pic of a short chap in cycle gear having sex with a shetland pony in Cambridge and then took a photo of it, you'd want the original faked image entered as evidence so that you could show it to be mocked up wouldn't you?
    Sorry, on what basis are you saying it's doctored?
    I am not saying it is doctored. At present the only people who know are the people depicted and the person who allegedly took the original photograph.
    That is the point. For it to carry any evidential value it has to be shown to be undoctored.

    A photo of a photo doesn't carry evidential weight.
    So you don't think it's doctored?

    You spend a lot of time hiding your opinions behind technicalities or theoretical arguments.

    Do you think, on balance, he's a nonce?
    Jeez, for someone who professes to be well educated, you can be as thick as mince at times. So I repeat.
    I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THE PICTURE IS DOCTORED AND NEITGHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, SAVE THE PEOPLE AT THE SCENE AT THE TIME.

    Any original would carry evidential weight.
    Sorry you view that a technicality.

    As to whether he had consensual/non consensual sex with a 17 year old either in London or New York, I really have no idea without seeing the evidence. And that is taking into account my long held perception of Andrew as being a pompous arrogant tw@t.

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,644
    Ah bore off, if you had to guess? You opine on a lot of other stuff without knowing all the details, why so careful on this?
    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    rick_chasey said:

    Ah bore off, if you had to guess? You opine on a lot of other stuff without knowing all the details, why so careful on this?

    So you expect people to give a verdict based on a guess? Let's do away with expensive trials and just round up 12 random people to make an uninformed guess. How very liberal of you.
    You seem so sure of his guilt based on your guess.
    You may call it careful but I would call it sensible to not base a verdict on a guess

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,760
    He maintained a friendship with a convicted child sex offender and child sex trafficker because of his "tendency to be too honourable".

    Maybe he did something more, maybe he didn't, either way I think his shunning and financial embarrassment seem appropriate.
  • capt_slog
    capt_slog Posts: 3,965
    edited February 2022
    I saw this this morning on a twitter feed from "Parody Boris Johnson"

    Very decent of Prince Andrew to pay a huge amount of money to someone he has never met to stop them accusing him of something he definitely didn’t do. He’s just too honourable.

    — Parody Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson_MP) February 15, 2022


    The older I get, the better I was.

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,644
    edited February 2022
    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Ah bore off, if you had to guess? You opine on a lot of other stuff without knowing all the details, why so careful on this?

    So you expect people to give a verdict based on a guess? Let's do away with expensive trials and just round up 12 random people to make an uninformed guess. How very liberal of you.
    You seem so sure of his guilt based on your guess.
    You may call it careful but I would call it sensible to not base a verdict on a guess

    Oh relax, you're not in the jury nor are you a judge. You're on a forum working under a pseudonym. It's not a "verdict". it's an opinion.

    I'm just curious what you think he probably is, and I don't really believe you when you say you don't have a view. As I mentioned, you regularly have opinions on things that you don't know much about, so I'm wondering why you're being so coy here.
    _
  • mrb123
    mrb123 Posts: 4,787
    ballysmate said:

    orraloon said:

    That pic is now an NFT. Worth shitloadsamoney.

    If original and undoctored.
    rick_chasey said:

    Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

    You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

    After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.

    rick_chasey said:

    Complaining about royals spending a lot of tax money doesn’t make sense to me.

    They’re royals, that’s literally the point. They are the state. It’s their money.

    Real issue is he’s a nonce and he’s getting away with it.


    You realise this is a civil matter and the worst outcome would have been an award for damages against him don't you?
    AFAIK there are no criminal charges pending.
    Just to be clear on this point - the worst outcome for him would have been a finding by a court on the civil standard of proof (I.e. the balance of probabilities) that he did the acts alleged, which would have led to an award for damages.

    Bit like the case of that Scottish footballer David Goodwillie who was found by a civil judge to have committed rape although he wasn't convicted in a criminal court.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Not being coy. I think KG has it covered.
    "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't"
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    ballysmate said:

    Not being coy. I think KG has it covered.
    "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't"

    I think we can add to this that his comms advice is utterly tone deaf. The idea that any charity dealing with sex trafficking would want him within a hundred miles of their campaign is so ludicrous it sounds like parody.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,693
    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    Not being coy. I think KG has it covered.
    "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't"

    I think we can add to this that his comms advice is utterly tone deaf. The idea that any charity dealing with sex trafficking would want him within a hundred miles of their campaign is so ludicrous it sounds like parody.
    I am not sure he always take advice from his comms team, you know.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

    You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

    After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.


    You really can't grasp why it is important to produce the original picture so that it can be shown to be undoctored or that it has been manipulated?

    If someone mocked up a pic of a short chap in cycle gear having sex with a shetland pony in Cambridge and then took a photo of it, you'd want the original faked image entered as evidence so that you could show it to be mocked up wouldn't you?
    Sorry, on what basis are you saying it's doctored?
    I am not saying it is doctored. At present the only people who know are the people depicted and the person who allegedly took the original photograph.
    That is the point. For it to carry any evidential value it has to be shown to be undoctored.

    A photo of a photo doesn't carry evidential weight.
    So you don't think it's doctored?

    You spend a lot of time hiding your opinions behind technicalities or theoretical arguments.

    Do you think, on balance, he's a nonce?
    Jeez, for someone who professes to be well educated, you can be as thick as mince at times. So I repeat.
    I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THE PICTURE IS DOCTORED AND NEITGHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, SAVE THE PEOPLE AT THE SCENE AT THE TIME.

    Any original would carry evidential weight.
    Sorry you view that a technicality.

    As to whether he had consensual/non consensual sex with a 17 year old either in London or New York, I really have no idea without seeing the evidence. And that is taking into account my long held perception of Andrew as being a pompous arrogant tw@t.

    The FBI must know whether it is a fake
    He hung around with convicted sex traffickers
    His wife and daughter refused to back his alibi
    I know two people who knew him

    I am saying wrong’un
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    I would think the FBI would know, yes. But doesn't alter the fact that if you are to introduce a photograph as evidence, it should be the original. Which makes the subsequent 'misplacement' of it more interesting.
    If the FBI were satisfied with the authenticity of it when they returned it to her, I would have expected the photo to be safely secured as it would be an important piece of evidence to rebut Randy Andy's claim that he hadn't been there at the relevant time.
    If on the other hand the FBI had determined that it had been faked in any way, then it would be in the plaintiff's interest to 'misplace' it.
    Who knows, certainly not I.

    As regards the company he kept and his family, yes, I agree.

    I also assume that your 2 mutual friends/acquaintances/contacts were not in the sex trafficking business. :)
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    Rick's on the money - he's a grubby nonce. End of.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,693
    ballysmate said:

    I would think the FBI would know, yes. But doesn't alter the fact that if you are to introduce a photograph as evidence, it should be the original. Which makes the subsequent 'misplacement' of it more interesting.
    If the FBI were satisfied with the authenticity of it when they returned it to her, I would have expected the photo to be safely secured as it would be an important piece of evidence to rebut Randy Andy's claim that he hadn't been there at the relevant time.
    If on the other hand the FBI had determined that it had been faked in any way, then it would be in the plaintiff's interest to 'misplace' it.
    Who knows, certainly not I.

    As regards the company he kept and his family, yes, I agree.

    I also assume that your 2 mutual friends/acquaintances/contacts were not in the sex trafficking business. :)

    The only reason any doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the photo is that it is highly incriminating.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    First.Aspect said:

    ballysmate said:

    I would think the FBI would know, yes. But doesn't alter the fact that if you are to introduce a photograph as evidence, it should be the original. Which makes the subsequent 'misplacement' of it more interesting.
    If the FBI were satisfied with the authenticity of it when they returned it to her, I would have expected the photo to be safely secured as it would be an important piece of evidence to rebut Randy Andy's claim that he hadn't been there at the relevant time.
    If on the other hand the FBI had determined that it had been faked in any way, then it would be in the plaintiff's interest to 'misplace' it.
    Who knows, certainly not I.

    As regards the company he kept and his family, yes, I agree.

    I also assume that your 2 mutual friends/acquaintances/contacts were not in the sex trafficking business. :)

    The only reason any doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the photo is that it is highly incriminating.

    I agree that prima facie it is incriminating. I thought so too.
    When I learned that the picture that was so incriminating was actually a picture of a picture, I viewed it less so.
    It certainly helped to convict him in the court of public opinion.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,644
    edited February 2022
    Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.

    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    rick_chasey said:

    Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.

    I'm not sure what evidence you have to support this. If you just mean that wealthy people can afford better lawyers, then sure.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,526
    rick_chasey said:

    Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.

    I doubt a private individual would have settled the case with her.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    rick_chasey said:

    Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.

    I would suggest that it is all about the evidence if you are going to convict ANYONE.
  • photonic69
    photonic69 Posts: 2,666
    ballysmate said:

    First.Aspect said:

    ballysmate said:

    I would think the FBI would know, yes. But doesn't alter the fact that if you are to introduce a photograph as evidence, it should be the original. Which makes the subsequent 'misplacement' of it more interesting.
    If the FBI were satisfied with the authenticity of it when they returned it to her, I would have expected the photo to be safely secured as it would be an important piece of evidence to rebut Randy Andy's claim that he hadn't been there at the relevant time.
    If on the other hand the FBI had determined that it had been faked in any way, then it would be in the plaintiff's interest to 'misplace' it.
    Who knows, certainly not I.

    As regards the company he kept and his family, yes, I agree.

    I also assume that your 2 mutual friends/acquaintances/contacts were not in the sex trafficking business. :)

    The only reason any doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the photo is that it is highly incriminating.

    I agree that prima facie it is incriminating. I thought so too.
    When I learned that the picture that was so incriminating was actually a picture of a picture, I viewed it less so.
    It certainly helped to convict him in the court of public opinion.
    TBH it doesn't really matter that it is a picture of a picture. The real proof would be from the negative that the print originates from. The picture (or copy of that picture) is just a print from the negative. To establish complete authenticity you need the neg. Most people probably won't have them anymore (except if it was mine it would be in one of my many many many neg folders.)


    Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,644
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.

    I'm not sure what evidence you have to support this. If you just mean that wealthy people can afford better lawyers, then sure.
    If you think it is as easy to prosecute a British royal as it is a normal British citizens then you're being quite naïve.
    _
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,537
    How many people have been brought down by Epstein? Given he was seemingly operating a ring for lots of high profile people, it seems that only Prince Andrew has (so far) faced any kind of comeuppance.

    The only way he could have cleared his name in the court of public opinion was to get this case in court and clear his name. He's clearly decided that the case wasn't strong enough, regardless of whether the original photo is lost or not.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    edited February 2022
    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.

    I'm not sure what evidence you have to support this. If you just mean that wealthy people can afford better lawyers, then sure.
    If you think it is as easy to prosecute a British royal as it is a normal British citizens then you're being quite naïve.
    So you say, I'm just asking what you are basing that on beyond deeper pockets. It's not as though it comes up very often.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    Jezyboy said:

    How many people have been brought down by Epstein? Given he was seemingly operating a ring for lots of high profile people, it seems that only Prince Andrew has (so far) faced any kind of comeuppance.

    The only way he could have cleared his name in the court of public opinion was to get this case in court and clear his name. He's clearly decided that the case wasn't strong enough, regardless of whether the original photo is lost or not.

    Ghislaine Maxwell is facing criminal charges (again). Epstein was actually convicted. Those are both greater 'comeuppance' than reaching a civil settlement.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,693
    rjsterry said:

    Jezyboy said:

    How many people have been brought down by Epstein? Given he was seemingly operating a ring for lots of high profile people, it seems that only Prince Andrew has (so far) faced any kind of comeuppance.

    The only way he could have cleared his name in the court of public opinion was to get this case in court and clear his name. He's clearly decided that the case wasn't strong enough, regardless of whether the original photo is lost or not.

    Ghislaine Maxwell is facing criminal charges (again). Epstein was actually convicted. Those are both greater 'comeuppance' than reaching a civil settlement.
    And by their nature most of these things stay confidential and settle early because most people aren't stupid enough to go on telly and pretend to be pizza loving reptiles and the victim of a photoshop stitch up.

    So who knows who else has been dragged in.
  • mrb123
    mrb123 Posts: 4,787
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.

    I doubt a private individual would have settled the case with her.
    If he'd been some average Joe without large financial resources it probably wouldn't have been worth her while even pursuing the civil case.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,644
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.

    I'm not sure what evidence you have to support this. If you just mean that wealthy people can afford better lawyers, then sure.
    If you think it is as easy to prosecute a British royal as it is a normal British citizens then you're being quite naïve.
    So you say, I'm just asking what you are basing that on beyond deeper pockets. It's not as though it comes up very often.
    I think a lack of willingness to investigate on part of the authorities and substantial additional pressure and scrutiny on any witnesses or defendants
    _

Categories