Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
stichill99 said:
Does anyone know anything of Victoria's parents? I know I will be accused of victim blaming here but is it not odd that her parents didn't say Vicky love where are you getting the money to fly to London or Uncle Jeffreys island or did she go on Jeffreys private jet. It reminds me of the Sacha Baron Cohen movie when they were interviewing parents and there kids for a movie role and one of the parents was happy to break Juniors arm for the movie role. Anything for fame baby!
You're victim blaming.vonuber said:
stichill99 said:
Does anyone know anything of Victoria's parents? I know I will be accused of victim blaming here but is it not odd that her parents didn't say Vicky love where are you getting the money to fly to London or Uncle Jeffreys island or did she go on Jeffreys private jet. It reminds me of the Sacha Baron Cohen movie when they were interviewing parents and there kids for a movie role and one of the parents was happy to break Juniors arm for the movie role. Anything for fame baby!
You're victim blaming.vdn said:
That interview was car crash.
“Royal arrogance” indeed.
He’s as guilty as sin; friends with a known sex offender... partaking a little also.
His answers in the interview were just layers of lies upon lies and made no sense. Baffling back and forth and contradictions galore.
What a thicko to have gone ahead with that interview - against advice it would seem.
I agree with you, but unfortunately no one gives a rat’s posterior that you and I believe that he was lying through his teeth.“Royal arrogance” indeed.
He’s as guilty as sin; friends with a known sex offender... partaking a little also.
His answers in the interview were just layers of lies upon lies and made no sense. Baffling back and forth and contradictions galore.
What a thicko to have gone ahead with that interview - against advice it would seem.
He, or anyone, can lie away to their heart’s content, the difficulty is in proving that they were lying.
Just as Ms. Maitlis said, “Virginia Guiffre made a deposition under oath in a U.S. court of law”, as if because it was under oath in a U.S. court, she must have been telling the truth.
I don’t think that she lied, but no doubt Andrew’s “people” would say that she did.
Ultimately, it all comes down to what the individual believes is more likely.
I believe that it’s more likely that Andrew was lying, and Ms. Guiffre was telling the truth, but I reiterate, who gives a toss what I believe?
Parents sometimes assist in grooming. LD McKenzie was, when still under 16, allowed by her mother to fly off to somewhere not in the UK to be photographed in a manner that would be unlawful in many civilised places. The Daily Star also assisted in the exploitation of a person who was at the time 15. All at the same time as running pitchfork pieces about hordes of paedos hiding in every bush.
I raised it before about getting rid of royal family. Stick a president in there. I don't trust any of them, they do enough to make it look like they are worth it.
It's not the outlay it's all the stupid rules etc they are still involved in and land.
The sheer fact he was mates with a pedo should be enough to f
k him off to the Bahamas, like his great uncle.
A bare faced liar with all the backbone of Tony Blair.
It's not the outlay it's all the stupid rules etc they are still involved in and land.
The sheer fact he was mates with a pedo should be enough to f
k him off to the Bahamas, like his great uncle.A bare faced liar with all the backbone of Tony Blair.
Once Brenda goes I think it’s time to draw a line under the monarchy and call it a day.
Time has passed to have one family in a position of immense power and wealth to continue to lord it over the rest of us commoners and to do so at a major taxpayers expense.
I fully agree that rather Queen has done a great job and fully committed herself to the role but enough is enough and it’s time for an elected head of state.
Time has passed to have one family in a position of immense power and wealth to continue to lord it over the rest of us commoners and to do so at a major taxpayers expense.
I fully agree that rather Queen has done a great job and fully committed herself to the role but enough is enough and it’s time for an elected head of state.
Breadvan72 said:
Parents sometimes assist in grooming. LD McKenzie was, when still under 16, allowed by her mother to fly off to somewhere not in the UK to be photographed in a manner that would be unlawful in many civilised places. The Daily Star also assisted in the exploitation of a person who was at the time 15. All at the same time as running pitchfork pieces about hordes of paedos hiding in every bush.
Charlotte Church was "rear of the year" in 2002 and the press were happy showing lots of pictures of her. While she was 16 when she got the award itself but by many accounts the photos in question were all of her at 15.The press? Rampant hypocrites? Never...
I suggest that we ditch the idea of a ceremonial head of state with almost no powers. We elect one person to serve a limited term as head of state and head of government. That person is regulated and controlled by the legislature and the courts, and scrutinised by the media. If we want pomp and circumstance, we can still have that. Red Arrows, armoured cavalry, busbies and Beef Eaters. All still available in a Republic. Check out how France and the USA do national splendour : no shortage of fancy soldiery and state magnificence.
The sheer lunacy of using heredity as a basis for selecting a head of state was entertainingly pointed out by Tom Paine over 200 years ago. Remember that the Queen is only the Queen because she is very distantly related to a successful armed gangster from eleventh century Normandy.
Imagine if we had hereditary dentists or hereditary airline pilots. Not just people who follow a parent into the same profession, but people who are excused the dentist and airline pilot exams because of mum and/or dad. Laughable, of course. Now justify hereditary Monarchy. Er, .... tradition, er .... pride, er, waffle.
The sheer lunacy of using heredity as a basis for selecting a head of state was entertainingly pointed out by Tom Paine over 200 years ago. Remember that the Queen is only the Queen because she is very distantly related to a successful armed gangster from eleventh century Normandy.
Imagine if we had hereditary dentists or hereditary airline pilots. Not just people who follow a parent into the same profession, but people who are excused the dentist and airline pilot exams because of mum and/or dad. Laughable, of course. Now justify hereditary Monarchy. Er, .... tradition, er .... pride, er, waffle.
Is there any evidence or reasonable grounds to suspect that Andrew knew Epstein was doing illegal stuff at the time they were friends?
I think Prince A comes across as an entitled, spoilt, slightly dim, man, but possibly also a naive innocent, but the real key to the story is Ms G Maxwell - an interview with her would be worth watching.
I think Prince A comes across as an entitled, spoilt, slightly dim, man, but possibly also a naive innocent, but the real key to the story is Ms G Maxwell - an interview with her would be worth watching.
Hanging out with a convicted child rapist, whose conviction had been well publicised, is arguably more than just a bit dim.
In addition, the complainant in the US lawsuit provides evidence that Andrew was a knowing participant in the exploitation of young women. That evidence might or might not be correct.
In addition, the complainant in the US lawsuit provides evidence that Andrew was a knowing participant in the exploitation of young women. That evidence might or might not be correct.
Ayahuasca said:
Is there any evidence or reasonable grounds to suspect that Andrew knew Epstein was doing illegal stuff at the time they were friends?
I think Prince A comes across as an entitled, spoilt, slightly dim, man, but possibly also a naive innocent, but the real key to the story is Ms G Maxwell - an interview with her would be worth watching.
The Court of Social Media has decided Andrew is guilty as sin. Evidence no longer matters.I think Prince A comes across as an entitled, spoilt, slightly dim, man, but possibly also a naive innocent, but the real key to the story is Ms G Maxwell - an interview with her would be worth watching.
The only evidence being one photograph proving only that they met at some point.
No worse than some ol' duffer getting the "ceremonial" post of President / Head of state for one last hurrah / support x and the job is yours / keep quiet and the jobs yours.
Positives and negatives for both, interestingly, how would you go about re-distributing the wealth of the Crown? As the beneficiary of the crown trust surely the Royal Family would simply walk away with all the wealth, land, possessions in a private capacity?
Positives and negatives for both, interestingly, how would you go about re-distributing the wealth of the Crown? As the beneficiary of the crown trust surely the Royal Family would simply walk away with all the wealth, land, possessions in a private capacity?
Ayahuasca said:
Is there any evidence or reasonable grounds to suspect that Andrew knew Epstein was doing illegal stuff at the time they were friends?
I think Prince A comes across as an entitled, spoilt, slightly dim, man, but possibly also a naive innocent, but the real key to the story is Ms G Maxwell - an interview with her would be worth watching.
I've only just caught up on this thread, as it's fast moving and quite long. As I understand it, one of the issues relating to the post I've quoted is that he remained friends with JE even after he'd served time for similar crimes.I think Prince A comes across as an entitled, spoilt, slightly dim, man, but possibly also a naive innocent, but the real key to the story is Ms G Maxwell - an interview with her would be worth watching.
Also, referring to a post a few pages back, he served time in NYC as a result of a bargain with the Florida prosecutor to avoid more serious charges.
With regards to the girls and grooming, of course, when they were young they thought they were getting a great deal, loads of expensive gifts, millionaire lifestyle etc and for the price of shagging some dirty old b
ds. However, they weren't emotionally mature enough to do so with eyes wide open, as we mature we realise the wrongs of what we have done, or what we have been forced to do. Which is why this is coming to light so many years after the event, as the girls have matured and now realise the evilness of what JE and his ring of dirty old bds did.What I find interesting it, as others have said, where is Maxwell, will she be silenced or is she already very much being paid to keep quiet and out of the way, probably under a significant threat to her safety. but also, with the names being spread around, Trump and Clinton in the frame, will the details of anything they've done come to light. I imagine any girls that have dirt on them are very much keeping their heads down for fer of their own safety.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
The Court of Social Media has decided Andrew is guilty as sin. Evidence no longer matters.
The only evidence being one photograph proving only that they met at some point.
You choose to ignore the evidence of the complainant and the evidence from the TV interview. The only evidence being one photograph proving only that they met at some point.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff