Prince Andrew in US sex lawsuit - impropriety with minors!

Prince Andrew in US sex lawsuit - impropriety with minors!

Author
Discussion

Etypephil

724 posts

26 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
There would be way more tourist revenue if all the palaces were fully open to the public. Look at Versailles: ker chingga. There are no rational arguments in favour of hereditary monarchy. All defences of it end up with waffle about dignity and respect, and are ultimately about old deference. Even Bagehot struggled to do more than mumble about dignity. How dignified are the Royal offspring? Not very.

The tired old argument that if no Monarch we would have a president who might be Blair or Beckham is weak. Other nations elect sensible people as ceremonial president: see Ireland as an example. Also there is no need for the head of state and the head of government to be two people so long as the person doing both jobs is elected for a limited term and has his or her powers checked by constitutional safeguards.
Absolutely.

One might argue that we could increase tourist income by holding regular public executions of aristocrats, as the French did, but selling tickets to anyone willing to pay. They are sufficiently numerous, and have a reproductive rate adequate to provide an eternal revenue stream. smile

Having the particular birth canal via which the planet was joined, as the sole criteria for HOS selection must be the most absurd which could be devised.

vonuber

12,546 posts

113 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Lord Marylebone said:
... you have to remember that millions of people in this country gain a sense of national pride and ‘enjoyment’ from having a royal family.

Last time there was a large survey, the public were in favour of retaining a royal family, by quite a margin.
Well they are idiots then, aren't they.

Pride in what? A bunch of people living in privilege just through birth?

austinsmirk

3,617 posts

71 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
steveo3002 said:
ElectricSoup said:
All the royal fawners love to bang on about how the Queen is a lovely old biffer, totally harmless, never put a foot wrong, gawd bless her, isn't she magnificent and all that. All that duty, that service, all that hard work swanning about the place in a yacht, nobody else could do it so marvellously, trained from birth you know, so specially special. All the obsequious memes, the "do him in, 007" bullst. But consider this. Andrew is widely believed to always have been her favourite son. Puts a different complexion on the old girl's character, doesn't it?

fk the lot of them, the fking leeches. I bet they all think the commoners are so far beneath them they can do as they please. Obviously Andrew does. Trafficked, abused, vulnerable young women and girls? Pah. I'm a bally Prince, stand aside, my Mummy's the QUEEN I tell you, fwah fwah fwah.

Turn my stomach, they do.
9/10 smile
Is electric soup Cockney Anchor from Viz ????

Lazermilk

2,841 posts

29 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Gameface said:
Byker28i said:
Are the US getting a little hypocritical? Saying Andrew needs to be questioned in the US but refuses to help with the hit and run driving wife?
Hypocritical given the blind eye they turn towards their presidents behaviour with the opposite sex.

And of course Trump knew Epstein better than Andrew.

Trump will absolutely not want Andrew investigated by American agencies.
I was thinking the same, also Clinton apparently flew on his jet something like 26 times, lots of powerful people just wanting this story to be squashed quickly.

sugerbear

1,987 posts

106 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Fat Fairy said:
sugerbear said:
Or as Danny Baker tweeted after the Prince Andrew interview.

"We have a family that reigns over us.
A family who must be addressed as "highness" and "majesty" and "ma'am" and "Sir"
A family who are told to we bow to and curtsey to.
They live in castles and palaces.
They own huge bits of our land.
A "Royal" Family.
Everyone OK with that?"
Hmmm, the Danny Baker who is so 'In Tune' with the populace that he tweets 'funny' yet rather inappropriate monkey pics?

If he is 'Against', I am 'For'.

FF.
Well he certainly had it right that the royals are a circus. A bunch of performing [insert animals of least offence here] in suits and dresses for the general public's amusement.

Each to their own. .


ElectricSoup

6,225 posts

99 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Lord Marylebone said:
ElectricSoup said:
All the royal fawners love to bang on about how the Queen is a lovely old biffer, totally harmless, never put a foot wrong, gawd bless her, isn't she magnificent and all that. All that duty, that service, all that hard work swanning about the place in a yacht, nobody else could do it so marvellously, trained from birth you know, so specially special. All the obsequious memes, the "do him in, 007" bullst. But consider this. Andrew is widely believed to always have been her favourite son. Puts a different complexion on the old girl's character, doesn't it?

fk the lot of them, the fking leeches. I bet they all think the commoners are so far beneath them they can do as they please. Obviously Andrew does. Trafficked, abused, vulnerable young women and girls? Pah. I'm a bally Prince, stand aside, my Mummy's the QUEEN I tell you, fwah fwah fwah.

Turn my stomach, they do.
Tell us how you really feel rofl

I’m not a ‘royal fawner’, I would just like to thoroughly and extensively research the economic and diplomatic Pros and Cons to the country before making a decision.

If they provide any kind of a net positive to the country then I would be happy to keep them, if not, then I wouldn’t have a problem disbanding them and handing the palaces and houses over to English Heritage etc

I’m looking at it purely from a business point of view, but you have to remember that millions of people in this country gain a sense of national pride and ‘enjoyment’ from having a royal family.

Last time there was a large survey, the public were in favour of retaining a royal family, by quite a margin.
I reckon if someone is proud of them and enjoys having them about in light of current revelations, and thinks it reflects well on the nation as a whole, then I don't have an awful lot of respect for that position.

But I agree with the other parts of your post. Let's get all the facts out there, and let the people decide.

What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

z4RRSchris

9,259 posts

127 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Lazermilk said:
Gameface said:
Byker28i said:
Are the US getting a little hypocritical? Saying Andrew needs to be questioned in the US but refuses to help with the hit and run driving wife?
Hypocritical given the blind eye they turn towards their presidents behaviour with the opposite sex.

And of course Trump knew Epstein better than Andrew.

Trump will absolutely not want Andrew investigated by American agencies.
I was thinking the same, also Clinton apparently flew on his jet something like 26 times, lots of powerful people just wanting this story to be squashed quickly.
can imagine when the trump / andrew / clinton hitman arrived at his cell, he was beaten to it by one of the others.

A clever one would have got a bit of cash of each to do it.

ElectricSoup

6,225 posts

99 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
austinsmirk said:
steveo3002 said:
ElectricSoup said:
All the royal fawners love to bang on about how the Queen is a lovely old biffer, totally harmless, never put a foot wrong, gawd bless her, isn't she magnificent and all that. All that duty, that service, all that hard work swanning about the place in a yacht, nobody else could do it so marvellously, trained from birth you know, so specially special. All the obsequious memes, the "do him in, 007" bullst. But consider this. Andrew is widely believed to always have been her favourite son. Puts a different complexion on the old girl's character, doesn't it?

fk the lot of them, the fking leeches. I bet they all think the commoners are so far beneath them they can do as they please. Obviously Andrew does. Trafficked, abused, vulnerable young women and girls? Pah. I'm a bally Prince, stand aside, my Mummy's the QUEEN I tell you, fwah fwah fwah.

Turn my stomach, they do.
9/10 smile
Is electric soup Cockney Anchor from Viz ????
Oi oi, fackin' 'ave a word, kaaaaaaaant!

MILLWALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

stichill99

422 posts

129 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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!

vonuber

12,546 posts

113 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.

paulguitar

3,912 posts

61 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.
Textbook.

La Liga

13,789 posts

104 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
If only there were public documents which explain the method Epstein committed his crimes against children to inform us...

vonuber

12,546 posts

113 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
La Liga said:
If only there were public documents which explain the method Epstein committed his crimes against children to inform us...
It's really worrying, isn't it. if anyone ever wonders how people (your Savilles, your grooming gangs) get away with it, then here's the answer.

Breadvan72

33,892 posts

111 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
ElectricSoup said:
Oi oi, fackin' 'ave a word, kaaaaaaaant!

MILLWALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
PH post of the Year. Respect!

That’s it for 2019, jalopy botherers! See you all on 1 January.

Frank7

3,925 posts

35 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.
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?

Breadvan72

33,892 posts

111 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.

Thesprucegoose

19,726 posts

143 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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 fk him off to the Bahamas, like his great uncle.

A bare faced liar with all the backbone of Tony Blair.

valiant

4,169 posts

108 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.

vaud

33,987 posts

103 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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...

Breadvan72

33,892 posts

111 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.