Jump to content

Prince Andrew


sadoldgit
 Share

Recommended Posts

He is hardly likely to say yep, it is a fair kop. I am guilty as charged. What I find funny is that his ex wife, who was caught out "at it" when married to HRH is coming out saying her ex hubby is totally innocent of all wrong doing. They all seem to think they are immune to public scrutiny. We pay for these people and they are accountable for their behaviour. In the good old days we could remove their heads from their shoulders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has he actually been accused of breaking any law?

 

His private life is his private life. He should not be made available, on demand, to assist people with their own civil damages lawsuits for compensation.

 

If anybody brought any criminal charges against him I expect they would be answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is hardly likely to say yep, it is a fair kop. I am guilty as charged. What I find funny is that his ex wife, who was caught out "at it" when married to HRH is coming out saying her ex hubby is totally innocent of all wrong doing. They all seem to think they are immune to public scrutiny. We pay for these people and they are accountable for their behaviour. In the good old days we could remove their heads from their shoulders.

 

Now you listen to tittle tattle

 

Not like the ched evens case, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has he actually been accused of breaking any law?

 

His private life is his private life. He should not be made available, on demand, to assist people with their own civil damages lawsuits for compensation.

 

If anybody brought any criminal charges against him I expect they would be answered.

 

What he has alleged to have done would be a break of the law as I understand of a couple of levels. Firstly, she is a minor at 17 (age of consent in US is 18), and secondly she was alleged to have been part of a sex ring which had Epstein at its centre and was as part of that coerced (read raped) to have sex with multiple men. So the allegations are more serious than 'private life'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he has alleged to have done would be a break of the law as I understand of a couple of levels. Firstly, she is a minor at 17 (age of consent in US is 18), and secondly she was alleged to have been part of a sex ring which had Epstein at its centre and was as part of that coerced (read raped) to have sex with multiple men. So the allegations are more serious than 'private life'.

None of that is true, of course. But it makes a good story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you listen to tittle tattle

 

Not like the ched evens case, eh?

 

Lighten up dude. The Royals are fair game. I don't think I have laughed so much as when we heard that Charles (our future King god help us) wanted to be a tampon so he could be closer to Camilla! This whist married to someone else. Still, they are Royal so above reproach eh?

Edited by sadoldgit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you didn't. You said categorically, not allegedly, that she was a minor at 17 because the age of consent in the US is 18. That isn't true.

 

Incorrect - the papers have been filed in Florida (where I presume it is alleged to have occured). In Florida, the age of consent is 18 (although it varies by US state)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Florida

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case the entire press have been reporting it incorrectly by saying 'sex with a minor'. Although just as serious in the coercion allegation via sex ring.

 

Maybe so but there is no allegation that HRH was a part of any ring, just that he may have benefitted.

 

This is a civil case, not criminal. There are no criminal charges against anybody. It is a transparent attempt to get a financial settlement by putting pressure on famous people. I'm no royalist, but I hope in this instance that the royal machine gives it short shrift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is innocent. until proven guilty

best not suggest he is guilty, the law says he is innocent. or something like that

 

Indeed and we wont know either way until the matter has been investigated properly. But as I say, hardly "tittle tattle." And not the best choice of friends by HRH is it given that we know his pal has been found guilty previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case the entire press have been reporting it incorrectly by saying 'sex with a minor'. Although just as serious in the coercion allegation via sex ring.

 

"sex with a minor" is a much more sensational headline than "sex with a women who would have been a minor if he kn0bbed her in Florida" - uses less ink as well

 

Not that the papers ever get it wrong -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massive failing by the Government. Absolutely scandalous, typical establishment, protecting themselves.

 

If I were a conspiracy theorist, which I'm not, I would wonder if the delay in setting up the Child Abuse enquiry was deliberate in that they knew Leon Brittan was about to shuffle off this mortal coil and with it his evidence / cross-examination

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were a conspiracy theorist, which I'm not, I would wonder if the delay in setting up the Child Abuse enquiry was deliberate in that they knew Leon Brittan was about to shuffle off this mortal coil and with it his evidence / cross-examination

 

Is he really dead? :suspicious:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were a conspiracy theorist, which I'm not, I would wonder if the delay in setting up the Child Abuse enquiry was deliberate in that they knew Leon Brittan was about to shuffle off this mortal coil and with it his evidence / cross-examination

 

Absolutely.

 

Something stinks, properly, really, horrendously stinks and it'll keep stinking for years until after they've (whoever 'they' are) have all done one from this Earth. Unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raping 2 year olds or drunk sex with a 17 year old. Massive difference. Read the mainstream and you wouldn't think so. It's a black and white thing for them - you are either a rapist/paedophile or you are not. Ask Ched or Graham Rix. It's all a matter of scale. For me, kill the former without mercy and have some balance about the latter. It's not hard, it ****es me off the way it's all reported.

Edited by Kingsbridge Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raping 2 year olds or drunk sex with a 17 year old. Massive difference. Read the mainstream and you wouldn't think so. It's a black and white thing for them - you are either a rapist/paedophile or you are not. Ask Ched or Graham Rix. It's all a matter of scale. For me, kill the former without mercy and have some balance about the latter. It's not hard, it ****es me off the way it's all reported.

Are you saying Prince Andrew is getting the same type of coverage as Ian Watkins?

 

Your post is far more black and white (in fact, just wrong) than anything you are complaining about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})