Prince Andrew

[Irufushi]

I reckon he’ll top himself before long. 

[Smithee]

18 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

And Charles and William looking after their own internet getting Brenda to kick the beast out of the royal family.

I would love it if Meghan Markle kills off the royal family.

 

 

 

I'd prefer if losing Scotland tipped the balance.

 

 

[Maroon Sailor]

10 minutes ago, Irufushi said:

I reckon he’ll top himself before long. 

 

Too arrogant for that

 

An absolute reptile of a man who thought he was untouchable

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I'd prefer if losing Scotland tipped the balance.

 

 

That would definitely be preferable. Although Markle with a machine gun, like the Chicks With Guns film in Jackie Brown, would be close.

[Savage Vince]

[Mister T]

Now he's suggesting false memories. He does realise Total Recall was a Sci fi movie and not a fly on the wall documentary? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60005128

[Der Kaiser]

2 minutes ago, Mister T said:

Now he's suggesting false memories. He does realise Total Recall was a Sci fi movie and not a fly on the wall documentary? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60005128

 

"Baby, you make me wish I had three hands"

[Bindy Badgy]

15 minutes ago, Mister T said:

Now he's suggesting false memories. He does realise Total Recall was a Sci fi movie and not a fly on the wall documentary? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60005128

 

False memories impacting court cases is well documented. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4409058/

 

Quote

 

We present a brief historical overview of false memories that focuses on three critical forensic areas that changed memory research: children as eyewitnesses, historic sexual abuse and eyewitness (mis)identification. We revisit some of the prominent trials of the 1980s and 1990s to not only consider the role false memories have played in judicial decisions, but also to see how this has helped us understand memory today. Finally, we consider the way in which the research on memory (true and false) has been successfully integrated into some courtroom procedures.

 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200408085517.htm

 

Quote

 

The findings, published in Frontiers in Psychology, build on a previous study that was the first to successfully implant false memories of committing a crime -- involving either assault or assault with a weapon that resulted in police contact.

 

Study author Dr Julia Shaw (UCL Psychology & Language Sciences) said: "Everyone thinks that they couldn't be tricked into believing they have done something they never did, and that if someone were telling them about a false memory, they would be able to spot it. But we found that actually, people tend to be quite susceptible to having false memories, and they sound just like real memories."

 

 

Obviously, this doesn't mean that false memories are relevant to this case but, it would be negligent if his legal team did not pursue any factor that could have an impact on the case.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

7 minutes ago, Bindy Badgy said:

 

False memories impacting court cases is well documented. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4409058/

 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200408085517.htm

 

 

Obviously, this doesn't mean that false memories are relevant to this case but, it would be negligent if his legal team did not pursue any factor that could have an impact on the case.

 

Personally I don't think it's a great move from his legal team, basically because Maxwell tried that as well and the jury didn't believe her, I would think his legal team will have a hard job on their hands trying to convince another jury of the same thing.

[Bindy Badgy]

20 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Personally I don't think it's a great move from his legal team, basically because Maxwell tried that as well and the jury didn't believe her, I would think his legal team will have a hard job on their hands trying to convince another jury of the same thing.

 

Fair point regarding Maxwell's defense. I suppose there could be differences between the two cases that make this defense more likely to have an impact in Andrew's case but, that's probably unlikely. I get the feeling that his legal team are throwing shit at the wall so that they can see what might stick.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

Aah, the old false memory tactic to discredit a victim of abuse. Unfortunately for him, it's his own false memories of made up pizza restaurant visits that will do him in. And that's before even considering him denying ever meeting her despite a widely available photo of him with his hand on her body. False memories aye? ****ing reptile.

Edited Saturday at 19:33 by Eldar Hadzimehmedovic

[jack D and coke]

Royal Families name getting dragged through the gutter these days. 
Absolutely wonderful stuff☺️
Should a national holiday in the republic of Scotland one day getting shot of these parasites. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

17 hours ago, Mister T said:

Now he's suggesting false memories. He does realise Total Recall was a Sci fi movie and not a fly on the wall documentary? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60005128

 

It seems to exist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

 

[RobboM]

36 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It seems to exist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

 

Presumably it works both ways. Prince Andrew could have false memory too

[A Boy Named Crow]

12 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Presumably it works both ways. Prince Andrew could have false memory too

He has blocked from his memory any reference to beefing trafficked weans... therefore his testimony is inadmissible, judge dons the black cap...

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

Presumably it works both ways. Prince Andrew could have false memory too

 

More an embarrassing sense of entitlement.

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

He has blocked from his memory any reference to beefing trafficked weans... therefore his testimony is inadmissible, judge dons the black cap...

 

Lets not even mention his assertion that he never sweats.  I doubt his lawyers would allow him to take the stand for his own good.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

Lets not even mention his assertion that he never sweats.  I doubt his lawyers would allow him to take the stand for his own good.

 

Now that would be the ultimate car crash......................which makes it an absolute cert if Ms Giuffre gets her way.

[JimmyCant]

18 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Royal Families name getting dragged through the gutter these days. 
Absolutely wonderful stuff☺️
Should a national holiday in the republic of Scotland one day getting shot of these parasites. 

Royal Family. Boris Johnson. Reece-Mog. They’d be as well wrapping themselves in tartan and shouting ‘See you Jimmy’ There is no better incentive to vote Yes than to get away from the influence and power of those people 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, JimmyCant said:

Royal Family. Boris Johnson. Reece-Mog. They’d be as well wrapping themselves in tartan and shouting ‘See you Jimmy’ There is no better incentive to vote Yes than to get away from the influence and power of those people 

 

Tbh I think there is quite a bit of support for the Royals up here............as for the other two, well...

[JimmyCant]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Tbh I think there is quite a bit of support for the Royals up here............as for the other two, well...

Amongst Unionists yes I suppose there is. Unionism and Royalism seem to go hand in hand.

[frankblack]

5 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Amongst Unionists yes I suppose there is. Unionism and Royalism seem to go hand in hand.

 

Only in the minds of SNP cultists.

[redjambo]

57 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Only in the minds of SNP cultists.

 

On the contrary, here are the results of a poll which shows that @JimmyCantwas spot on - there is a significant correlation between folk who say that they would vote No at a future independence referendum and those who support the monarchy:

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scots-split-whether-monarchy-should-23752436

 

No voters: 54% pro-monarchy, 22% pro-republic, 24% undecided

 

Yes voters: 30% pro-monarchy, 56% pro-republic, 15% undecided

[frankblack]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

On the contrary, here are the results of a poll which shows that @JimmyCantwas spot on - there is a significant correlation between folk who say that they would vote No at a future independence referendum and those who support the monarchy:

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scots-split-whether-monarchy-should-23752436

 

No voters: 54% pro-monarchy, 22% pro-republic, 24% undecided

 

Yes voters: 30% pro-monarchy, 56% pro-republic, 15% undecided

 

Ah, from the Daily Record.  It must be true.

[JimmyCant]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

Ah, from the Daily Record.  It must be true.

Unless you’ve got stats to say otherwise we’ll maybe need to accept it was a proper and accurate poll no ?

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Ah, from the Daily Record.  It must be true.

 

The poll was commissioned by Sky News and carried out by Opinium.

 

Seriously, is that your level of debate nowadays? You offer a proposition, I show you evidence that it isn't true, and you immediately disparage the data by referring to the media outlet in which it was reported, without even reading it to determine the nature of the poll.

 

Very disappointing, Frank. I thought you were all for facts and the truth. I didn't realise you'd joined the brainless legions who just believe what they want and reject all evidence to the contrary.

[frankblack]

23 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

The poll was commissioned by Sky News and carried out by Opinium.

 

Seriously, is that your level of debate nowadays? You offer a proposition, I show you evidence that it isn't true, and you immediately disparage the data by referring to the media outlet in which it was reported, without even reading it to determine the nature of the poll.

 

Very disappointing, Frank. I thought you were all for facts and the truth. I didn't realise you'd joined the brainless legions who just believe what they want and reject all evidence to the contrary.

 

Opinion polls rarely reflect reality.  Much like those predicting and Independence majority.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

Opinion polls rarely reflect reality.  Much like those predicting and Independence majority.

 

They may rarely perfectly reflect reality, but they can/do give us a good idea of the picture. Surely you can't be surprised that there is a positive correlation between unionism and support for royalty, or alternatively, between a desire for independence and for a republic.

[frankblack]

43 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

They may rarely perfectly reflect reality, but they can/do give us a good idea of the picture. Surely you can't be surprised that there is a positive correlation between unionism and support for royalty, or alternatively, between a desire for independence and for a republic.

 

I don't see them as the same issue at all.

 

Unionism is a political union and the Royal family is just symbolic.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

I don't see them as the same issue at all.

 

Unionism is a political union and the Royal family is just symbolic.

 

They're not the same issue. However unionism and royalty often go hand in hand, perhaps because the royal family are viewed as one of the most important constituents of the UK brand. If you're not with the majority who follow that trend, and you're actually in favour of maintaining Scotland's place in the UK but you would like the UK to become a republic, then that's fine.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Opinion polls rarely reflect reality.  Much like those predicting and Independence majority.

That poll that had the UK government, Royals and Hoose jocks piss their pants into bribing the Scottish electorate with a vow. Mind that pish. The vow oh and guaranteed EU membership. Anyway, this thread is about one of the Unions top dogs, feck all to do with Scots. You carry on.

[frankblack]

11 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

That poll that had the UK government, Royals and Hoose jocks piss their pants into bribing the Scottish electorate with a vow. Mind that pish. The vow oh and guaranteed EU membership. Anyway, this thread is about one of the Unions top dogs, feck all to do with Scots. You carry on.

 

The same Royal Family that the king of Scotland has ruled?

Edited Sunday at 19:38 by frankblack

[Lone Striker]

Meanwhile, there's an ITV documentary on tomorrow at 9pm - Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile - which has some witness interviews who say they believed that Randy was "in a relationship" with Maxwell in the early 2000s

 

I vaguely recall some tabloid headlines about that after  Randy & Sarah got divorced in the mid-90s - the usual Royal tittle-tattle about who was shagging who.  

 

Hopefully someone puts it on Youtube, since we're "otherwise engaged" tomorrow evening. 

 

 

[Carl Fredrickson]

7 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Meanwhile, there's an ITV documentary on tomorrow at 9pm - Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile - which has some witness interviews who say they believed that Randy was "in a relationship" with Maxwell in the early 2000s

 

I vaguely recall some tabloid headlines about that after  Randy & Sarah got divorced in the mid-90s - the usual Royal tittle-tattle about who was shagging who.  

 

Hopefully someone puts it on Youtube, since we're "otherwise engaged" tomorrow evening. 

 

 

 

I saw clips on it earlier today on the ITV news. One of randy Andys security guys saying that Maxwell would come and go as she pleased at the palace.... 

 

Will catch it on ITV player. 

[The White Cockade]

On 16/01/2022 at 19:38, frankblack said:

 

The same Royal Family that the king of Scotland has ruled?

The King of Scotland?

[frankblack]

2 hours ago, The White Cockade said:

The King of Scotland?

 

For someone with your username you seem ignorant of Scotland's history or are trying to be deliberately pedantic in some obscure way nobody cares about.

 

https://www.rct.uk/collection/people/james-i-king-of-great-britain-1566-1625-james-vi-of-scotland-and-i-of-england#/type/subject

[Mister T]

Back to Tynecastle tonight, nice win for the JTs and this to look forward to when I get home. 

[The White Cockade]

10 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

For someone with your username you seem ignorant of Scotland's history or are trying to be deliberately pedantic in some obscure way nobody cares about.

 

https://www.rct.uk/collection/people/james-i-king-of-great-britain-1566-1625-james-vi-of-scotland-and-i-of-england#/type/subject

Thought you were talking about the House of Windsor / Saxe Coburg / Hanover 
The Stuarts were 400 years ago 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Mister T said:

Back to Tynecastle tonight, nice win for the JTs and this to look forward to when I get home. 

 

I was reading that there are 6 or 7 John Doe's whose real names were mentioned in a 2015 defamation trial, Maxwell has stopped blocking their names being made public, it's now up to the court to decide seemingly.  I wonder if the ex-HRH is one of them, time will tell I suppose.

 

'Endless headlines', I'd bet there is much much more still to come out about all of this which isn't in the public domain............yet.

[robroy1874]

Met him at an Embassy function overseas. Absolute arrogant buffoon. Embassy official who had met him at the airport asked him "How was your flight, sir?" And the reply was, "None of your business".