Jump to content

Prince Andrew


Maroon Sailor
 Share

Recommended Posts

doctor jambo

Not to throw a spanner in here, but proving he knew she was trafficked is difficult.

If he didn’t , then he had sex with a woman over the age of consent, with her consent .

cannot stand the royals , but beyond it being a bit sleezy, are we not jumping the gun ?

Of course if it happened in the US, then she was under age, but as far as I’m aware it was only in London

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 797
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • A Boy Named Crow

    51

  • Smithee

    35

  • Jambo-Jimbo

    83

  • Auldbenches

    50

The Real Maroonblood
1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

Not to throw a spanner in here, but proving he knew she was trafficked is difficult.

If he didn’t , then he had sex with a woman over the age of consent, with her consent .

cannot stand the royals , but beyond it being a bit sleezy, are we not jumping the gun ?

Of course if it happened in the US, then she was under age, but as far as I’m aware it was only in London

If it happened in the USA it would depend what State it happened as there are different ages of consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Not to throw a spanner in here, but proving he knew she was trafficked is difficult.

If he didn’t , then he had sex with a woman over the age of consent, with her consent .

cannot stand the royals , but beyond it being a bit sleezy, are we not jumping the gun ?

Of course if it happened in the US, then she was under age, but as far as I’m aware it was only in London

 

The allegations relate to 3 separate incidents, London, New York and the US Virgin Islands. No idea of the legalities of it in those regions, but it isn't just London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, jvm32 said:

 

The allegations relate to 3 separate incidents, London, New York and the US Virgin Islands. No idea of the legalities of it in those regions, but it isn't just London.

 

Just googled it and in New York it's 17 & the US Virgin Islands it's 16, don't know what the age of consent was when the alleged incidences happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/08/2021 at 07:14, superjack said:

That's a bit far, she gave birth to them and then let her staff bring them up.

Yes, I blame the staff, they were probably far too lenient.  I bet Andrew never had a skelp on the backside from his nanny, and he's probably bitterly disappointed about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Not to throw a spanner in here, but proving he knew she was trafficked is difficult.

If he didn’t , then he had sex with a woman over the age of consent, with her consent .

cannot stand the royals , but beyond it being a bit sleezy, are we not jumping the gun ?

Of course if it happened in the US, then she was under age, but as far as I’m aware it was only in London

They first have to prove he had sex with her.  He claims to have no recollection of ever having met her.  Even if there was irrefutable evidence that he did have sex with her (say someone had been secretly filming proceedings) then they would still have to prove it was non-consensual.

 

I'm not sure what the burden of proof is in a civil case in the USA.  Is it 'balance of probabilities' as it is in the UK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Not to throw a spanner in here, but proving he knew she was trafficked is difficult.

If he didn’t , then he had sex with a woman over the age of consent, with her consent .

cannot stand the royals , but beyond it being a bit sleezy, are we not jumping the gun ?

Of course if it happened in the US, then she was under age, but as far as I’m aware it was only in London

Is it not more of a problem in US that she was 17, rather than 18 - I believe the sex was in UK but there was allegedly oral in NYC...? Proof beyond balance of probabilities might not be so hard when you look at 2 40-somethings hanging out with a 17 year old "masseuse" who also gives their 40-something pal "extras"...You'd have to be pretty naive not to wonder about that one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prince Andrew should have, and quite possibly still will, stick Ghislaine Maxwell firmly in the frame for this. All he needs to say is that Maxwell introduced her and said she was old  enough. He can also say that Epstein confirmed it (which can’t be denied or disproven) 

 

The boy’s an utter idiot for THAT TV interview, as is his lawyer for allowing it, but I doubt very much it’s admissible in US law. He’s  not the sharpest tool in the Royal box. This will never see the inside of a courtroom. It will be settled with a huge payment, unless of course Ghislaine decides to bring the house down for a plea deal. She knows a lot of stuff that a lot of famous people won’t want getting out.

 

It’s a popcorn case and I hope we get her trial live.

Edited by JimmyCant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RobNox said:

Yes, I blame the staff, they were probably far too lenient.  I bet Andrew never had a skelp on the backside from his nanny, and he's probably bitterly disappointed about that.

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Prince Andrew should have, and quite possibly still will, stick Ghislaine Maxwell firmly in the frame for this. All he needs to say is that Maxwell introduced her and said she was old  enough. He can also say that Epstein confirmed it (which can’t be denied or disproven) 

 

The boy’s an utter idiot for THAT TV interview, as is his lawyer for allowing it, but I doubt very much it’s admissible in US law. He’s  not the sharpest tool in the Royal box. This will never see the inside of a courtroom. It will be settled with a huge payment, unless of course Ghislaine decides to bring the house down for a plea deal. She knows a lot of stuff that a lot of famous people won’t want getting out.

 

It’s a popcorn case and I hope we get her trial live.

 

I don't think he's smart enough to think like that.

 

There was a Sunday Times journo on the TV this morning who had interviewed Andrew some years ago, anyway I can't remember the exact phrase he used but it was along the lines of Andrew has an exaggerated opinion of his own intelligence.  In other words he's as thick as shit, but thinks he's a genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Frenchman Returns

Thought I would look across the pond to see how its being viewed there. The Prince Andrew strategy would appear to be drag it out as long as possible. Article in USA Today

 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/08/11/prince-andrews-legal-options-epstein-accuser-virginia-giuffre-lawsuit/5557425001/

 

Found this paragraph particularly galling, especially the part I have highlighted. It is 2021 isn't it?

 

That's not going to happen because Andrew can't be forced to participate in an American proceeding. He can't be extradited because it's a civil lawsuit, not criminal charges. As a "prince of full blood," he could claim sovereign immunity, which could take years to resolve if challenged, Stephens says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow

I'm rewatching the Newsnight interview. It's even worse than I remembered! You know your country has problems when this is the family you choose to have ruling over you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I don't think he's smart enough to think like that.

 

There was a Sunday Times journo on the TV this morning who had interviewed Andrew some years ago, anyway I can't remember the exact phrase he used but it was along the lines of Andrew has an exaggerated opinion of his own intelligence.  In other words he's as thick as shit, but thinks he's a genius.

 

That butler that did a book said the royal family all had nicknames among the palace staff - Andrew's was The ****.

 

So not only is he thick as utter ****, he's a **** too.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I don't think he's smart enough to think like that.

 

There was a Sunday Times journo on the TV this morning who had interviewed Andrew some years ago, anyway I can't remember the exact phrase he used but it was along the lines of Andrew has an exaggerated opinion of his own intelligence.  In other words he's as thick as shit, but thinks he's a genius.

 

You could probably say the same about all of Queen Victoria's descendants.  A quick assessment of the royal family in the last 100+ years suggests that they are all a bunch of over-privileged dullards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

You could probably say the same about all of Queen Victoria's descendants.  A quick assessment of the royal family in the last 100+ years suggests that they are all a bunch of over-privileged dullards.

 

I think you could go further back than her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
17 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I'm rewatching the Newsnight interview. It's even worse than I remembered! You know your country has problems when this is the family you choose to have ruling over you!

Choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
18 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Thought I would look across the pond to see how its being viewed there. The Prince Andrew strategy would appear to be drag it out as long as possible. Article in USA Today

 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/08/11/prince-andrews-legal-options-epstein-accuser-virginia-giuffre-lawsuit/5557425001/

 

Found this paragraph particularly galling, especially the part I have highlighted. It is 2021 isn't it?

 

That's not going to happen because Andrew can't be forced to participate in an American proceeding. He can't be extradited because it's a civil lawsuit, not criminal charges. As a "prince of full blood," he could claim sovereign immunity, which could take years to resolve if challenged, Stephens says

Is this so very different from the UK being unable to try the US diplomats wife who killed someone while driving on the wrong side of the road (allegedly). No time for any of the royals but America would have a cheek to get on a high horse about this given its own approach to extraditing its nationals.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Choose?

Yes, the royal family got where they are by force,  but they stay there by consent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FinnBarr Saunders
58 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Yes, the royal family got where they are by force,  but they stay there by consent. 

 

I didn't vote for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Wonder if this is right enough…

49426F4C-4583-4F56-9B26-342472F3AA06.jpeg

And if Priti Patel ignores, it gets ignored.

 

Then Michael Give ignores, then the next HS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
1 hour ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

I didn't vote for them.

Nope, nor did I, but if the majority of people wanted rid of them,  they'd be gone. Too many people are just happy to go along with it. 

 

I've heard before that if there was a popular vote to remove them,  they'd be able to stay in place with the support of the military. If that's true though,  that we have armed forces that would stand against the people to protect an unelected monarch who is in place by accident of birth,  we should disband the military and rebuilld it with an ethos not based on total ****wittery...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FinnBarr Saunders
21 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Nope, nor did I, but if the majority of people wanted rid of them,  they'd be gone. Too many people are just happy to go along with it. 

 

I've heard before that if there was a popular vote to remove them,  they'd be able to stay in place with the support of the military. If that's true though,  that we have armed forces that would stand against the people to protect an unelected monarch who is in place by accident of birth,  we should disband the military and rebuilld it with an ethos not based on total ****wittery...

Agreed mate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
On 11/08/2021 at 08:10, DETTY29 said:

While the Queen is alive, favourite son will be protected at all costs.

 

Charles who isn't popular, certainly compared to Elizabeth, or William however, may have a decision to make once ER2 departs to protect or transform the monarchy.

 

Unless they can find a way for The Mail or The Express to run a daily campaign for months put the blame on Meghan.  😉

Favourite son you say? Maybe his real dad is a nonce also, allegedly. 

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a29752077/who-is-porchey-queen-elizabeth-ii-friend/

Edited by Pasquale for King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savage Vince
9 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Nope, nor did I, but if the majority of people wanted rid of them,  they'd be gone. Too many people are just happy to go along with it. 

 

I've heard before that if there was a popular vote to remove them,  they'd be able to stay in place with the support of the military. If that's true though,  that we have armed forces that would stand against the people to protect an unelected monarch who is in place by accident of birth,  we should disband the military and rebuilld it with an ethos not based on total ****wittery...

 

I think the only way you'll remove these heinous vermin is by force. The French and the Russians had the right idea about so-called Royals. The servient British are a different breed altogether, it'll never happen here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
2 hours ago, Savage Vince said:

 

I think the only way you'll remove these heinous vermin is by force. The French and the Russians had the right idea about so-called Royals. The servient British are a different breed altogether, it'll never happen here

That's what I meant in my earlier post,  there's something fundamentally broken about somebody who'd feel good about this arrangement. It's mental. 

Edited by A Boy Named Crow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savage Vince
2 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

That's what I meant in my earlier post,  there's something fundamentally broken about somebody who'd feel good about this arrangement. It's mental. 

 

Agreed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They said in one of the paper reviews this morning that he might go for diplomatic immunity.  Immunity from what if he hasn't done anything wrong?  

Just get his arese to the states and answer some questions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FinnBarr Saunders
6 hours ago, Auldbenches said:

They said in one of the paper reviews this morning that he might go for diplomatic immunity.  Immunity from what if he hasn't done anything wrong?  

Just get his arese to the states and answer some questions.  

 

Is he a diplomat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Is he a diplomat?

I don't think he is but maybe his ma will do something. 

A bit if a coincidence that the story about the American hit and run woman came back into the headlines last week just as the headlines about the legal case against him started being discussed?  

Why ask for immunity if haven't done anything wrong?  

The queen also has this on her hands by not making him go to the states and help the FBI.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savage Vince
3 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

The queen also has this on her hands by not making him go to the states and help the FBI.   

 

Big time. A very bad year for old Lizzie would get much much worse if they go down the diplomatic immunity road. This mob are nowhere near as loved as the media would have us believe. The bizarre respect she has is will hopefully disappear if that happens on her watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Savage Vince said:

 

Big time. A very bad year for old Lizzie would get much much worse if they go down the diplomatic immunity road. This mob are nowhere near as loved as the media would have us believe. The bizarre respect she has is will hopefully disappear if that happens on her watch. 

This will have a huge impact on her, and the rest of them, if he manages to wriggle out of this. 

Any respect anyone had for her should've went when it came to light she had 10 million in an offshore account.   How much does she need and what the **** does she and the others spend it on?

Charles is a greddy bassa as well.  

It's nothing but a money making machine for a few social retards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savage Vince
7 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

This will have a huge impact on her, and the rest of them, if he manages to wriggle out of this. 

Any respect anyone had for her should've went when it came to light she had 10 million in an offshore account.   How much does she need and what the **** does she and the others spend it on?

Charles is a greddy bassa as well.  

It's nothing but a money making machine for a few social retards. 

 

She's got plenty more than that. All the land they acquire under the pretence of charity as well. Parasites. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Savage Vince said:

 

She's got plenty more than that. All the land they acquire under the pretence of charity as well. Parasites. 

It's the raw cash they go through.  Fergie ended up in 20 million debt and had to work on American tv to help pay it off.  That means she must've blown the money she had and an extra 20 million.   On ****ing what?  

Sadly their are millions still brain washed with this shite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

I don't think he is but maybe his ma will do something. 

A bit if a coincidence that the story about the American hit and run woman came back into the headlines last week just as the headlines about the legal case against him started being discussed?  

Why ask for immunity if haven't done anything wrong?  

The queen also has this on her hands by not making him go to the states and help the FBI.   

 

No need to go to the states, can be questioned via video link, besides I'm sure there is an FBI office in London, so there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever not to help the FBI in their enquiries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

No need to go to the states, can be questioned via video link, besides I'm sure there is an FBI office in London, so there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever not to help the FBI in their enquiries.

The only excuse/reason that he won't help is guilt.  I hope Maxwell squeals and brings the lot of them down.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Auldbenches said:

The only excuse/reason that he won't help is guilt.  I hope Maxwell squeals and brings the lot of them down.  

 

Correct.  One would think that a leading member of the Royal Family would be anxious to assist authorities in dealing with a case where under-age girls have allegedly been sexually abused. Especially when said member of the Royal Family has had accusations directed against him.  But he isn't anxious to help and there seems to be only one reason for that ... he has something to hide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Correct.  One would think that a leading member of the Royal Family would be anxious to assist authorities in dealing with a case where under-age girls have allegedly been sexually abused. Especially when said member of the Royal Family has had accusations directed against him.  But he isn't anxious to help and there seems to be only one reason for that ... he has something to hide. 

There is no need for any delay unless he is hiding something.  Going by his interview, he has nothing to worry about so why not just help victims get justice.  

In this situation, I think the queen should be getting openly criticised in the media for this.  Head if a church and doesn't want to get her son to help victims of sexual abuse?  

This should bring them all down if he gets away with this.

It's a ****ing scandal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

indianajones
10 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Correct.  One would think that a leading member of the Royal Family would be anxious to assist authorities in dealing with a case where under-age girls have allegedly been sexually abused. Especially when said member of the Royal Family has had accusations directed against him.  But he isn't anxious to help and there seems to be only one reason for that ... he has something to hide. 

 

50 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

There is no need for any delay unless he is hiding something.  Going by his interview, he has nothing to worry about so why not just help victims get justice.  

In this situation, I think the queen should be getting openly criticised in the media for this.  Head if a church and doesn't want to get her son to help victims of sexual abuse?  

This should bring them all down if he gets away with this.

It's a ****ing scandal.

 

The truth but MSM will sweep it under the carpet. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, indianajones said:

 

 

The truth but MSM will sweep it under the carpet. 

 

They are already playing their part.  Last week as the the news was breaking about the civil law suit against andrew, they start printing stories about getting that hit and run women back here.  Coincidence?  Not a chance.  Even heard it get a mention on tv that we shouldn't send him there until she comes here

Very handy for Andy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...