Jump to content
Parley

Do you believe Prince Andrew ?

Recommended Posts

Andrew Windsor will get his opportunity to defend his good name in a civil case, but will never be getting his titles back now.

This erks me...why should any of these be re-distributed to other members of the same family.  Who is going to get these gigs, there's nobody left after Harry, Phillip and now Andrew have handed them back by the bucketload.  Maybe they can start handing them out amongst the children, or maybe Camilla could get chucked a few?  I cannot understand this ancient British mentality of bowing down to people who've done nothing to deserve praise....it's almost as if they need a deity to worship because there's no confidence in anything else.

Do the armed forces not have enough actual retirees to take on these ceremonial roles based on their actual career record and demonstrated valour?  Surely they would get more respect from the forces than these hereditary freeloaders, especially as it was pressure form the forces to remove Andrew Windsor from these roles that has forced these changes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935

Quote

But the military titles and royal roles will go to other members of the family, which means they won't be coming back to Prince Andrew whatever the outcome.

The latest Palace announcement means he has lost military titles including Colonel of the Grenadier Guards - one of the most senior infantry regiments in the British army.

The other UK military titles he no longer has include:

  • Honorary air commodore of RAF Lossiemouth
  • Colonel-in-chief of the Royal Irish Regiment
  • Colonel-in-chief of the Small Arms School Corps
  • Colonel-in-chief of The Royal Lancers (Queen Elizabeth's Own)
  • Colonel-in-chief of the Yorkshire Regiment
  • Colonel-in-chief of the Small Arms School Corps
  • Commodore-in-Chief of the Fleet Air Arm
  • Royal colonel of the Royal Highland Fusiliers
  • Royal colonel of the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

The duke will also lose several overseas honorary roles including colonel-in-chief of The Royal Highland Fusiliers Of Canada, colonel-in-chief of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment, colonel-in-chief of the Princess Louise Fusiliers of Canada and colonel-in-chief of the Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment).

 

Edited by beketamun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's deffo a creap but let's not lose sight of the facts. A 40 year old man went with a 17 year old hooker (that's in court papers btw) who had a history of blackmailing her punters.

A deal has been done and if Maxwell stays unsuicided long enough I look forward to seeing what's in her little black book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, simmo said:

17 year old hooker

I haven’t really followed the story as couldn’t care less about the so called royals. But isn’t the issue that she was under 18 at the time, which is the legal age of consent in the US, therefore legally couldn’t ‘consent’ to sex paid or otherwise?


:evilface_frowning_s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

I haven’t really followed the story as couldn’t care less about the so called royals. But isn’t the issue that she was under 18 at the time, which is the legal age of consent in the US, therefore legally couldn’t ‘consent’ to sex paid or otherwise?

No that is not the issue.


Buy a man eat fish. The Day, Teach Man, to lifetime.      - Joe Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, simmo said:

He's deffo a creap but let's not lose sight of the facts. A 40 year old man went with a 17 year old hooker (that's in court papers btw) who had a history of blackmailing her punters.

A deal has been done and if Maxwell stays unsuicided long enough I look forward to seeing what's in her little black book.

It's a mucky, murky business aind I'd also like to see the contents of her little black book.

I don't know if Virginia whatshername blackmailed the men she was trafficked to but she did file a law suit in 2009 against Epstein and received a settlement of approx. $500,000.  She seems to have tried to live a fairly normal life until many other girls also filed law suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was trafficked. Isn’t that enough? She’s a victim. She’d be a victim if she was 17, 19 or 30. He’s a perpetrator of abuse. Using his wealth, power and social standing for self gratification and hoping to get away with it. Times are changing. Women have a voice and they are not afraid to use it. He needs to face the gravity of what he did and the ongoing  pain and trauma he contributed to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/11/2019 at 15:41, Parley said:

Did someone put a gun to her head ?

Did Andrew rape her then ?

Do you think rape always involves physical force? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/11/2019 at 16:07, Parley said:

Non consensual ? 3 times ? in different countries at different times ?

Read up on grooming, sexual abuse, sex trafficking and coercion. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/11/2019 at 17:20, Paul1Perth said:

Funny Princess Diana was shagging around for years and most people think she's a saint.

How is that relevant here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, HappyHeart said:

She was trafficked. Isn’t that enough? She’s a victim. She’d be a victim if she was 17, 19 or 30. He’s a perpetrator of abuse

I agree with you. However it was not Prince Andrew who trafficked her.  

It's a pity Prince Andrew tried to deny the whole thing, instead of admitting that he attended parties with sex workers.  There is nothing wrong with a single man having sex with a sex worker.   And I would challenge any man to tell the difference between a 17-year-old and a 21-year-old when they're dolled up (let's remember that "adult"fashion models these days are 14 or 15 years old, so clearly none of us can tell).  

So the only question is, did he know that the woman in question had been trafficked or coerced?  If he did, he's an abuser.  If he didn't, he was just a customer.

Edited by Marisawright
  • Like 5

Scot by birth, emigrated 1985 | Aussie husband applied UK spouse visa Jan 2015, granted March 2015, moved to UK May 2015 | Returned to Oz June 2016

"The stranger who comes home does not make himself at home but makes home itself strange." -- Rainer Maria Rilke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do feel a bit uneasy that he is denying everything and has not been convicted or found guilty of anything in court yet.

So is it natural justice to remove everything from him when nothing has yet been proven in court?


Buy a man eat fish. The Day, Teach Man, to lifetime.      - Joe Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Parley said:

I do feel a bit uneasy that he is denying everything and has not been convicted or found guilty of anything in court yet.

So is it natural justice to remove everything from him when nothing has yet been proven in court?

Maybe they know what's coming.   He denied knowing her despite having a photo with his arm round her in a private house.   If she's got proof she met him multiple times in different countries...he is toast.

They want the medical evidence that he was unable to sweat for a period of time, which was a pathetic excuse why he couldn;t be in a nightclub.   He's spent half his life in night clubs, that's why he was known as "randy andy".   The sweating thing is interesting, he said it had been caused by the Falklands war (1981?)  as in a nervous reaction.  As far as we know, if you get that condition as a result of anything other than medication, it is irreversible.  So if he's got better from it more than 25 years later....it could be a breakthrough in medical science.  Or else he's lying.

It's a civil case, they just need to prove he's lying to build a picture of behaviour to make a balanced judgement,  it doesn't demand the same level of proof as for a criminal conviction.  I'm still wondering if they're not desperately trying to pay her off behind the scenes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, beketamun said:

Maybe they know what's coming.   He denied knowing her despite having a photo with his arm round her in a private house.   If she's got proof she met him multiple times in different countries...he is toast.

They want the medical evidence that he was unable to sweat for a period of time, which was a pathetic excuse why he couldn;t be in a nightclub.   He's spent half his life in night clubs, that's why he was known as "randy andy".   The sweating thing is interesting, he said it had been caused by the Falklands war (1981?)  as in a nervous reaction.  As far as we know, if you get that condition as a result of anything other than medication, it is irreversible.  So if he's got better from it more than 25 years later....it could be a breakthrough in medical science.  Or else he's lying.

It's a civil case, they just need to prove he's lying to build a picture of behaviour to make a balanced judgement,  it doesn't demand the same level of proof as for a criminal conviction.  I'm still wondering if they're not desperately trying to pay her off behind the scenes.

So you are in favour of punishing people before the court case happens?

An unusual idea.


Buy a man eat fish. The Day, Teach Man, to lifetime.      - Joe Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Marisawright said:

I agree with you. However it was not Prince Andrew who trafficked her.  

It's a pity Prince Andrew tried to deny the whole thing, instead of admitting that he attended parties with sex workers.  There is nothing wrong with a single man having sex with a sex worker.   And I would challenge any man to tell the difference between a 17-year-old and a 21-year-old when they're dolled up (let's remember that "adult"fashion models these days are 14 or 15 years old, so clearly none of us can tell).  

So the only question is, did he know that the woman in question had been trafficked or coerced?  If he did, he's an abuser.  If he didn't, he was just a customer.

He wasn't 'just a customer'

He was a close personal friend of Epstein.That is why he's a person of interest. That and the fact he's been named by a victim.

In his position, he has a responsibility to lead by example.To say he had 'no idea' of what he was part of is naive in the extreme. 

Edited by HappyHeart
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Parley said:

So you are in favour of punishing people before the court case happens?

An unusual idea.

Aren't you in favour of turning back the boats before people asylum.cases can be heard?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, HappyHeart said:

He wasn't 'just a customer'

He was a close personal friend of Epstein.That is why he's a person of interest. That and the fact he's been named by a victim.

In his position, he has a responsibility to lead by example.To say he had 'no idea' of what he was part of is naive in the extreme. 

Also in his position, he should have been savvy enough to ask for ID and a negative STD/HIV test. What was he thinking? Thinking with his nether regions presumably. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Parley said:

So you are in favour of punishing people before the court case happens?

An unusual idea.

It's not really about the court case.

He has brought the royal family into disrepute. That is an unreliable fact. 


Nearly there! Don't drop the ball now guys! Vaccines are weeks away. Stay safe!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Parley said:

So you are in favour of punishing people before the court case happens?

An unusual idea.

I didn't punish him, his mum, brother and nephew did.   That's the insidiousness of a constituional monarchy where it's outside of people's control to do anything,  and they protect their institution above all else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is why did he associate himself with Epstein, I am sure his advisors would have have advised to distance himself. 


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rallyman said:

My question is why did he associate himself with Epstein, I am sure his advisors would have have advised to distance himself. 

Maybe he wanted sex with young women and thought Epstein's crowd could protect his privacy?  He could hardly go to a club and pick up a slapper from Grimsby.

Mind you, if they did this to everybody, every rock star from the 70's and 80's would be in jail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Rallyman said:

My question is why did he associate himself with Epstein, I am sure his advisors would have have advised to distance himself. 


 

They were all in it up to their necks. These crooked people move in the same circles. Fergie had to apologise after she was financially assisted by him at one stage when in a mess, something she ‘now regrets’ of course she does…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rallyman said:

My question is why did he associate himself with Epstein, I am sure his advisors would have have advised to distance himself. 


 

Prince Andrew had known Ghislaine Maxwell since her university days - at least that's what he states in his interview - and through her he met Epstein and looks like he went along for the ride so to speak.  He obviously didn't care about the repercussions and that he would be too important to end up in the mess he's in now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, beketamun said:

I didn't punish him, his mum, brother and nephew did.   That's the insidiousness of a constituional monarchy where it's outside of people's control to do anything,  and they protect their institution above all else.

 

So you don't think he deserves to be punished before being found guilty of a crime, as per natural justice ?

I wish you would stop sitting on the fence and be clear.

Edited by Parley

Buy a man eat fish. The Day, Teach Man, to lifetime.      - Joe Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Parley said:

So you don't think he deserves to be punished before being found guilty of a crime, as per natural justice ?

I wish you would stop sitting on the fence and be clear.

Can you please define "natural justice", I'm having trouble understanding why you're continually going off topic. 

He is punished/protected by his own family.  He has not been "punished" by anybody concerning the civil case he is facing?  If you have a problem, give the Queen a call...put her right on a few things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

×