prince andrew

Subject: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 03:48 AM

Should he be asked to resign from all royal duties, and should his salary be freezed

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 03:49 AM

should maxwells daughter be questioned, please put into below line

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 04:20 AM

Well, Jeffrey Epstein practiced piano every day. The prince may have learned something from him?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 04:53 AM

GUEST 412 AM ,I have asked for it be put blow line , underage sex is not nonsense, it is against the law even if youare prince anbdrew

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 05:38 AM

But can he play banjo?
RtS

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Nick
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 05:53 AM

Perhaps he's got a squeezebox and can't sleep at night

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 06:55 AM

What on earth, Dick Miles, prevented you from posting this nonsense below the line yourself?

But note you want him to resign (Don't think he does actually have a Royal salary, I don't think anyone has) - on what grounds? Just because he knew the man? (Not a crime) Just because he had visited his home? (Not a crime) Your proof that Prince Andrew had underage sex is what exactly (That is what you are specifically inferring isn't it?). As far as I am aware no-one especially Prince Andrew, has been accused of anything.

Glad to see your unswerving support of the basic rule of our legal system that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 12:33 PM

Prince Andrew, the duke still has a hefty net worth of around $75 million.

Andrew has investments in businesses and properties but a good amount of his fortune comes from a trust fund that was set up when he was a child. He also collects a pension from the Royal Navy.
i sugget that if he is found guiltyif he is chargd , that his pension is removed

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 12:58 PM

from bbc news.
The short statement from the palace has all the right words: appalled, abhorrent, deplores. There is little doubt that the prince wants the world to know how much he is horrified by what his former friend Epstein is accused of.

It was public knowledge that Prince Andrew had kept in contact with the billionaire sex offender after his 2008 conviction. The photo of the two men walking in Central Park in 2010 led to serious criticism of the prince's judgement.

But to see him inside Epstein's house, as young women come and go, looking for all the world as if he was a happy house-guest, is a disturbing sight. And strong though the palace statement may be it, it fails to answer the central question.

Just what was Prince Andrew doing visiting the house of a convicted paedophile?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 03:10 PM

Nothing to do with folk Guest That is why it is below the line

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 03:23 PM

That is why the original protest - Dick didn't start the thread there. GUEST objected. That's the only way a guest could have posted on a thread that is NOW below the line, because it originally wasn't.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 03:34 PM

Maybe those young women were a smoke screen for the Prince. There have been rumours to make one think .......

High stakes tactic though.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 08:46 PM

Don't worry about the thread being originally in the music section. It's an easy mistake to make, and it's an easy mistake to fix. But the original poster didn't do us the favor of explaining the basis of his suggestion that Prince Andrew be sacked (or whatever). Here's a link (click) that explains that "Prince Andrew [is] 'appalled' by Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse allegations." Apparently, Andrew had a friendly relationship with Epstein, and doesn't believe the allegations of sexual abuse.

And apparently, the original poster is appalled by Andrew's being appalled, and believes that Andrew should be sacked.

But one never knows about the original poster, since he rarely explains himself very well. We Americans tend to like the British Royals and spend a lot of tourist money pursuing our admiration of them, although the British seem to find them appalling. But we still think they're quaint, and Andy should keep his job, whatever it is he does.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 09:46 PM

if he paid in for the pension, he should get it.

You can't just steal money from people, just because you morally disapprove of him or her. I've had several people on facebook suggest that I and millions of others should lose their pensions because we voted to leave the EU.

As for the royal family - do away with the lot of them, and invest their money in projects that will give work to the population. Although EU rules would probably see this as unfair competition, I think the trouble with this country is that all the wealth is in the hands of those who do nowt with it, and haven'y since Tudor times at least.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 04:13 AM

But we still think they're quaint, and Andy should keep his job", whatever it is he does."
there is logic there ,joe, a bit liker the priests that abuse children , do you think they should keep their jobs?
I am not saying all preists are abusers any more than all the royal family are , but since prince andrew has his arm around an underage girl [in a photoraph] ,it does seem possible he may have abused her, stil perhaps he should be tried and then if he is guilty he should lose his job, same as priests do, is that clear joe, have i explained myself, joe do you understand clearly what i am saying joe?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 04:57 AM

Since when has putting your arm around a young girl been a criminal offence?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: gillymor
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 06:31 AM

On the other side of that underage girl in the photo stands Ghislane Maxwell, Epstein's girlfriend/procuress. There's definitely smoke.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 06:47 AM

True, gillymor, but someone can’t be ‘tried’ simply on the basis that ‘it does seem possible he may have abused her’. Proof is required.

The last time I checked, the legal principle of ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty’ still prevailed in both the UK and the US.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 09:26 AM

well undoubtedly more will come out in time ,incidentally did i say he should be tried, read my post carefully i used the word PERHAPS,LET SEE IF MORE EVIDENCE EMERGES, or will we see a whitewasahing, at the very least he should be more careful who he chooses as friends

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 09:45 AM

There is an argument if there is enough evidence that a trial gives andrew a chance to clear his name

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 10:34 AM

Iain, this has not one fucking thing to do with Brexit, other than you trolling for gullible responders. (Does this make me one?)
---------------
Recreational offendedness - yay.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have had friends and co-workers who turned out to be abusers of some sort. I was dismayed. I didn't want to believe the allegations, but hey, I was wrong. Have none of you had the same thing happen, or is this such a huge issue because he's a royal?

I think folks just enjoy having their feathers ruffled,

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 10:46 AM

did I say he should be tried, read my post carefully i used the word PERHAPS,LET SEE IF MORE EVIDENCE EMERGES...”

I did read your post carefully, and you did say he should be tried. Here are your exact words, c&p’d from your post (I’ve ignored the preceding couple of sentences which are irrelevant to this point)...

”I am not saying all preists are abusers any more than all the royal family are , but since prince andrew has his arm around an underage girl [in a photoraph] ,it does seem possible he may have abused her, stil perhaps he should be tried and then if he is guilty he should lose his job, same as priests do, is that clear joe, have i explained myself, joe do you understand clearly what i am saying joe?”

No mention of ”PERHAPS,LET SEE IF MORE EVIDENCE EMERGES...”

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 10:55 AM

”I don't know about anyone else, but I have had friends and co-workers who turned out to be abusers of some sort. I was dismayed. I didn't want to believe the allegations, but hey, I was wrong. Have none of you had the same thing happen, or is this such a huge issue because he's a royal?”

Yes Jeri, I’ve had it happen when I discovered that a man I played squash with regularly and went out for beers with afterwards, had been abusing his two daughters whom I had regular contact with in an informal Education context.

I found it impossible to meet up and socialise with him after that. He never questioned why.

Over the course of several years in that Education role, I discovered there’s far more of that sort of thing goes on than is often realised.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 11:18 AM

One of the most shocking revelations for me was when a friend on the music scene from a well known Irish music family stood up in church to deliver his mother's eulogy and bitterly described how his uncle had systematically sexually abused him for many years as a child
It was like being punched in the face
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 12:34 PM

I'm pretty sure that if a wealthy man exploits a young victim of sex trafficking, he doesn't take her to a public place and allow someone to take his picture with her. Just sayin.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: gillymor
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 01:03 PM

Yes, I'm sure all those wealthy and powerful men were hanging out with a scumbag sex-trafficking statutory rapist for the snickerdoodles and herbal tea.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 01:15 PM

I'm not sure that Andy has much to worry about
An official enquiry, complete with brushes and plenty of whitewash will come to the rescue as they did in the recent past
Jim arroll

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 02:01 PM

There is an apocryphal idea that minor royals are sacrificed in order the bury bad news or take of bad government. No evidence for this, but just saying..... anyone know where to find the lryics of Coats Off For Britain?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 02:26 PM

"minor royals are sacrificed in order the bury bad news "
How beautifully J. G. Frazeish - wonder if the beat them to death with flails in a cornfield !!
Maybe the came could be adapted for Prime Ministers ?
Not sure how "minor" royal princes are considered
I woud have thought the real EMBARRASMENTS were more likely to be chosen for that honour and the lesser ones kept aside for marrying whenever the country is in crisis and needs a diversion
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 02:27 PM

will prince andrew wriggle out of the hole he got himself in?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 02:38 PM

Well the whole issue is just in time for Johnson so I am sure he is hoping this becomes the main focus of media attention for the next 2 months.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 02:38 PM

I wouldn't pass judgement on Prince Andrew's apparently murky doings without more evidence, but in my opinion he has a lot of questions to answer, that he won't have to, that lesser mortals would have to answer.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 02:42 PM

Hi Steve
Jim

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 03:57 PM

Er, hi, Jim...

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 04:03 AM

with respect backwoodsman, the word perhaps does alter the meaning and negates your argument.
god knows what prince philip gets up to, i suspect he possibly might make andrew look saintly,

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 04:29 AM

Dick, wake up man and stop wriggling. You cannot ‘try’ someone for child abuse on the basis of a photo of him with his arm around a young girl. That is what you suggested should happen in your rambling post, which I copied and pasted verbatim - it’s there in black and white.

I haven’t a clue what Prince Philip ‘gets up to’, and neither have you.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 04:46 AM

It makes no difference anyway, nothing would ever be done to him,
' invisible fingers will mould palaces of gold ' [ Leon Rosselson ]

Dave H

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 05:44 AM

Pales into insignificance when considering Corbyn's past antics with Diane Abbott!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 07:08 AM

Steve, I agree, we can't pass judgement, but we can present the allegations and evidence that has been presented and invite Prince Andrew to defend his position.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 07:10 AM

Oh,and hi Steve and Jim


This could easily morph into a parody of Jasper Carrots magic roundabout monologue.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 07:29 AM

"This could easily morph into a parody of Jasper Carrots magic roundabout monologue."
Another gap in my cultural knowledge
Did you know there's an extremely bawdy version of 'Our Goodman' which talks about "a carrot digging it's own hole"?
Not a lot os southerners know that
Jim

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 11:55 AM

backwoodsman, if he was tried and i was on the jury, the fact that he regarded epstein as a friend [a convicted sex= offender] and he had his arm around an underage woman[in a photograph] provided by epstein , would influence my decision. however he will never be tried and this will be a whitewash

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 12:37 PM

Then, if that was your only evidence, you would be failing in your duty as a juror, and you would almost certainly be guilty of the offence of Juror Misconduct, as well as Contempt of Court, and you could get a two-year prison sentence.

Juror Misconduct

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 05:22 PM

Monarchies champion huge inequality and are blasphemies as the only one born to rule is a prophet of God; or, in WalkaboutsVerse, "AFTER PSALM 118:9 AND MATTHEW 4:8-10"

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 09:25 PM

That's a bit cryptic.

Could you explain
God-chosen schooler

I don't get it.
Someone who God has chosen to school us...?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 11:25 PM

back woodsman, with respect ,another example of justice not being a level playingfield ,
a member of the monarchy has a friend who is a convicted peadophile and who has been procuring and trafficking vulnerable women, this member of the monarchy continues to show lack of judgement by being seen in the company of an underage woman allegedly procured for him,and is photographed with his arm round her, the prince gets off scot free and i as a juror get two years.
bizarre,no wonder nobody wants to be a juror

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 11:59 PM

Arrrggggghhhhhh there is no such thingggg as an underage woman. There are women and there are girls. And yes, putting your arm around a girl *who does not want you to* is a crime. It is called assault.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: meself
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 01:36 AM

Is that what happened?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 02:13 AM

Mrrrzy - you’re right, but ‘assault’ is not the same thing as ‘sexual abuse’.

The photo Dick’s wittering on about simply shows an older man with his arm around a young girl. It’s nothing more than that - it is evidence that he put his arm around her but, without further corroborating evidence - e.g. a witness-statement and/or a complaint by the girl herself, it is not evidence of assault, and it is absolutely not evidence that he abused her or anyone else.

Dick - you clearly are allowing your dislike of the royal family to cloud your thinking and distort whatever logic you possess. You don’t appear to understand the Rules of Evidence in criminal cases in the UK courts. Here’s a bit of light reading for you to educate yourself - NB especially the sections re: ‘Hearsay’ and ‘Opinions’...

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/rules-key.htm

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 02:30 AM

BTW, not speaking in defence of anyone in that photo - I have no more idea than Dick has about what the people in the photo got up to, which is no idea - I’m simply trying to explain to someone who apparently doesn’t, or doesn’t want to, understand the rules of evidence that dislike of the accused, suspicion that he committed an offence, and personal opinion, are not acceptable as evidence in a UK criminal court hearing, and that any juror who bases his decision on a personal bias against the accused is likely to be, him/herself, guilty of a criminal offence, perhaps two offences.

That’s all.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 03:51 AM

wittering?
you are talking bollocks, no wonder people do not want tpo be jurors.
i do not dislike andrew , i dont know him.
he has chosen the company of a convicted sex trafficker, he has his arm around an underage girl who was procured for him ,if i was a juror that would influence me. i do not have a personal bias against anyone , some of the royal family seem more pleasant than others ,true.
i would imagine that ann will be next in line to be next monarch, she does not appear to have any skeletons in the cupboard, the only thing she seems to like riding is horses.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 04:35 AM

”you are talking bollocks”

Now there’s a persuasive, well-constructed argument. Not.

As you still don’t seem to get it, I’ll try one last time...

Juries are in place to make a decision based on the evidence presented to the court. They are clearly instructed to ignore anything other than that evidence, and they are clearly instructed that allowing themselves to be influenced by anything they have seen or heard outside the court. Will be a breach of their responsibilities.

By allowing yourself to be influenced by a photo published in the media which shows nothing more than a man with his arm around a girl which, of itself, does not constitute a criminal act, you would very likely be in breach of your responsibilities as a juror, and guilty of a criminal act - Juror Misconduct at the very least, and probably Contempt of Court also - rendering yourself liable to a two year prison sentence.

Did you read the Rules of Evidence I linked to because, if you did, you don’t seem to understand them?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: gillymor
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 05:54 AM

Here is brief story about Virginia Roberts Guifre and her allegations against Andrew and Epstein. If you scroll down a bit you'll see what I assume is the photo being discussed. Note Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's one time girlfriend and alleged procuress, hovering in the background. This doesn't prove anything but then this is not a court of law, just an internet forum where people exchange opinions.


CBS News

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: gillymor
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 05:56 AM

"Giuffre"

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 07:14 AM

The best that Anne can ever hope for is a regent - Charles Andrew and Edwards, their children and their grandchildren are ahead of her in line of succession. she is currently 14th in line and that will fall back even further if/when Andrew and Edward have grandchildren.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 07:24 AM

He's seen cheerily waving from inside a paedophile's house as young women enter or leave. He's in a photo with his arm round the waist of a seventeen-year-old. She has a bare midriff and his hand is on that bare midriff. None of this proves that he's done anything dodgy. What it does prove beyond all doubt is that he's a bloody idiot. Prime ministerial material, I should say...

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 07:58 AM

Gillymor - whatever Dick (The Sandman) is trying to ‘prove’, what I’m trying to debate are fundamental principles of UK law (and US law too, I imagine), that...

1) A person can only be tried in a criminal court if the prosecuting authority can put forward an evidence-based, prima facie case. The photo of Andrew with his arm around the girl’s waist is not evidence that he sexually abused her, yet Dick said, in the post I quoted from earlier, that he should be tried on the basis of it...

”I am not saying all preists are abusers any more than all the royal family are , but since prince andrew has his arm around an underage girl [in a photoraph] ,it does seem possible he may have abused her, stil perhaps he should be tried and then if he is guilty he should lose his job, same as priests do, is that clear joe, have i explained myself, joe do you understand clearly what i am saying joe?”

That suggestion, under our laws, is simply ridiculous.

2) The jury must consider the verdict based on the evidence presented in court, and they are specifically instructed to disregard anything they may have seen or heard elsewhere - in the media, Internet forums, social media, etc. - yet Dick is saying that he would go against that instruction and allow his decision to be influenced by a photo that has gone viral before there has been any investigation into this matter, or any charges made against Andrew.

I’ve seen the photo, and I’ve read about Andrew’s friendship with Epstein, but I have absolutely no idea whatsoever if he sexually abused Virginia Roberts Guiffre, and neither does anyone else on this thread. But what I do know for certain is that the photo doesn’t prove anything other than that he put his arm round a smiling girl’s waist, and that Epstein’s girl-friend was present at the time. That’s all.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: gillymor
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 08:59 AM

I agree with everything you wrote in your last post, BWM and think presumption of innocence is an excellent legal principle but this is a B.S. section, not a court of law. Nothing anyone writes here is going to place Andrew in the Tower of London (assuming it still functions as a prison). I've seen the innocent before proven guilty argument used here many times but it seems irrelevant when applied to casual conversation. Just my 2 cents

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 09:44 AM

Good point Gilly but, when I point out someone’s mistake and, instead of accepting they were wrong they try to pretend they didn’t say what they said, and that they said what they didn’t say, the pedant in me feels compelled to press the truth home. ;-)

And, of course, it was the same person who brought up ‘trying’ Andrew - which of course involves a court.

Anyway, I’m done here - as they say out here in the Backwoods, “You can’t educate pork”.

Have a good day! :-)

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 09:45 AM

And of course unnecessary rudeness, like “You’re talking bollocks”, does necessitate a firm, but polite response.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: gillymor
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 09:50 AM

I quite understand where you're coming from.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 12:03 PM

Right, not all assault is sexual, but if you're the old guy and she's the girl it probably is.
Why else put your arm there? To help her get you coffee?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 12:20 PM

Nobody’s disputing that, Mrrzy. But a photo of an ‘old guy’ with his arm round a young girl isn’t proof that he’s abused her.

How would you feel if the cops came round and ticketed you for speeding because your car is capable of exceeding the speed-limit, ‘so you’ve probably been speeding’?

Exactly the same thing.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 12:30 PM

no its not exactly the same thing, the girl apparantly was procured by a convicted sex offender, the old man knew all about epstein, he hahis arm round her he is not helping her across a pedestrian crossing.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 12:32 PM

my point is that if a prosecutor thought there was enoughj evidence and he was on trial , that all that would influence me as a juror

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 12:35 PM

In a court of law one needs proof but their is no requirement for anyone to provide proof for stating an opinion about what is going on in a picture that has reached public domain

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 12:39 PM

Ah, the modern phenomenon of ‘Trial By Media’! Good to know that justice is alive and well in the Mudcat Café...

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 02:22 PM

So it seems you are suggestion that we are so beneath you, we are ot allowed to form opinions. You may notice that because I am inferior to you I haven't expressed what my opinion on this matter is.   So, Sir, please can you tell me what you are going to instruct me to think. I apologise that, somoeone who is so low that I am not even worthy of licking your boots have dated to comment on something that is none of my business. Please forgive me, Sir, for my total ignorance.
Oh, and Sir, please can you forgive me for commenting on other subjects that are n none of my business, regarding my betters.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 03:03 PM

no back wood , Isaid quite clearly
is that if a prosecutor thought there was enoughj evidence and he was on trial , that all that would influence me as a juror

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 03:10 PM

Dick, I’ve now copied and pasted what you said twice, I have no intention of doing it again - but you said no such thing. Read it again.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 03:14 PM

SPB - no need whatsoever for the rudeness. I made no such suggestion, I simply did exactly what you are claiming your perfect right to do - I expressed an opinion. It’s a different opinion to yours, but that’s fine by me.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 04:15 PM

Blimey! I don't think I have ever seen such a severe case of passive aggressive sarcasm. I suggest a course of meditation or 6 pints of Black Sheep :-)

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 04:19 PM

I don’t drink alcohol Dave! ;-)

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 04:38 PM

No, not proof of abuse at all, I agree, backwoodsman.

I've been bothered all along by the presumption of guilt in the whole MeToo thing. Is it the pendulum swing?

Plus, I am a leadfoot...

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 06:11 PM

God, we now have foot massage...

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 06:48 PM

From: Big Al Whittle - PM
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 09:25 PM

That's a bit cryptic.

Could you explain
God-chosen schooler

I don't get it.
Someone who God has chosen to school us...?

Schooler can mean a student or one who provides schooling; so, for Christians, Jesus could be described as a Prophet of God or, for rhyme and (hopefully) reason, a "God-chosen Schooler" (here
).

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Mossback
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 06:49 PM

Evidence??? We don't need no steenkin' evidence! Cue the torches and pitchforks.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 03:56 AM

What is a leadfoot?

DC

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 06:11 AM

It's not you that needs it BWM:-)

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 07:11 AM

Dunno Dave, I’ve been teetotal for the past 14 years, but there are one or two around here that could drive me to drink! ;-)

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 10:33 AM

Doug Chadwick, leadfoot is a term for habitual speeder.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 11:17 AM

Photos can be faked, you know. There is software that can put a new face on the digital photo of a person.

I'm glad to see my fellow Mudcatters acknowledging that in the absence of evidence of malfeasance on Andrew's part, we should not accuse him of anything.

There are a lot more certain injustices to worry about - along the U.S. - Mexico border, for example.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 11:32 AM

” leadfoot is a term for habitual speeder.”

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!! Two nations divided, yadda yadda! ;-)

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 11:32 AM

"we should not accuse him of anything."
TOO LATE - I'M AFRAID - HE ALREADY HAS
While I don't disagree with the principle of not finding someone guilty before they are tried, I'm getting a little tired of the fireproofing of the 'great and good' from such charges as these
Recently, a major case of wealthy people committing horrendous crimes was quashed on the basis that the evidence of one witness was found to be flawed, despite the fact that other witnesses had come forward to make the same charges and the accusations pre-dated those that exonerated these public figures.

I find it difficult to separate this argument with the other current one that it is ok to exile so-called terrorists who went off to fight Assad
On lot deserve a trial - the other doesn't, apparently
Seems a little imbalanced to me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 12:04 PM

I don’t think anyone would argue with the point you’re making Jim, I certainly don’t disagree. But making accusations on the basis of a photo that proves nothing other than that he, or someone else photoshopped to make it look like him, put his arm round a girl’s waist, falls into the same category as “When did you stop beating your wife?” If anything, it detracts from any genuine case than could be made.

Let’s see real, hard evidence from the investigating authorities before we start rolling out the tumbrels and distributing the knitting needles and balls of wool, eh?

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 12:16 PM

"But making accusations on the basis of a photo that proves nothing"
I would have thought that the fact that the alleged victim has a name takes the accusation beyond a photograph
Even so, the photograph constitutes circumstantial evidence, given that the "little weaknesses" (to quote Dylan Thomas) of the deceased seem to have been fairly widely known to his friends and employees
It isn't the first time the Rol Brats have let down mammy and daddy
Jim

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 01:21 PM

leadfoot is a term for habitual speeder

I did find that explanation when I Googled the term before posting my question but I couldn't work out what it had to do with subject under discussion.

DC

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 02:11 PM

It's OK Mrrzy. I've read back through the earlier posts and have worked out the connection. You may be speedy but I'm a bit slow on the uptake.

DC

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Iains
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 02:34 PM

I find it difficult to separate this argument with the other current one that it is ok to exile so-called terrorists who went off to fight Assad
On lot deserve a trial - the other doesn't, apparently
Seems a little imbalanced to me.

What is so difficult about it? The terrorists have by their own words and actions condemned themselves.
Even Ireland has 36 people actively being considered for revocation of nationality, including one presently in jail in the US for terrorism offenses
Australia has revoked 20 since 2014.
The UK 150 since 2010

Who in their right mind would want to encourage traitors within their midst? We have more than enough remainiacs.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 02:44 PM

TAITORS and TRAITORS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 10:44 PM

I do creep a bit sometimes, Doug...

Also, one needs proof to *convict,* not to *accuse*.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Aug 19 - 04:55 PM

In many ways Prince Andrew could be considered as the Len Fairclough of the Royal Family.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 04:47 AM

A new biography of Prince Philip's uncle, Lord Mountbatten, links him to the sexual abuse of the inmates of the notorious Kincora Boys Home
It includes an account by two then residents of how they were driven to Mountbatten's residence in Mullaghmore and sexually abused by His Lordship
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 08:22 AM

Whatever....it doesn't mitigate his murder and those in his party, by the paragons of the peace process.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 09:02 AM

One thing's for sure. Whatever Prince Andrew, Lord Mountbatten or any other royal got up to or gets up to, it won't be properly investigated. The Mountbatten allegations have been around for years, but no-one is going to be delving very deeply any time soon.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 11:22 AM

Love all the double entendres, there, Steve.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 11:24 AM

however it appears the security on mountbattens yacht was very lax, why? was it at his own request?[ backwoodsman this is a question]was it because mountbatten did not want to be watched ,because he was involved in something or other?[ back woodsman this is another question not an allegation]

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 08:38 AM

The best way for humans to get thing done is via cooperation and FAIR competition - having a minority born into a role where they get millions per year for a bit of public speaking is anything but fair and, thus, the UN should hurry up and outlaw monarchism - with the problems for people it causes. "Wise?"

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 09:00 AM

Tell the BBC , WAV.....theres got to be journalists who could do as good a job for a good fair wage, as Gary Lineker and assorted celebs.

Subject: RE: prince andrew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 09:59 AM

Agreed, Big Al - so add capitalism to monarchism, above.