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.