prince andrew

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

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

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 - 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: 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: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 11:22 AM

Love all the double entendres, there, Steve.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 02:44 PM

TAITORS and TRAITORS
Jim Carroll

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 11:32 AM

” leadfoot is a term for habitual speeder.”

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

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: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 10:33 AM

Doug Chadwick, leadfoot is a term for habitual speeder.

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: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 06:11 AM

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

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

What is a leadfoot?

DC

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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 06:11 PM

God, we now have foot massage...

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: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 04:19 PM

I don’t drink alcohol Dave! ;-)

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: gillymor
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 09:50 AM

I quite understand where you're coming from.

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: gillymor
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 05:56 AM

"Giuffre"

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: 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: 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.