sadoldgit Posted 2 December, 2019 Posted 2 December, 2019 More reports today that he has abused his position for financial gain. On to of the allegations of sexual relations with under aged girls, things aren’t looking good for “Randy Andy.” The Palace have taken steps to remove him from the firing line but is that enough? If there is any truth in the many accusations made against him, should he be “sacked” and removed from Royal duties permanently?
sadoldgit Posted 2 December, 2019 Author Posted 2 December, 2019 No one bothered? Fair enough, but there is an interview with an alleged victim tonight on Panorama that might make an interesting diversion from the GE and Brexit.
badgerx16 Posted 2 December, 2019 Posted 2 December, 2019 What do you expect ? He did his job in the Falklands conflict, but otherwise he is just another privileged individual living a life thst insulates him from reality, and is surrounded by sycophants who tell him everything he does is wonderful.
sadoldgit Posted 2 December, 2019 Author Posted 2 December, 2019 I don’t know Badger. We are supposed to be big on Royalty in this country and was interested to see what those who support the Royalty thought. It would appear that no one gives a toss though
Weston Super Saint Posted 2 December, 2019 Posted 2 December, 2019 Apart from ceremonial duties with the navy, isn't his 'job' heading up a number of charities? Certainly seems like a creepy kind of person but do the charities benefit from him being there - if not, sack him (if that's possible from the Royal Family!)
rooney Posted 2 December, 2019 Posted 2 December, 2019 We may learn more from Panorama tonight on BBC 1, when the girl is interviewed.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 December, 2019 Posted 2 December, 2019 They should all be sacked. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sadoldgit Posted 2 December, 2019 Author Posted 2 December, 2019 Maybe. I would be a staunch Republican but look at some of the plums over the last few years we would have had as Head of State. The Queen has been a consummate pro but the rest of them rare a waste of space. As for Charles, let’s just hope that his Mum outlives him. I would keep the Monarchy but cut it right back. I never got the argument about the amount of income they generate through tourism. Does anyone really visit another country because they have a monarch? It is not as if you are going to meet Her Maj for a cuppa and a scone whilst you are here.
dronskisaint Posted 2 December, 2019 Posted 2 December, 2019 Beheaded is the royal way isn't it? I'd put them all on minimum wage and see how hard they work then....not sure what the current rate is for waving?
hypochondriac Posted 2 December, 2019 Posted 2 December, 2019 I'd keep them whilst they, are profitable and have a use to the country. Once they start becoming insufferable and lecturing then they have to go. Harry and his new wife need removing ASAP. William and Kate showing them how it's done.
sadoldgit Posted 2 December, 2019 Author Posted 2 December, 2019 I am not sure that beheading would work on Andrew, what with that brass neck he has.
whelk Posted 2 December, 2019 Posted 2 December, 2019 They should all be sacked. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Fcking soft arse lefties
OldNick Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 Iam in no way condoning PA, but surely a lady who gets taken on a private jet and wined and dined should be aware why?
sadoldgit Posted 3 December, 2019 Author Posted 3 December, 2019 She was a young girl, clearly out of her depth and being used by people who exploited her naivety.
sadoldgit Posted 3 December, 2019 Author Posted 3 December, 2019 She was groomed and exploited in the same way that Asian gangs have groomed and exploited young girls here. Thing is, you don’t see Tommy Robinson skulking around outside Buckingham Palace trying to out Prince Andrew as a pedo.
Weston Super Saint Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 She was groomed and exploited in the same way that Asian gangs have groomed and exploited young girls here. Thing is, you don’t see Tommy Robinson skulking around outside Buckingham Palace trying to out Prince Andrew as a pedo. How old was this girl?
Lord Duckhunter Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 She was groomed and exploited in the same way that Asian gangs have groomed and exploited young girls here. Thing is, you don’t see Tommy Robinson skulking around outside Buckingham Palace trying to out Prince Andrew as a pedo. What a load of pony. No comparison whatsoever. How many people connected to Andrew have been convicted and how many underage girls were abused. I do wonder what Muslim men have to do for you to condemn them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
StDunko Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 Iam in no way condoning PA, but surely a lady who gets taken on a private jet and wined and dined should be aware why? So you don’t think that her naivety and vulnerability was being exploited? Don't you think a young naïve girl, put into such a situation by rich and powerful people is less likely to refuse to do what she is asked to do and less likely to realised she is being exploited (perhaps until many years later when she is a little more worldly wise)?
hypochondriac Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 She was groomed and exploited in the same way that Asian gangs have groomed and exploited young girls here. Thing is, you don’t see Tommy Robinson skulking around outside Buckingham Palace trying to out Prince Andrew as a pedo.Now we get to the heart of why you started this thread. Pathetic.
aintforever Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 So you don’t think that her naivety and vulnerability was being exploited? Don't you think a young naïve girl, put into such a situation by rich and powerful people is less likely to refuse to do what she is asked to do and less likely to realised she is being exploited (perhaps until many years later when she is a little more worldly wise)? I don't think she was under age though, and to be fair lots of young women try very hard to put themselves in a 'situation' with rich and powerful men.
sadoldgit Posted 3 December, 2019 Author Posted 3 December, 2019 Now we get to the heart of why you started this thread. Pathetic. I started this thread because Prince Andrew was all over the news. If you have any other ideas that is down to the way your own brain works.
sadoldgit Posted 3 December, 2019 Author Posted 3 December, 2019 I don't think she was under age though, and to be fair lots of young women try very hard to put themselves in a 'situation' with rich and powerful men. I may be wrong but I thought that he (allegedly) had sex with her on one occasion in an American state where the age of consent is 18 and she was 17.
sadoldgit Posted 3 December, 2019 Author Posted 3 December, 2019 What a load of pony. No comparison whatsoever. How many people connected to Andrew have been convicted and how many underage girls were abused. I do wonder what Muslim men have to do for you to condemn them. I did condemn them. Stop playing at being Boris. No comparison? If it is true then he was hanging around with a group of people who procured and groomed young girls for sex. I would say that was a reasonable comparison.
hypochondriac Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 (edited) I started this thread because Prince Andrew was all over the news. If you have any other ideas that is down to the way your own brain works.Just another excuse to start yet more apogies for Muslim grooming gangs. As if these cases are remotely comparable. Any excuse. Like I said, pathetic. Edited 3 December, 2019 by hypochondriac
sadoldgit Posted 3 December, 2019 Author Posted 3 December, 2019 I have just watched the Panorama programme. If anyone hasn’t seen it yet I suggest that they do. If you feel that young, vulnerable girls are somehow responsible for being abused, it might make you think again. Filmed before the Prince Andrew interview, parts of his interview have been cut in to give this programme a more rounded account of the accusations and counter accusations. It really doesn’t show HRH in a good light.
Weston Super Saint Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 It's odd isn't it? In 2011, Miss Roberts (as she was) sold her story to the Mail on Sunday for $160,000 dollars ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50633640 ). In that story from the mail she stated : Miss Roberts alleged that she was paid to massage Epstein and his 'adult male peers, including royalty' on flights around the world from the age of 15, and that she was sexually exploited during that time. There is no suggestion whatsoever that Prince Andrew was involved in any wrongdoing. ( https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MM0CSX7q8RYJ:https://www.businessinsider.com/girl-victim-of-jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew-questioned-2011-6+&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk ) She also settled out of court with Mr Epstein - she was one of 17 people to do this - so it makes you wonder what her motive is for dragging it all back up again, has the money run out? From the BBC article linked above she states : Ms Giuffre said that in the car on the way back "Ghislaine tells me that I have to do for Andrew what I do for Jeffrey and that just made me sick". When they got back to the house, she said she asked Epstein to take a picture of her to show her family. She then carried out the instructions to entertain the prince. "Well there was a bath and it started there and then it led into the bedroom and it didn't last very long, the whole entire procedure. "It was disgusting. He wasn't mean or anything, but he got up and he said thanks and walked out." Odd that she didn't mention this in 2011. There is also a picture of her with Andrew, in it, she certainly doesn't look like someone who has been forced to do something that she hasn't consented to. Indeed, she states that it was her who asked for the picture to be taken - presumably as a momento of the occasion! All this happened when she was 17 and in the UK - there is no mention of any other country or what age she was when in those countries. Whilst it may be morally reprehensible for a Prince to go round smashing young girls back doors in, there is nothing illegal about doing it with a consenting girl over the age of 16. Nothing really to see here....
sadoldgit Posted 3 December, 2019 Author Posted 3 December, 2019 She said that she had sex with him in two other countries. He consorted with a man who procured girls aged 14 for sex. He claims categorically that he had not met her when there is clear evidence that he did. Sex trafficking is illegal. He is a Prince. But hey, nothing to see here. Makes you wonder why people bother making tv programmes about it.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 I may be wrong but I thought that he (allegedly) had sex with her on one occasion in an American state where the age of consent is 18 and she was 17. If he banged a 15 year old in Denmark, Italy or France would that be OK? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Lord Duckhunter Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 She said that she had sex with him in two other countries. He consorted with a man who procured girls aged 14 for sex. He claims categorically that he had not met her when there is clear evidence that he did. Sex trafficking is illegal. He is a Prince. But hey, nothing to see here. Makes you wonder why people bother making tv programmes about it. Where’s he “categorically” said he never met her, I’ve not seen that. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
badgerx16 Posted 3 December, 2019 Posted 3 December, 2019 Maybe he should stay away from Parisian underpasses for a while.
sadoldgit Posted 3 December, 2019 Author Posted 3 December, 2019 If he banged a 15 year old in Denmark, Italy or France would that be OK? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk We all know your views on women Duckie.
sadoldgit Posted 3 December, 2019 Author Posted 3 December, 2019 Where’s he “categorically” said he never met her, I’ve not seen that. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk He denied having met her and suggested that the photo of them together had been doctored.
Ohio Saint Posted 4 December, 2019 Posted 4 December, 2019 Frankly, I don't think the British behead enough royals.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 4 December, 2019 Posted 4 December, 2019 (edited) He denied having met her and suggested that the photo of them together had been doctored. Stop twisting things. He claimed he “didn’t recall” meeting her, that’s not a denial. He also categorically denied sexual misconduct, whereas you claimed he categorically denied meeting her. You’re worse than a gutter journalist. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Edited 4 December, 2019 by Lord Duckhunter
sadoldgit Posted 4 December, 2019 Author Posted 4 December, 2019 Stop twisting things. He claimed he “didn’t recall” meeting her, that’s not a denial. He also categorically denied sexual misconduct, whereas you claimed he categorically denied meeting her. You’re worse than a gutter journalist. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Did you see both interviews?
CB Fry Posted 5 December, 2019 Posted 5 December, 2019 Stop twisting things. He claimed he “didn’t recall” meeting her, that’s not a denial. He also categorically denied sexual misconduct, whereas you claimed he categorically denied meeting her. You’re worse than a gutter journalist. Sent from my iPad using TapatalkSeems an odd hill to die on but you go for it, son.
sadoldgit Posted 5 December, 2019 Author Posted 5 December, 2019 Stop twisting things. He claimed he “didn’t recall” meeting her, that’s not a denial. He also categorically denied sexual misconduct, whereas you claimed he categorically denied meeting her. You’re worse than a gutter journalist. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk It sounded like the closest thing to a denial you will ever hear to me Duckie. As for denying sexual misconduct, to quote another famous sex case, “he would say that, wouldn’t he.” I’m hazarding a guess here and saying that you are siding with Prince Andrew. Is that because you have such a low opinion of women, or are you just an ardent Royalist? It hasn’t helped his cause that a witness has come forward to claim that they saw him in the club with the girl when he was supposed to be buying pizza in Woking. Pictures have also surfaced from that period showing him sweating profusely despite the fact that he said he had a condition that prevented him from sweating. The words “cooked” and “goose” spring to mind. It comes to something when your own mother sacks you, but I am sure he will be heartened to know that you have his back Duckie.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 5 December, 2019 Posted 5 December, 2019 I don’t have his back Soggy, I’m a staunch republican. That doesn’t mean I won’t call you out over your agenda against white privileged men. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hypochondriac Posted 5 December, 2019 Posted 5 December, 2019 I don’t have his back Soggy, I’m a staunch republican. That doesn’t mean I won’t call you out over your agenda against white privileged men. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat's not fair, soggy loves a bit of Boycott.
sadoldgit Posted 5 December, 2019 Author Posted 5 December, 2019 I don’t have his back Soggy, I’m a staunch republican. That doesn’t mean I won’t call you out over your agenda against white privileged men. What if white privileged men behave badly or illegally? You seem to be happy to accept his explanations when most don’t.
Plastic Posted 5 December, 2019 Posted 5 December, 2019 What if white privileged men behave badly or illegally? You seem to be happy to accept his explanations when most don’t. The evidence would appear to be her word against his. There were no witnesses. Do you do this on purpose?
hypochondriac Posted 5 December, 2019 Posted 5 December, 2019 (edited) Do you do this on purpose?Soggy's judgements on guilt or innocence rest almost entirely on if he likes the person or not. So Ched Evans = not a nice bloke = guilty despite having conviction overturned. Boycott = soggy reckons he's a bit of a lad = innocent despite having a conviction. Prince Andrew = not a nice bloke thus he's guilty despite not being found guilty of anything and denying his involvement. Fwiw I reckon he may well have done some of this stuff but I'd prefer to let the courts decide on that one if it gets that's far. I certainly won't be making my judgement based on if I like the guy or not or how much I approve of his behaviour. Edited 5 December, 2019 by hypochondriac
sadoldgit Posted 5 December, 2019 Author Posted 5 December, 2019 Do you do this on purpose? Do what on purpose? There seems to be more evidence supporting her claims.
Weston Super Saint Posted 5 December, 2019 Posted 5 December, 2019 Do what on purpose? There seems to be more evidence supporting her claims. Evidence? Are you sure? Are you confusing 'claims' with 'evidence'?
sadoldgit Posted 5 December, 2019 Author Posted 5 December, 2019 Evidence? Are you sure? Are you confusing 'claims' with 'evidence'? The photograph would appear to be clear evidence that he had met her wouldn't you say? There is absolutely no doubt that he spent a lot of time with a convicted sex trafficker and paedophile. Do you think he was convincing in his interview then?
Weston Super Saint Posted 5 December, 2019 Posted 5 December, 2019 The photograph would appear to be clear evidence that he had met her wouldn't you say? There is absolutely no doubt that he spent a lot of time with a convicted sex trafficker and paedophile. Do you think he was convincing in his interview then? Sorry, I thought you said 'more evidence'. The photo was sold to the Mail on Sunday in 2011 for $160,000! I don't deny he met her, I'd even go so far as to say he smashed her back doors in. I'd also stand by my previous assertion that he did all this with both her knowledge and her consent. Nothing much more than bloke ****s bird story to be fair!
sadoldgit Posted 6 December, 2019 Author Posted 6 December, 2019 Sorry, I thought you said 'more evidence'. The photo was sold to the Mail on Sunday in 2011 for $160,000! I don't deny he met her, I'd even go so far as to say he smashed her back doors in. I'd also stand by my previous assertion that he did all this with both her knowledge and her consent. Nothing much more than bloke ****s bird story to be fair! So you are ok with young girls being groomed a trafficked for sex? You do know that some of them Epstein used were 14?
Plastic Posted 6 December, 2019 Posted 6 December, 2019 So you are ok with young girls being groomed a trafficked for sex? Yes, that's exactly what he said.
hypochondriac Posted 6 December, 2019 Posted 6 December, 2019 So you are ok with young girls being groomed a trafficked for sex? You do know that some of them Epstein used were 14?Yep.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now