advertisement


Prince Andrew allegations not going away...

There was a cutting opinion piece about Prince Andrew and Epstein by Marina Hyde in The Guardian on Friday. I'll quote a chunk of it below. She's a great writer and no doubt the article has been checked by the newpaper's lawyers .https://www.theguardian.com/comment...K214Hd1ylD8xC71PHRbclcBk1KtzePWgtNr8soRvA88_8

" ... you don’t get all that nanny state stuff on Epstein’s private Virgin Islands property, reportedly known locally as “Paedophile Island”. Or as Buckingham Palace finally put it in a statement denying any impropriety on behalf of the prince: “The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes.” ...

"If we’re meant to believe that Prince Andrew is appalled by ALL of the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein – both the ones alleged and the ones he served actual jail time for – then allow me to treat this statement with all the dignity it deserves. To wit: BULL. SHIT. Bullshit Prince Andrew didn’t know what sort of guy his friend was when he was snapped walking with the Tier 1 sex offender, after he got out of jail, in a photo the New York Post headlined “PRINCE & PERV”. Bullshit he didn’t know why his close friend WENT TO PRISON FOR A YEAR, but kept hanging out with him anyway. Bullshit if, as Brockman recounts, he lay on his back in that guy’s house, with a Russian attending to his feet, talking over her head to men of the world about the nocturnal licence afforded to minor European royals, and he didn’t know roughly what he was swimming in. Bullshit. I get we have to pay for Andrew’s lifetime of jollies; but we don’t have to have our intelligence insulted by him.

"I’m not even going to wheel out that old writing device where one says that either Prince Andrew is stupid or deeply compromised, and wonder archly which it is. Guys, he can be both! In fact, the one feeds the other.

"The plain fact is that Andrew continued to be friends with Epstein even after he pleaded guilty to procuring an underage girl for prostitution."

To deflect our attention away from Prince Andrew and his Epstein links, it looks like there could be a royal wedding in the offing. Princess Beatrice might be getting engaged to her boyfriend, according to royal experts.

And guess who is going to be paying for the wedding?

Jack
 
1) Are you a mod woodface ?
2) I don’t know the whole story about the 17yr old, if she complained resp. sued anyone I’d be happy to read about it.
3) I do not consider the Guardian a reliable source of information, there are too many journalists with ‘opinions’ there.
4) Being offended on a forum doesn’t help anyone.
 
Cheese said:
1) Are you a mod woodface ?
2) I don’t know the whole story about the 17yr old, if she complained resp. sued anyone I’d be happy to read about it.
3) I do not consider the Guardian a reliable source of information, there are too many journalists with ‘opinions’ there.
4) Being offended on a forum doesn’t help anyone.
Click to expand...
A mod, like Paul Weller?

If you cannot see the wrong in a 40-50 something bloke exploiting a 17 year old then I do question your morality. He also claimed to be good friends with the miscreant so he must have known what he was up to. If I was invited to a social event & it comprised of 40 something blokes objectifying young teenage girls I would walk out. Whether it was illegal or not is entirely irrelevant.
 
Cheese said:
Sounds somewhat pipesmokerish. Ridiculous, rather. But there’s no rape accusation, so who cares really.
Click to expand...

Andrew's statement is so laden with inexactness that it gives the impression there is a lot more to come out.

"I met Mr Epstein in 1999. During the time I knew him, I saw him infrequently and probably no more than only once or twice a year. I have stayed in a number of his residences.

"At no stage during the limited time I spent with him did I see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction.

"I have said previously that it was a mistake and an error to see him after his release in 2010
Click to expand...
..."

Lets start with "I have stayed in a number of his residences" - vague statement given the interest in the story. You don't accept the offer of staying at someone's residence unless you know them reasonably well and share some common interests.

Then he is very careful to say that he didn't see or suspect any behaviour that led to Epstein's conviction. Strange way to put it. He is not saying he didn't hear or see any unacceptable behaviour, but only that he didn't see the sort of behaviour that led to the conviction. Again it gives the impression of concealment.

Finally, why would anyone who has an acquaintance, one of many hundreds of acquaintances I'm sure, who was imprisoned on underage prostitution charges want to renew that 'friendship' other that there was something in it for them? If it is clearly a mistake now, why oh why wasn't it a mistake then?

The least you can say is that the whole thing is far from resolved unless the prince provides a much more detailed and accurate account of what went on. But I suspect that giving more detail might not be in the prince's best interest.
 
With La Maxwell gadding about seemingly unhampered by anyone I doubt there will be much evidence left to find out what really happened.
 
why is he still a prince? a lowly news anchor would have been fired by now.
 
jackbarron said:
There was a cutting opinion piece about Prince Andrew and Epstein by Marina Hyde in The Guardian on Friday. I'll quote a chunk of it below. She's a great writer and no doubt the article has been checked by the newpaper's lawyers .https://www.theguardian.com/comment...K214Hd1ylD8xC71PHRbclcBk1KtzePWgtNr8soRvA88_8

" ... you don’t get all that nanny state stuff on Epstein’s private Virgin Islands property, reportedly known locally as “Paedophile Island”. Or as Buckingham Palace finally put it in a statement denying any impropriety on behalf of the prince: “The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes.” ...

"If we’re meant to believe that Prince Andrew is appalled by ALL of the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein – both the ones alleged and the ones he served actual jail time for – then allow me to treat this statement with all the dignity it deserves. To wit: BULL. SHIT. Bullshit Prince Andrew didn’t know what sort of guy his friend was when he was snapped walking with the Tier 1 sex offender, after he got out of jail, in a photo the New York Post headlined “PRINCE & PERV”. Bullshit he didn’t know why his close friend WENT TO PRISON FOR A YEAR, but kept hanging out with him anyway. Bullshit if, as Brockman recounts, he lay on his back in that guy’s house, with a Russian attending to his feet, talking over her head to men of the world about the nocturnal licence afforded to minor European royals, and he didn’t know roughly what he was swimming in. Bullshit. I get we have to pay for Andrew’s lifetime of jollies; but we don’t have to have our intelligence insulted by him.

"I’m not even going to wheel out that old writing device where one says that either Prince Andrew is stupid or deeply compromised, and wonder archly which it is. Guys, he can be both! In fact, the one feeds the other.

"The plain fact is that Andrew continued to be friends with Epstein even after he pleaded guilty to procuring an underage girl for prostitution."

To deflect our attention away from Prince Andrew and his Epstein links, it looks like there could be a royal wedding in the offing. Princess Beatrice might be getting engaged to her boyfriend, according to royal experts.

And guess who is going to be paying for the wedding?

Jack
Click to expand...

excellent article. thanks for the link, jack.
 
The behaviour of the whole royalty industry and those who support it is highly interesting to watch at present as it is now basically in a no-win situation. Their very best scenario is they are defending a high-profile royal who very willingly chose to socialise/stay with a convicted child rapist and pimp. None of this is conspiracy theory or interpretation, it is clearly documented fact. From that point it only goes rapidly downhill depending on the credibility of the accusations. How deep they dig the hole/how much whitewash they use is really their only choice. Sadly I think the UK is too backward and tribal to reject monarchy and take steps towards becoming a proper constitutional democracy, but it would be nice if this represented a small step on that path...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top