Let's face it, we all know somewhere some chick involved with a rich old fart whose blood sometimes migrates from his brain downwards, and where it's clear that she is the boss of the two. While I think that she's absolutely right to take financial advantage of that dirty idiot, I also mean that young girls are by far not always the innocent victims some do-gooders want to make them look like. When perversion is involved on both sides, I let them live their lives but don't expect me to feel sorry for any of the two if things turn sour.
I think that most often is covered by the term ‘grooming’ though.Your list, plus money, possibly?
Glad to know you would distance yourself from a child rapistOh, I prefer this, thank you Tony. In clear you see a problem in the fact that Prince Andrew used to socialise with that Epstein bloke. Rest assured, if one of my friends turned out to be a child rapist, I might well take some distance too, if that can avoid me any problems. Now Epstein probably had an enormous network of friends, businesspeople and parasites of all sorts, just like all billionaires have. I presume that only a fraction of these people knew about Epstein's intimate preferences. Is Andrew certainly among those in the know ? I've no idea, but being a Royal is certainly no advantage here, and frankly I still believe this whole non-story to having been artificially inflated by people who are, for some reason, fed up with the Royals but who don't find a more elegant way to achieve their ends.
And if i got it right, the 17-year-old girl episode was dug out just in time in order to give the story a 'child rapist' side. Andrew is now a child rapist, fantastic.
Come on, guys. I tell you once again, your country is burning and if I were you I'd start reading actual news, for instance about your Government and how it intends to handle Brexit. I'm even starting to think that any Royal would make a better job than the blokes currently sitting at either side of the HoC, and this worries me far more than that gossip about a Royal.
Some terrible views on here. Streetwise 17 year olds etc. I will leave you to it, life is too short to get embroiled in this. I honestly thought people were better than this, how innocent of me.
Some terrible views on here. Streetwise 17 year olds etc. I will leave you to it, life is too short to get embroiled in this. I honestly thought people were better than this, how innocent of me.
No and I had expressed this under your post #107, have a look.Do you really think he should be hanging out with convicted child rapists and attending their parties?
I tend to blame the 40-50 something man rather than the 17 year olds. On balance of probability I reckon I'm correct. Rather extreme nich example in Italy which doesn't really add anything, probably been corrupted by organised crime at a guess.Do not take on so! People are for the most part as good as you believe, but some of their views are more nuanced and, perhaps, more realistic than yours. There are 17-year-olds who rob banks, commit murder, sell drugs, steal, beat up old people, etc. There was a gang of teenage prostitutes here in Rome a while back. 15, 16, 17 years old, all from solid upper-middle class families. They were exposed when one of their parents noticed they had thousands of euros worth of clothes, jewellery, and son.
Completely missed the point but no surprise there.Naive might be closer, they exist no matter how much denial you put into it.
I tend to blame the 40-50 something man rather than the 17 year olds. On balance of probability I reckon I'm correct. Rather extreme nich example in Italy which doesn't really add anything, probably been corrupted by organised crime at a guess.
Completely missed the point but no surprise there.
Funny, I thought he was spot on. Maybe, in your eyes, that sort of fits.Completely missed the point but no surprise there.
Yes, but Justice is supposed to go a little further than probability.On balance of probability I reckon I'm correct.
avole said:Assuming Andrew will go to prison, I'm only sorry he won't be meeting his mother there. She should have been incarcerated in 1975 for overthrowing a legally-elected government in 1975.
Not in the UK, Downunder. Sir John Kerr, Governor-General and therefore the Queen's official representative, dismissed Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam:My history is not the best but I don't recall any govt being overthrown in the UK by the current monarch, let alone in 1975?
I'm word playing on "roué" = "A man who recklessly indulges in sensual pleasures"
I'm not getting yours unless it's the Tolstoy ref?
er? Must have missed that.Assuming Andrew will go to prison, I'm only sorry he won't be meeting his mother there. She should have been incarcerated in 1975 for overthrowing a legally-elected government in 1975.