advertisement


Prince Andrew allegations not going away...

Cheese said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are missing the key fact that “prince” Andrew is owned outright by the UK tax payer. For some reason that entirely escapes me we foot the bill for his extravagant lifestyle. This is not some tired old rock star who have created their own wealth and whose questionable morality may be (short of statutory rape) their own business, this is a man paid £millions by the UK state to act as a national figurehead. Conceptually he is the same as a teacher, judge, policeman, doctor or whatever, albeit without any discernible skillset. A public employee. Do you really think he should be hanging out with convicted child rapists and attending their parties?
 
In a strange way, one almost feels sorry for Mr. Andrew. He seems like a nasty piece of work, boorish and vulgar, and with that awful ex-wife who was caught trying to sell her influence a while back and probably still tries to and lives, vulgarly, above her means. But just think, if you were brought up with the decision already made for you to be someone and something. To be unable to develop naturally into your own personality, to freely follow your interests and inclinations and passions. OK, he could have "quit" somehow, but that would have turned him into a pathetic Duke of Windsor character, in exile somewhere, with photographers popping over his hedge for the rest of his life.
 
Cheese said:
Oh, 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.
Click to expand...
Glad to know you would distance yourself from a child rapist
 
Ok, time to lighten the mood. Everybody, sing along!

The Grand Old Douche of York,
He had 10,000 young women,
He marched them up to the Lolita Express,
And he marched them down again.

And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half way up,
They were neither up nor down.

Do they still stick heads on the Micklegate bar?
 
Woodface said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Woodface said:
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.
Click to expand...

Naive might be closer, they exist no matter how much denial you put into it.
 
PaulMB said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Woodface said:
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.
Click to expand...

Different societal attitudes.

In the Vatican City the age of consent was, until recently, 14.
Due to pressure they raised it to 18

For unmarrieds.

It is still 14 for girls if you are married.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
thebiglebowski said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not in the UK, Downunder. Sir John Kerr, Governor-General and therefore the Queen's official representative, dismissed Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

I'm not sure that the Queen had anything to do with it. It caused quite a furore at the time, because nobody knew that Governors-General had this sort of power.
 
kendo said:
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?
Click to expand...

sorry, my fault -- you were a little too clever for me last night.
 
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.
Click to expand...
er? Must have missed that.

Also, the Monarch is, quite literally, above the Law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top