Tories order councils to fly union jack on Prince Andrew's birthday Watch

YaliaV
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 week ago
#41
(Original post by squeakysquirrel)
Yes but the goalposts have moved.

Ever since that interview, all I can picture in my mind is an embarrassing sleazy over privileged rather stupid middle aged scum bag.

I used to be an ardent royalist. He has changed my and I suspect many others opinion of the royal family
Why? Royal families have been involved in murder, abuse and god knows what since they have existed.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 week ago
#42
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I'm sure they are, but given that he's been dropped from all royal activities and given what we know has gone on, isn't this something that should have been thought about by government a little harder?

What's happening is either a robotic unquestioning insistence on protocol, or something more sinister - a desire by the state to brush what has been revealed under the carpet and pretend all is well.
Literally nothing ground breaking has been revealed though. His dubious friendship has been known about for years. I really don't see an issue here.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 week ago
#43
(Original post by Napp)
Literally nothing ground breaking has been revealed though. His dubious friendship has been known about for years. I really don't see an issue here.
Nothing ground breaking? He clearly denied knowing Virginia Roberts when there is clear evidence to contradict that claim. Also the fact that Epstein conveniently decided to kill himself when the heat was getting hotter for the people around him.

It was eye-opening to see how things are manipulated to fit a narrative. The clear point is that he has been accused of being a pedophile and there is proof of connection and witnesses to support the claim. Yet, that narrative has been dismissed for more about his “foolish” friendship with a known pedophile. Rather than focus on his own alleged pedophilia, we are talking about how he should have known better than to continue to relate with someone who destroyed the lives of many young women.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 week ago
#44
I think that this brings the Royal Family into the political arena, and so the flag should not be flown. It should only be flown on the Queen's Birthday alone (or the monarch after she dies), no other Royal occasion.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 week ago
#45
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Nothing ground breaking? He clearly denied knowing Virginia Roberts when there is clear evidence to contradict that claim. Also the fact that Epstein conveniently decided to kill himself when the heat was getting hotter for the people around him.

It was eye-opening to see how things are manipulated to fit a narrative. The clear point is that he has been accused of being a pedophile and there is proof of connection and witnesses to support the claim. Yet, that narrative has been dismissed for more about his “foolish” friendship with a known pedophile. Rather than focus on his own alleged pedophilia, we are talking about how he should have known better than to continue to relate with someone who destroyed the lives of many young women.
Not sure how that is ground breaking? The man met her, so what? Her dubious claims on the other hand are just that, claims. There is nothing to say she is telling the truth rather than being after a meal ticket.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 week ago
#46
(Original post by Napp)
Not sure how that is ground breaking? The man met her, so what? Her dubious claims on the other hand are just that, claims. There is nothing to say she is telling the truth rather than being after a meal ticket.
I don't doubt that point.

To me, the issue is that Andrew’s claims don't add up. This was clear during the interview. So if he has made many claims that are false and denied ever meeting the woman in question, then it is important to follow up on it. So far, what she has said has led to a particular point and that has Andrew as the bogeyman. So he now has to cooperate with the US FBI to properly dismiss any allegations.

1. He said that he has never met the woman - wrong.
2. He claimed to have been miles away from London that day - wrong
3. He made up some random nonsense about not socialising in a very touch way - wrong
4. He said that he only went to Epstein’s home for friendship chats and nothing else - wrong. Evidence showed him even waving to a young woman that had been in the home and confirmed he was there.

There are so many claims that he has denied that has come out to be false. If he has apparently lied as much as he has done, then it is only fair that it is investigated. If the woman or women in question are liars then they should be sent to prison. The obvious sad part is that he is getting away because he is son of the Queen.

If that was your daughter, i doubt you would have been this dismissive.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 week ago
#47
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I don't doubt that point.

To me, the issue is that Andrew’s claims don't add up. This was clear during the interview. So if he has made many claims that are false and denied ever meeting the woman in question, then it is important to follow up on it. So far, what she has said has led to a particular point and that has Andrew as the bogeyman. So he now has to cooperate with the US FBI to properly dismiss any allegations.

1. He said that he has never met the woman - wrong.
2. He claimed to have been miles away from London that day - wrong
3. He made up some random nonsense about not socialising in a very touch way - wrong
4. He said that he only went to Epstein’s home for friendship chats and nothing else - wrong. Evidence showed him even waving to a young woman that had been in the home and confirmed he was there.

There are so many claims that he has denied that has come out to be false. If he has apparently lied as much as he has done, then it is only fair that it is investigated. If the woman or women in question are liars then they should be sent to prison. The obvious sad part is that he is getting away because he is son of the Queen.

If that was your daughter, i doubt you would have been this dismissive.
Maybe, then again if it was my daughter whoreing herself out to older gentlemen i doubt id be overly amused with her anyway.
Either way the fact of the matter is he is innocent of all charges until proven otherwise and that has not happened yet. and random people speculating about the dubious claims of some random oerson in america is hardly compelling.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 week ago
#48
(Original post by Wired_1800)

1. He said that he has never met the woman - wrong.
2. He claimed to have been miles away from London that day - wrong
3. He made up some random nonsense about not socialising in a very touch way - wrong
4. He said that he only went to Epstein’s home for friendship chats and nothing else - wrong. Evidence showed him even waving to a young woman that had been in the home and confirmed he was there.


If that was your daughter, i doubt you would have been this dismissive.
Hang on a minute

1 The single image (which I suspect is genuine more or less) is no more than a selfie with a celebrity. It does not prove he met her in any meaningful way, any more than the millions of other celebrity selfies in existence. What is unusual is that, at that time, Prince Andrew agreed to participate in a selfie but these were private premises with friends. Where the girl asked or someone (Epstein?) put her up to it, it would have been difficult for him to have come over all royal and refused.

2 There is no evidence of that at all. The date is being fixed by reference to the log of Epstein's flight. I don't think there is any suggestion that it has been exhaustively proved that there was no other possible occasion for the photograph. The photograph is wholly inconsistent with a party returning after a night out. The open window does not fit the time of year and Maxwell isn't dressed for a night out at a posh nightclub.It is in both the Duke's and Robert's interests not to cast doubt on the date. Robert's story relates to a single evening where the nightclub, the photo and sex are involved. The Duke's alibi is about eating pizza on a particular night.

3 I think we can ignore the various "I don't sweat" excuses

4 I don't know what you are referring to
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 week ago
#49
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Hang on a minute

1 The single image (which I suspect is genuine more or less) is no more than a selfie with a celebrity. It does not prove he met her in any meaningful way, any more than the millions of other celebrity selfies in existence. What is unusual is that, at that time, Prince Andrew agreed to participate in a selfie but these were private premises with friends. Where the girl asked or someone (Epstein?) put her up to it, it would have been difficult for him to have come over all royal and refused.

2 There is no evidence of that at all. The date is being fixed by reference to the log of Epstein's flight. I don't think there is any suggestion that it has been exhaustively proved that there was no other possible occasion for the photograph. The photograph is wholly inconsistent with a party returning after a night out. The open window does not fit the time of year and Maxwell isn't dressed for a night out at a posh nightclub.It is in both the Duke's and Robert's interests not to cast doubt on the date. Robert's story relates to a single evening where the nightclub, the photo and sex are involved. The Duke's alibi is about eating pizza on a particular night.

3 I think we can ignore the various "I don't sweat" excuses

4 I don't know what you are referring to
1. Yes, that is fair, but the first point is that he denied ever meeting her. Then we have Madam Maxwell in the background which adds to Roberts’ claims that her connection to Epstein and Andrew was more than Andrew has claimed.

2. No, that is not true. Roberts claimed that she met Andrews more than once. Then she fleshed out one of those encounters by saying it was in London and that they had been in a nightclub that said evening. The photograph does not mean that their encounter happened in one day.

If we assume that it was only one evening that they met, where Andrew claimed he was in Woking. Then why is there a photo to dispute that denial.

3. Really? You would be a horrible investigator. Why should we ignore a medical claim that appeared to be false?

4. There is a video that was on Sky News months ago showing Andrew waving to a woman that looked quire young and he looked excited to wave her goodbye.

Andrew should accept the FBI invitation and put this to bed once and for all.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 week ago
#50
(Original post by Napp)
Maybe, then again if it was my daughter whoreing herself out to older gentlemen i doubt id be overly amused with her anyway.
Either way the fact of the matter is he is innocent of all charges until proven otherwise and that has not happened yet. and random people speculating about the dubious claims of some random oerson in america is hardly compelling.
Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. There are evidences to contradict his claims and he has refused to cooperate with an investigation. So we are wondering what he may be hiding.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 week ago
#51
(Original post by Wired_1800)
1. Yes, that is fair, but the first point is that he denied ever meeting her. Then we have Madam Maxwell in the background which adds to Roberts’ claims that her connection to Epstein and Andrew was more than Andrew has claimed.
I think her connection to Epstein is a given. The issue is whether she was anything more than wallpaper around Epstein.

2. No, that is not true. Roberts claimed that she met Andrews more than once. Then she fleshed out one of those encounters by saying it was in London and that they had been in a nightclub that said evening. The photograph does not mean that their encounter happened in one day.

If we assume that it was only one evening that they met, where Andrew claimed he was in Woking. Then why is there a photo to dispute that denial.
I don't think there has been any reference to more than the single day in England and as I say I think it has been convenient for both sides to trade on this. I suspect Andrew's Woking alibi is solid but irrelevant. That photo was taken later in the year.

3. Really? You would be a horrible investigator. Why should we ignore a medical claim that appeared to be false?
It is a fairly typical example of how lay people approach evidence. They seek to prove something didn't happen because it could not have happened rather than resting on their word that although it could have happened, it didn't. However, lay people then struggle because their reasons why it can't have happened are never solid enough. I believe Andrew has a condition that reduces his sweating. No doubt his medical records will confirm it. I also think any endocrinologist would say that no-one doesn't sweat at all. So what we end up with is a statement from Andrew which is true but of no probative value whatsoever. The same would be true about the possible doctoring of the fingers of his hand

4. There is a video that was on Sky News months ago showing Andrew waving to a woman that looked quire young and he looked excited to wave her goodbye.
Tell me for all the meetings you have attended with important people, were you shown out? Was it by a pretty young woman? iDd she wave as you went? Are all these likely but can you remember?
Last edited by nulli tertius; 1 week ago
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#52
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I think her connection to Epstein is a given. The issue is whether she was anything more than wallpaper around Epstein.
She says she was, repeatedly and forcefully. You reject all her assertions as unproven no doubt, but they ring true. They are entirely coincidentally supported by the similar allegations of many other now-mature women who had 'dealings' with Epstein and his Madame Procurer during that era. I suppose they're all lying too are they?

You ignore Andrew's own admission that he stayed with Epstein for long periods and that he was also very involved (as were other Royals incidentally) with Ghislaine and Eppie.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 week ago
#53
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
She says she was, repeatedly and forcefully. You reject all her assertions as unproven no doubt, but they ring true. They are entirely coincidentally supported by the similar allegations of many other now-mature women who had 'dealings' with Epstein and his Madame Procurer during that era. I suppose they're all lying too are they?

You ignore Andrew's own admission that he stayed with Epstein for long periods and that he was also very involved (as were other Royals incidentally) with Ghislaine and Eppie.
I have no doubt that she was part of a coterie of girls around Epstein who were providing sexual services to Epstein and probably others. However allegations are threefold. Firstly she alleges she was coerced and/or raped. Second she provided such services to Andrew. Thirdly, and I am not sure this was there at the beginning, that she was coerced into intercourse with Andrew.

There are plenty of men with a bevy of "maintained" girls around them and no coercion takes place. Whether Roberts was coerced I think remains an open question.
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 week ago
#54
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Tell me for all the meetings you have attended with important people, were you shown out? Was it by a pretty young woman? iDd she wave as you went? Are all these likely but can you remember?
Name:  Header_2664974_16.9-1024x576.jpg
Views: 6
Size:  104.2 KB
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 week ago
#55
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
She says she was, repeatedly and forcefully. You reject all her assertions as unproven no doubt, but they ring true. They are entirely coincidentally supported by the similar allegations of many other now-mature women who had 'dealings' with Epstein and his Madame Procurer during that era. I suppose they're all lying too are they?

You ignore Andrew's own admission that he stayed with Epstein for long periods and that he was also very involved (as were other Royals incidentally) with Ghislaine and Eppie.
Just because one doesn't take allegations as unequivocal fact doesn't mean the person supposes they're all lying! Furthermore, Epstein's suicide isn't automatically evidence of guilt nor are allegations of other now-mature women.

I'm anti HRH titles but not anti the people behind them! It is imperative we dont allow a mob rule judiciary, I think it is very important Andrew faces trial where professionals can deside if he is guilty or not with full and proper evidence fairly. Not a bunch of muppets with no evidence (like us) over the internet.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 week ago
#56
(Original post by the beer)
Name:  Header_2664974_16.9-1024x576.jpg
Views: 6
Size:  104.2 KB
Well its the other way round. Was that someone junior at the Embassy dropping off the guest list for that day's function?

If you live your life surrounded by flunkies, it wouldn't be surprising for there to be pictures of you greeting or thanking flunkies
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report 1 week ago
#57
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I think her connection to Epstein is a given. The issue is whether she was anything more than wallpaper around Epstein.



I don't think there has been any reference to more than the single day in England and as I say I think it has been convenient for both sides to trade on this. I suspect Andrew's Woking alibi is solid but irrelevant. That photo was taken later in the year.



It is a fairly typical example of how lay people approach evidence. They seek to prove something didn't happen because it could not have happened rather than resting on their word that although it could have happened, it didn't. However, lay people then struggle because their reasons why it can't have happened are never solid enough. I believe Andrew has a condition that reduces his sweating. No doubt his medical records will confirm it. I also think any endocrinologist would say that no-one doesn't sweat at all. So what we end up with is a statement from Andrew which is true but of no probative value whatsoever. The same would be true about the possible doctoring of the fingers of his hand



Tell me for all the meetings you have attended with important people, were you shown out? Was it by a pretty young woman? iDd she wave as you went? Are all these likely but can you remember?
From what we know women around Epstein were not wallpaper but there to service Epstein and his associates. The big question is did Andrew take part in any of the services with Epstein’s girls and, if so, was Roberts one of them?

From my understanding and the interview, Roberts had two major encounters with Andrew. One in London, which Andrew denied and another in Epstein’s house in the US. Andrew’s woking alibi is not strong because it did not add up to other attributes that he claimed happened before or after the Woking pizza party.

I disagree, when one makes a claim or an assertion, it is your responsibility to ensure that there is corroborative evidence to prove or dismiss the claim. You cannot go from someone saying something that is a clear lie to ignoring it because people should know better.

You are portraying the picture like it was a random encounter on the street. If you are at your mate’s place and a random underage looking woman is hanging around there but has not relation to your mate, the least that you should do is asking questions.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#58
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Well its the other way round. Was that someone junior at the Embassy dropping off the guest list for that day's function?

If you live your life surrounded by flunkies, it wouldn't be surprising for there to be pictures of you greeting or thanking flunkies
We've always been told that Andrew can't stand the staff and frequently yells at them.

To my mind every older male who was a friend and intimate of Epstein is suspect. The man was a manipulator who plied young women to older men in order to be a mover and shaker, or at the very least to place a respectable smokescreen of highly placed protectors around him. This is exactly what Jimmy Savile did.

There needs to be some sort of independent investigation into our royals and I for one remain unconvinced that we don't have networks of high establishment paedophiles operating here, just as it is proven there were in other European countries.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 week ago
#59
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
There needs to be some sort of independent investigation into our royals and I for one remain unconvinced that we don't have networks of high establishment paedophiles operating here, just as it is proven there were in other European countries.
I agree with this, however just about the only way you will get that is, I form a politcal party, win a majority, abolish the HRH titles and instruct a full and detailed investigation starting with Prince Andrew.

In other words, never going to happen. If I even got as big as Farage, that's no seats in Westminster at all, I'd end up having an "unfortunate accident"
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 week ago
#60
(Original post by Wired_1800)
From what we know women around Epstein were not wallpaper but there to service Epstein and his associates. The big question is did Andrew take part in any of the services with Epstein’s girls and, if so, was Roberts one of them?

From my understanding and the interview, Roberts had two major encounters with Andrew. One in London, which Andrew denied and another in Epstein’s house in the US. Andrew’s woking alibi is not strong because it did not add up to other attributes that he claimed happened before or after the Woking pizza party.

I disagree, when one makes a claim or an assertion, it is your responsibility to ensure that there is corroborative evidence to prove or dismiss the claim. You cannot go from someone saying something that is a clear lie to ignoring it because people should know better.

You are portraying the picture like it was a random encounter on the street. If you are at your mate’s place and a random underage looking woman is hanging around there but has not relation to your mate, the least that you should do is asking questions.
There is nothing that undermines the Woking alibi if the date is relevant.

Roberts refers to one meeting in London. Roberts says neither that this was her only visit to London nor when it took place. Journalists working from the flight records have found a date when she was in London.They have put two and two together, that this was the time Roberts and Andrew met and the photograph taken. Andrew in turn has given his alibi for that date. But this is all built on sand.

It is not Andrew's responsibility to prove his innocence. Moreover, it is unlikely that he has lied about a non-existent medical condition.

You do not know that woman in the photo was underage; nor do you know she did not appear to have a function, whether as part of Epstein's entourage or simply as a visitor carrying out a task for Epstein or for Andrew. As I say was she the Embassy runner?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (364)
67.03%
No (179)
32.97%

Watched Threads

View All