|
Post by Moose on Jan 2, 2015 23:58:01 GMT
But once again I am uncomfortable with him being accused of sexual offences when he has not been charged with anything. It really does seem wrong that people can make allegations that will be repeated publicly until at the very list an arrest and charge has been made (possibly, indeed, even until there is a conviction though I suppose that one is open to debate with such a public figure).
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jan 3, 2015 0:05:14 GMT
As I understand it, in this case he's part of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 3, 2015 0:30:21 GMT
He's also being accused of sex with an underage girl though.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jan 3, 2015 11:34:57 GMT
Has he been accused? Other than by the media / the court of public opinion. It's this Jeffrey Epstein dude who's actually been charged.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jan 3, 2015 12:03:00 GMT
As I understand it the allegation is that The Duke of York had sexual activity with a minor whilst in the USA. This also has been alleged of Alan Dershowitz.
I also am no fan of Andrew but I am a huge fan of Dershowitz.
I believe that there are questions to be answered by all parties.
Further, if the allegations about Andrew's activities prove to be of substance, he can be charged and tried in a British court and should be.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 3, 2015 18:57:41 GMT
Yes and I'd entirely agree with that. But I feel uneasy about allegations being thrown around when there hasn't been a charge. If there is, that's a different thing
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 3, 2015 22:00:52 GMT
That's how I feel. Mud sticks even if it is groundless.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jan 3, 2015 22:03:47 GMT
It's not an uncommon event, well known cases would be the trial of Oscar Wilde, the Jeremy Thorpe affair and of course the Profumo affair.
A statement made in a court naming people at a said time and place may lead to that person subsequently 'coming to the attention of the police'
And of course there are many cases where the original statement is judged to be untrue and, in some cases, an act of perjury.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 3, 2015 23:02:11 GMT
I have no doubt many prominent people have committed sexual crimes and I would like to see all of them called to account. But I would much rather they were charged before their names are dragged into the gutter especially if they are innocent.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jan 4, 2015 21:17:50 GMT
It's the lead story in the Sunday Times and makes a double spread on pages 4 and 5.
The ST isn't letting this go easily, their claim is that when the original case against Epstein was brought to court there was a plea bargaining agreement not to prosecute others who were implicated in this affair.
|
|
Kate
Junior lady
Posts: 381
|
Post by Kate on Jan 5, 2015 12:33:51 GMT
I was surprised to hear this, too. Unsure as to whether he did it or not :/
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 6, 2015 23:37:32 GMT
Hmm well he does not strike me as being partocularly likeable person - self entitled insufferable buffoon might be nearer the mark - but still, innocent until proven guilty I guess.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jan 7, 2015 0:01:31 GMT
Dershowitz has launched a very strong counter action. At this stage the Duke of York has not either joined the Dershowitz counter action or launched one of his own. Instead his press office has stated that 'he is engaging himself in his busy workload'. That's codswallop he was scheduled to be on holiday in Switzerland, he currently has no appointments. He has, in reality, gone into hiding at Windsor.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 7, 2015 0:16:09 GMT
Bet Prince Philip is giving him a right roasting
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 7, 2015 0:16:51 GMT
Incidentally the chalet he was staying at in Switzerland cost 22K a week, which is around the average yearly UK salary. Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 8, 2015 22:20:48 GMT
I was surprised to hear this, too. Unsure as to whether he did it or not :/ The problem is that merely making an accusation convinces some people that he is guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 10, 2015 18:33:24 GMT
I was just thinking about all the business with Cliff Richard a number of weeks back. Seems to have gone all quiet. Of course, if it all comes to nothing, the papers will never print a retraction or apology, and many will just think he "got away with it" regardless of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jan 10, 2015 19:19:23 GMT
The trouble is that Andrew allowed himself to be photographed having a jolly good time at Epstien's property after Epstien's had been convicted of rape. He's also been photographed with his arm around the waist of the lady in question, when she was underage. That's not a case of making something of nothing. There are questions about Andrew's judgement and the friends he keeps.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 10, 2015 23:12:57 GMT
What Alan said.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Jan 13, 2015 5:02:24 GMT
Can't firvtheckife of me rember Prince Andrew and who he is?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jan 13, 2015 11:53:37 GMT
That is a blissful state to be in.
Andrew ( aka The Duke of York) is little Liz's second son. He is fifth in line to the throne. He married a greedy, fraudulent, devious lady called Sarah Ferguson and they have two daughters. He is now divorced due to his wife's inability to stay out of anyone else's bed.
He has been stripped of all royal and national duties due to his long term habit of taking money and goods or services for recommending applicants for lucrative contracts. He is funded solely from the queen's private wealth. He has a notoriously low IQ.
He is the prime example of a corrupt, greedy and morally bankrupt moron.
Now read on . . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 13, 2015 22:58:15 GMT
It's quite staggering that this country reserves its worst vitriol for poor sods on benefits on council estates when Andy gets away - it seems - with his lifestyle. What precisely is the difference, except that the tax payer gives him far more?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jan 14, 2015 10:05:53 GMT
Spongers living off the state!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 14, 2015 18:24:33 GMT
*whacks Joe with a rolled up Daily Mail*
Seriously though, what does Andrew DO? Where does he get the money for a 22,000 a week holiday apartment?
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jan 14, 2015 20:25:23 GMT
He gets it from two sources now that he is no longer on the official royal paylist.
1. He attends official functions and claims expenses and his expense claims are astoundingly phenomenal. 2. His mother is paying for him out of her personal funds, this includes recently buying him a 13 million home in a Swiss ski resort.
As to what he does, the answer is very very little. He was due to attend the upcoming meetings in Davos but has been asked to not attend. That's left him with almost nothing left to do.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 14, 2015 23:07:16 GMT
Nice work if you can get it.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Jan 14, 2015 23:15:38 GMT
Wow. I want Andrew's job.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 14, 2015 23:20:20 GMT
The story on him seems to have gone very quiet. Bet he thought that the French massacre was a godsend.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Feb 5, 2015 10:53:54 GMT
It's quite staggering that this country reserves its worst vitriol for poor sods on benefits on council estates when Andy gets away - it seems - with his lifestyle. What precisely is the difference, except that the tax payer gives him far more? He's royal. I know that the King of Sweden can do anyting without getting indicted. He can literally get away with murder. We know that he has driven too fast. So did his son but none of them hade anything to fear from the police. Even though only the king himself is penalty immune, not his children, this penalty immunity sort of rubs off on his children. Of course, foreign ambassadors and diplomats can also do anything, the only thing they risk is being asked to leave the country. And many of them drive too fast and under the influence of alcohol.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Feb 6, 2015 19:49:32 GMT
Prince Philip was off on one of his philandering overseas trips at the time Andrew was conceived. That's why Andrew looks completely different to Charles and Edward - for example he's kept most of his hair. Andrew's father is reckoned to be Lord Porchester - who was the Royal stable master looking after the Queen's horses. Lizzy was known to be a good friend of his, and it seems that it went somewhat further than friendship during Philip's absence. Here's a pic of Lord Porchester with Andrew and Fergie in 1985. If you search on the web, you'll find photos of Lord Porchester at various ages - and in some of them he bears an uncanny resemblance to Andrew. Of course, Royal women are notorious for having children with several different fathers - Prince William and Prince Harry are another pair who look much less alike than you would expect full brothers to look.
|
|