JonnyF

Well at least you admitted that your "hardman" stance on the subject wasn't exactly in keeping with your public #bekind persona. Maybe virtue signalling isn't for you after all? As for Andrew, responsible for what actions? Sleeping with a 17 year old in the UK where the legal age of consent is 16? Even that is completely unproven, the only "evidence" if you can call it that, are the words of a self confessed child procuring prostitute with dollar signs in her greedy little eyes. Excuse me if I don't 'string him up' based on such a blatant money grab.

Yes you stated that you believed in innocent until proven gulity and then immediately exposed yourself by admitting you wished the same fate as Epstein on him (i.e. a violent death). So don't pretend you are not a liberal (and I mean in the political, not the classic sense of the word). Your hypocrisy, virtue signalling and spiteful, vitriolic nature exposes you as such. If we all wished death upon someone based on the words of a gold digging, self confessed child procuring prostitute then the world would be a very nasty place to live in. I am not even a Royalist, I simply do not allow my envy of wealth and status to cloud my judgement as so many others do.

So you don't actually believe in innocent until proven guilty then. You wish death on a man before he has been proven guilty of a crime. What a lovely attitude. Let me guess, you're a 'liberal' .

The police do it themselves. I rode pillion on a police motorbike to go pay a fine at the police station (for riding in the middle lane on my motorbike) and he went through multiple red lights and drove the wrong way down the road towards oncoming traffic during that journey. At the station as I paid the fine he lectured me about staying in the left hand lane (I was overtaking traffic at the time).

Exactly. "Hey everyone look over there at the British Royal Family". Meanwhile Clinton and Gates go under the radar. Classic diversionary tactics.

In order to take responsibility away from their Woke brethren The BBC.

No there isn't.

I'm not surprised The Guardian defend it. You should read the Dame Janet Smith review. Everyone knew about him bieng a kiddy fiddler. Jonny Rotten spoke about it and was banned by the BBC. The legendary band The Smiths wrote the song Panic about it but never admitted it was about Saville as they knew they would be banned as well.

The reason I focus on the UK is because that is where there is a tiny shred of evidence (a likely doctored photo). In the US there is literally nothing other than the words of a self confessed prostitute on the make.

I agree with most of that. Except the part where you somehow try to link the crimes of Saville to the Royal Family. It was primarily the BBC that covered up Savilles crimes but they have long had links to Paedophiles so it comes of no surprise that they would do such a thing.

Purely circumstantial. There is no credible evidence against him. You better hope some self confessed prostitute (and acquirer of girls for sex) doesn't accuse you of something one day, and everyone simply believes her with no credible evidence to back it up. I'm sure your tune would change if that happened.

Obfuscation? It's the law. If the age of consent is 16 and she is 17 then it's legal. No matter how much you hate the royals.

Yes, and of course white, hetero, British, priviliged men would be at the very top of that list.

Yes it was a mistake. He should have gone to court seeing as there is absolutely no credible evidence against him he would have won (assuming a fair trial of course - many examples of miscarriages of justice). Although it was a mistake probably made for the right reasons (sparing his mother the ordeal in the final chapter of her life).

Plenty of people on this forum have. Just as Kevin Spacey did. There are so many examples of these false accusations that I'm amazed people still believe every single one of them before they are even proven. Or should I say, pretend to believe them so they have a stick with which to beat the British Royal Family.

Proves nothing other than he preferred not to sit through weeks of a trial in the kangaroo court of a banana republic. Settling out of court is not an admission of guilt. I would have thought you would have known that.

I don't think it matters if the photo was real. As far as I am aware it is not illegal to have photos taken with 17 year olds but correct me if you are aware of such a law.

Comparing the Muslim rape gangs to Andrew is totally disingenuous and frankly, disgusting. They are not even nearly the same thing. Your moral code must be pretty warped if you think gang raping a 12 year old girl is the same as having consensual sex with a 17 year old.

And just as credible as the other accusations. With the same amount of evidence to back it up. None.

She also recruited other girls for sex. A real gem, that Virginia.

Well if she was 17 and he paid her for sex then it's illegal so it matters in a legal sense. From a moral standpoint, she was clearly acting of her own free will, nobody was forcing her to do anything. She simply revised history at a later date to portray herself as a victim and get a big payout. A decent hustle which paid off nicely. Only a fool would believe she was forced into anything. Even the people arguing her case on this thread don't really believe that - it's just a stick to beat the Royals with.

Yes I'm pretty sure he would have been aware of his Mother's deteriorating health. Also aware that a long stressful court case could add to her health problems. If he didn't know, he would have been advised of such. I meant if I was Andrew I might have been tempted. I thought that was obvious. I don't need to take anyone's money. That's sweet.

If I was falsely accused of something in the final year of my mother's life, and faced weeks of questioning by hostile lawyers in a foreign country and tons of negative publicity I might be tempted to pay to make it all go away as well. Especially if I had Andrew's limited intellect and was paying with someone else's money. That would not mean I was guilty.

Let me be clear. Andrew is an idiot. He is arrogant, stupid and rude. However, if all it took for someone to be convicted was for a prostitute to tell a story about us then the jails would be full. It requires more than just an accusation. There needs to be evidence. There is none other that her words. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or do you suspend that for Royals?

I have seen no credible evidence that Andrew either slept with her or paid her for sex. It's her word against his.