Prince Andrew halts public duties over sex scandal

[Liverpudlian]

OFF with there heads ! the whole mob ... then swoop on the bleeders in parliament with the same fate.

[Liverpudlian]

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Terry has been in a coffin for some time!

Wonder if they kept his wig on ey !

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, soalbundy said:

Randy Andy was indiscrete and let his guard down, rather stupid of him with his position and lifes training, arrogance won.

IMO given the circles he lives in, he probably thought it normal behaviour. At least he can't be accused of adultery, and in the UK 16 is the age of consent. Was she a "sex slave"? Just because she says she was does not make it true. On that question depends what happens next.

Perhaps he should just marry Sarah, again, and retire to the south of France, like a predecessor did.

Isn't it time for the taxpayer to only support the monarch and the immediate heir(s)?

The queen has 4 children, and we only hear about Charles, most of the time. Have the other 2 retired?

As for the next generation, Harry is as good a reason as any to send all except the direct heirs out to get a real job and stop sucking on the taxpayer's teat.

[thaibeachlovers]

58 minutes ago, faraday said:

However, Epstein et al were/ are adults by about 20 years, & had, most probably considerable influence over them.

 

The females were under 18.

 

 

Are you saying over 16 year olds are not capable of making their own decisions and should be forced to live at home till whatever is judged old enough?

[BritManToo]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Isn't it time for the taxpayer to only support the monarch and the immediate heir(s)?

I think mommy has enough money and land to provide for all her relatives.

What we are seeing is Thai style greed, where those at the top always want more.

[bendejo]

Tsk tsk, who's a naughty boy?

 

In days of olde they'd send him to Canada to live in the wilderness with the proviso that he'll be financially supported so long as he hides from the world.

 

 

[sawadee1947]

And you as British taxpayers paid for his prostitutes and his multi flights to meet them ????????????

Strip him off all his privileges and give him charity work in a nursing home for the rest of his life. 

[faraday]

55 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you saying over 16 year olds are not capable of making their own decisions and should be forced to live at home till whatever is judged old enough?

No, at 16, they're old enough to work in t'mines....

 

????

 

 

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO given the circles he lives in, he probably thought it normal behaviour. At least he can't be accused of adultery, and in the UK 16 is the age of consent. Was she a "sex slave"? Just because she says she was does not make it true. On that question depends what happens next.

Perhaps he should just marry Sarah, again, and retire to the south of France, like a predecessor did.

Isn't it time for the taxpayer to only support the monarch and the immediate heir(s)?

The queen has 4 children, and we only hear about Charles, most of the time. Have the other 2 retired?

As for the next generation, Harry is as good a reason as any to send all except the direct heirs out to get a real job and stop sucking on the taxpayer's teat.

There are a couple of points to be considered. Although you touched upon them i think they are worth further clarification.

The accusser claims she was forced , thus the ability to give consent is not a free choice.

Whilst the age of consent is 16 this is for non commercial sex. A sex worker under the age 18 cannot give consent.

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, ezzra said:

Here's a guy that has foolishly let his little head rule his big head, and as a royalty, he should have known better, but the lure of young pretty girls on tap was too much for him to remember who and what he is and to act accordingly, Shame really... 

 

So you've convicted him based on the media accounts and accusations by a lady who never had any issues at the time but now perhaps just might by lying?

 

Yeah, let's not wait for any evidence or court decisions. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I think mommy has enough money and land to provide for all her relatives.

What we are seeing is Thai style greed, where those at the top always want more.

If you look at history I think you will find you will find that the absolute monarch gave up power to the commons in exchange for being "looked after".

Anyway, the pomp and pageantry returns millions to the British government. 

My point is that they can have the pomp and pageantry without supporting a lot of useless mouths as well. The monarch and direct heirs would be fine. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

30 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

There are a couple of points to be considered. Although you touched upon them i think they are worth further clarification.

The accusser claims she was forced , thus the ability to give consent is not a free choice.

Whilst the age of consent is 16 this is for non commercial sex. A sex worker under the age 18 cannot give consent.

Was she a prostitute? I may be misinformed, but I thought she was just a groupie. A groupie is not a sex worker.

A claim that she was forced may have a relationship to the amount of money she may be wanting to mint out of it. The media will pay more for a sex slave than someone that just liked to party.

[Thingamabob]

2 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

If it were fake it would have been shown to be long ago, very easy to prove.

Already proven. Wake up.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Thingamabob said:

Already proven. Wake up.

Please sdhow this proof. I have not seen this defense from the side most likely to come with this.

[Baerboxer]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Was she a prostitute? I may be misinformed, but I thought she was just a groupie. A groupie is not a sex worker.

A claim that she was forced may have a relationship to the amount of money she may be wanting to mint out of it. The media will pay more for a sex slave than someone that just liked to party.

 

At 17 she was over the legal limit for consensual sex in the UK, where the alleged, and it is only her allegation, sex took place. 16 is the age of consent in the UK, and for leaving school. Many girls start work at 16 and there are discussions about whether it's appropriate to also lower voting age to 16.

 

Groupie or Prostitute she was living the high life with high rollers. She certainly wasn't along to make the sandwiches. At no time did she try to escape, alert the authorities or complain until years after - at a time when it's fashionable to complain.

 

Nice money earner perhaps?

[cleopatra2]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Was she a prostitute? I may be misinformed, but I thought she was just a groupie. A groupie is not a sex worker.

A claim that she was forced may have a relationship to the amount of money she may be wanting to mint out of it. The media will pay more for a sex slave than someone that just liked to party.

The fact she is claiming to have been forced therefore no consent.

For prostitution purposes the financial gain can be to a third person.

The obvious claim would be that Epstein would have gained.

The relevant act at the time of alleged offence is 1956 sexual offences act which placed the age at 21

[KKr]

7 hours ago, steve187 said:

The royal bashers are out today

if one cannot do the time, stay away from the crime.

[Orton Rd]

14 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Already proven. Wake up.

Evidence then where? If it has been I think he just might have said so

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The fact she is claiming to have been forced therefore no consent.

For prostitution purposes the financial gain can be to a third person.

The obvious claim would be that Epstein would have gained.

The relevant act at the time of alleged offence is 1956 sexual offences act which placed the age at 21

The point is that Andy has been convicted, hung drawn and quartered based on a woman claiming to have been coerced when that has not been proven..

If and when she proves that she was forced to have sex against her will, the lynching can start then.

As someone that has seen for myself young women using sexual attraction for personal benefit, I prefer to wait for proof before taking a female accuser's side.

[Tropicalevo]

3 hours ago, faraday said:

However, Epstein et al were/ are adults by about 20 years, & had, most probably considerable influence over them.

 

The females were under 18.

 

 

Isn't the age of consent for sex 16?

[atyclb]

he sort of looks familiar like a guy sitting at the head of the dance table conducting the show at windmill gogo in pattaya.  likely just coincidence

[cleopatra2]

19 minutes ago, Tropicalevo said:

Isn't the age of consent for sex 16?

Yes with the exception of exploitation.

[stevenl]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The point is that Andy has been convicted, hung drawn and quartered based on a woman claiming to have been coerced when that has not been proven..

If and when she proves that she was forced to have sex against her will, the lynching can start then.

As someone that has seen for myself young women using sexual attraction for personal benefit, I prefer to wait for proof before taking a female accuser's side.

Not just based on her claims, also on his own weak defense and his connections with Epstein.

[Orton Rd]

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The point is that Andy has been convicted, hung drawn and quartered based on a woman claiming to have been coerced when that has not been proven..

If and when she proves that she was forced to have sex against her will, the lynching can start then.

As someone that has seen for myself young women using sexual attraction for personal benefit, I prefer to wait for proof before taking a female accuser's side.

No he has not been convicted of sex with the girl but has been for his continuing association with a convicted sex offender and even stayed at his house with young girls coming and going, also held a party for him. He made light in his interview of what his mate had done and showed no sympathy for his victims. That was more than enough for him to be stripped of his public duties and having his allowance stopped.

[cleopatra2]

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The point is that Andy has been convicted, hung drawn and quartered based on a woman claiming to have been coerced when that has not been proven..

If and when she proves that she was forced to have sex against her will, the lynching can start then.

As someone that has seen for myself young women using sexual attraction for personal benefit, I prefer to wait for proof before taking a female accuser's side.

I am not in a position to state id he is guilty or innocent.

The woman made a deposition claiming she was forced to have sex with him at the age of 17.  

By the very nature of allegation she could not give consent if true.

 

[vogie]

The banned old Duke of York,

When he was up he was up

When he was down he was down

And when he was only half way up

The bailiffs confiscated his crown.

 

[Dogmatix]

"I'm sorry to say he's arrogant enough to believe his own myth that he could get away with it, and he didn't get away with it."

 

That seems to hit the nail firmly on the head. At 59 it would a good time to retire from royal duties for good and relinquish the income he receives from taxpayers' funds. It is hard to imagine that anyone would want him to make speeches or open things any more.

 

The UK should follow the lead of the Swedish royal family by rescinding the royal titles and taxpayers' income from all but the closest in line to the throne. Andrew is way done the list now following the royal sproggings of Charles' sons.  I think that would make the British public feel they were making an effort to remain relevant and stay in touch with the modern world.  Many Brits like the queen but when she is gone their image will likely struggle.

[mfd101]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The point is that Andy has been convicted, hung drawn and quartered based on a woman claiming to have been coerced when that has not been proven..

If and when she proves that she was forced to have sex against her will, the lynching can start then.

As someone that has seen for myself young women using sexual attraction for personal benefit, I prefer to wait for proof before taking a female accuser's side.

This is the problem of all the current wave worldwide of complaints of rape & sexual harassment, and including those against priests. The claims are made 20 & 30 years after the supposed 'event', usually with no evidence in support, just assertion. So it becomes one person's word against another's.

 

As we see with Cardinal Pell's case in Oz, application of the criminal law becomes difficult in an environment of public hysteria stirred up with modern comms technology (what used to be known as 'witchhunt').

 

In the moron York's case, clarity is made more difficult by his manifest stupidity, blindness & arrogance. The US court hearings - if they ever happen - will be fascinating. Not expecting anything in the UK but.

[Dogmatix]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

I am not in a position to state id he is guilty or innocent.

The woman made a deposition claiming she was forced to have sex with him at the age of 17.  

By the very nature of allegation she could not give consent if true.

 

Her allegation concerns something she claims happened in the UK where the age of consent is 16.  So how could she not give her consent?  In the video  clip of her interview she is not specific that she was forced to have sex with him.  She said that Ghislaine Maxwell told her to do the same for him as she does for Jeffery Epstein without saying what that was.  She implied that she did what she was told but it is unclear exactly what that was, although she implied it was some sort of intimate act.  She also doesn't say she was actually forced to do whatever she did and she certainly doesn't suggest she was raped or put up any resistance.  It seemed she was suggesting she was coerced by virtue of whatever hold Maxwell and Epstein had over which is unclear, although it was presumably largely financial.  She didn't suggest she was kidnapped and forcibly taken to London and could presumably have refused to get on the plane.  Having already been abused by Epstein in the US, she must have been able to guess that she was not just being taken on a nice holiday with no strings attached. It does seem likely that whatever men accepted "gifts' in the form of young women sent to service them by Maxwell/Epstein were well aware that these women were not coming to them just because they found them attractive or even fully of their own free will.

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

This is the problem of all the current wave worldwide of complaints of rape & sexual harassment, and including those against priests. The claims are made 20 & 30 years after the supposed 'event', usually with no evidence in support, just assertion. So it becomes one person's word against another's.

If I were raped I'd either 1. forget about it, or 2. be down the police station as soon as I could walk.

As far as I'm concerned anyone that waits more that a week, (or where evidence can no longer be gathered), has an agenda outside of justice, and should be routinely disbelieved.