scottiejohn Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said: She was paid to sleep with him. Who by? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayC Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 2 hours ago, Bday Prang said: not sure if that's a street sign or a warning With apologies to ScottieJohn🙏, this should keep you going for a while. https://upjoke.com/prince-andrew-jokes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Bday Prang Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 2 minutes ago, RayC said: With apologies to ScottieJohn🙏, this should keep you going for a while. https://upjoke.com/prince-andrew-jokes some crackers there, I heard he likes his whisky the same as he likes his women 16years old and mixed up with coke! 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Bday Prang Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 hour ago, scottiejohn said: Who by? The british tax payer ultimately, where else does their money come from ?certainly not from Fergie's kiddie books or Edwards acting endeavours Althoght the ginger one and his missis may have chipped in 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 1 hour ago, scottiejohn said: Who by? irrelevant who paid. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottiejohn Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 1 hour ago, ozimoron said: irrelevant who paid. Assuming a payment was made for the alleged act it is very important as to who paid who for what. Even if any money exchanged hands who paid the girl if she was paid? Was she paid by her so called lover or by her pimp/boss to seduce the "lover" etc? So many things that have no proof behind them! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 23 minutes ago, scottiejohn said: Assuming a payment was made for the alleged act it is very important as to who paid who for what. Even if any money exchanged hands who paid the girl if she was paid? Was she paid by her so called lover or by her pimp/boss to seduce the "lover" etc? So many things that have no proof behind them! Nope. The important part is did he orr didn't he do the deed and was she paid to do it. Who paid to do it just means another criminal if it wasn't prince charming himself who paid. His crime remains the same. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendejo Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Prince Andrew 'spent weeks' at Epstein home When your official life-long occupation is being unemployed you have all the time in the world. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post youreavinalaff Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 6 hours ago, ozimoron said: His crime remains the same. Crime? Has he been charged? I must have missed that bit. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 9 Popular Post Share Posted January 9 13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said: What’s this ‘attack British Royalty’ nonsense? You yourself frequently make disparaging remarks about a member of the British Royal Family and his wife. When you do so are you attacking British Royalty? Or is your eagerness to defend a credibly accused rapist blinding you to your own hypocrisy? The Ginger fool is no longer HRH. He is no longer funded by the royals. He is disloyal to his family and to the country. He is a liar and a hypocrite. He makes racist remarks and dresses like a Nazi for fun yet lectures the 'plebs' on unconcious bias. He lectures on climate change then takes private jets and Range Rovers. He deserves disparaging remarks. Prince Andrew on the other hand 'allegedly' (but unproven) slept with a 17 year old in London where the age of consent is 16. Do I find that a bit weird for a 41 year old man? Yes, but I find a lot of sexual practices (particularly those between same sex people) a bit weird but as long as it is legal it is none of my business. I live and let live. I am an open minded individual and as long as he has not broken any laws (and I see no credible evidence that he has) then I see no need to vilify him. I am not a bigot, unlike many people on here who are attacking him. Unlike Ginge and Cringe, he is not lecturing me on how to live so I will offer him the same courtesy as long as he remains within the law and as I stated I see no credible evidence that he has broken any laws. I will state it again, consensual sex with a 17 year old in London is not rape. It is not illegal. It is not Paedophilia. You are gaslighting again. 2 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 9 Popular Post Share Posted January 9 12 hours ago, RuamRudy said: She was paid to sleep with him. You, yourself, even called her a prostitute. The law in England is clear with regards to prostitution. Under 18s cannot willingly participate in it, either as buyers or sellers. The age of consent has zero relevance here, despite your failure to understand that. A dirty old man allegedly paid for sex with a child (as defined in the Sexual Offences Act). He needs to face the full scrutiny of the law. Allegedly. At least you got that bit correct. She was a prostitute. Correct. That does not mean that Andrew paid her. Plenty of prostitutes have sexual relationships outside of their work. Perhaps Epstein paid her. But what for? Perhaps she was there in an escort/assistant role and chose to sleep with him because he was a wealthy Prince and thought she could "do a Markle". Perhaps he didn't even sleep with her. You have no credible evidence that he slept with her and no evidence that money changed hands. All you have is an allegation by a self confessed prostitute and procurer of girls for sex who stood to (and did) make millions from said allegation. Hardly credible. More of an opportunist cash grab by a hustler. By the way in the UK it is only illegal to use a 17 year old prostitute if you do not believe her to be 18. Guiffre looked about 21 so even if Andrew did sleep with her (unproved allegation) he could argue he believed her to be 18. That's IF he slept with her and IF he paid her. Two things completely unproven. So basically, you haven't got a leg to stand on. 1 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautifulthailand99 Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 16 hours ago, Dogmatix said: I think it was his US lawyer's advice. Andy and his British solicitor "Good News" Gary were utterly clueless. However, there was one weird part of the US defense strategy when Andy publicized that he applied for a jury trial which caused shock horror at the Firm and in the British media. This was weird because Virginia had already applied for a jury trial and the plaintiff's wishes for a jury trial take precedence. Therefore Andy was going to get a jury trial whether he wanted one or not. So this was probably also on the advice of his US attorney to throw sand in the eyes of Andy's mum and scare her into pay up which she did. Actually a jury trial would not necessarily have been worse than a bench trial but again Mum and the tabloids were not to know this and any kind of trial would have exposed Andy to a future US federal criminal trial for perjury , as he would testified under oath. So I guess there was no way Andy really wanted a trial at all. Andrew under oath in the witness box that gonna top trump Trump himself. Bring it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautifulthailand99 Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 37 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Allegedly. At least you got that bit correct. She was a prostitute. Correct. That does not mean that Andrew paid her. Plenty of prostitutes have sexual relationships outside of their work. Perhaps Epstein paid her. But what for? Perhaps she was there in an escort/assistant role and chose to sleep with him because he was a wealthy Prince and thought she could "do a Markle". Perhaps he didn't even sleep with her. You have no credible evidence that he slept with her and no evidence that money changed hands. All you have is an allegation by a self confessed prostitute and procurer of girls for sex who stood to (and did) make millions from said allegation. Hardly credible. More of an opportunist cash grab by a hustler. By the way in the UK it is only illegal to use a 17 year old prostitute if you do not believe her to be 18. Guiffre looked about 21 so even if Andrew did sleep with her (unproved allegation) he could argue he believed her to be 18. That's IF he slept with her and IF he paid her. Two things completely unproven. So basically, you haven't got a leg to stand on. All your suppositions are irrelevant theoretical defences and reputations arent on trial here but matters of law. They key point is the FBI have said they would like to talk to him and he has publically said he would comply but hasn't. That's all that currently matters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 9 Popular Post Share Posted January 9 3 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said: All your suppositions are irrelevant theoretical defences and reputations arent on trial here but matters of law. They key point is the FBI have said they would like to talk to him and he has publically said he would comply but hasn't. That's all that currently matters. Given the politicization of the FBI/courts that we've seen by the Democrats in the last couple of years, plus the fact that the American left are notoriously anti-British royal family I don't blame him. I'd be staying well clear of that Banana Republic and their justice legal system until the Republicans are back in power and some sanity is restored. I'd also be asking why they aren't investigating their own domestic high profile individuals like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates before they start trying to flex their imagined muscles by summoning members of the British Royal Family across the pond. If I was Andrew I'd tell them to go swivel. 2 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 1 hour ago, JonnyF said: The Ginger fool is no longer HRH. He is no longer funded by the royals. He is disloyal to his family and to the country. He is a liar and a hypocrite. He makes racist remarks and dresses like a Nazi for fun yet lectures the 'plebs' on unconcious bias. He lectures on climate change then takes private jets and Range Rovers. He deserves disparaging remarks. Prince Andrew on the other hand 'allegedly' (but unproven) slept with a 17 year old in London where the age of consent is 16. Do I find that a bit weird for a 41 year old man? Yes, but I find a lot of sexual practices (particularly those between same sex people) a bit weird but as long as it is legal it is none of my business. I live and let live. I am an open minded individual and as long as he has not broken any laws (and I see no credible evidence that he has) then I see no need to vilify him. I am not a bigot, unlike many people on here who are attacking him. Unlike Ginge and Cringe, he is not lecturing me on how to live so I will offer him the same courtesy as long as he remains within the law and as I stated I see no credible evidence that he has broken any laws. I will state it again, consensual sex with a 17 year old in London is not rape. It is not illegal. It is not Paedophilia. You are gaslighting again. I see you are still pretending the allegations against Prince Andrew only relate to what happened in London. Hardly surprising since once we look at his credibly alleged behavior in NY, where the Epstein home that is the subject of this thread is located, a whole new raft of laws come into play. Prince Harry is a member of the Royal Family. By all means attack him with the vitriol you reserve for him and his wife, but please lay off your ridiculous hypocrisy of enjoying your attacks on Harry and his wife while accusing others of engaging in an ‘attack on British Royalty’ for exercising their right to criticize credibly alleged rapist Prince Andrew. 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautifulthailand99 Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 8 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Given the politicization of the FBI/courts that we've seen by the Democrats in the last couple of years, plus the fact that the American left are notoriously anti-British royal family I don't blame him. I'd be staying well clear of that Banana Republic and their justice legal system until the Republicans are back in power and some sanity is restored. I'd also be asking why they aren't investigating their own domestic high profile individuals like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates before they start trying to flex their imagined muscles by summoning members of the British Royal Family across the pond. If I was Andrew I'd tell them to go swivel. Of all the hills to die on the defence of a widely reviled British Royal is the one you chose. Interesting I guess when your idol Trump comes back he will sort all this out on day one and pardon the sleazebag from further plebeian gaze. The rich should be allowed to consume their youthful sexual candy any way they want. Its no wonder randy Andy spent a lot of time in Thailand over the years. Must have been for the temples and the food,that will be it ! 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post The Old Bull Posted January 9 Popular Post Share Posted January 9 Private jets to private islands , hundreds of pounds for massages. I find it hard to believe those girls would not expect to be called on to share some skin. Easy money at the time hanging out with the rich and famous was enough at the time. Now they are older and see the potential they are out for a bigger payday. 1 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: I see you are still pretending the allegations against Prince Andrew only relate to what happened in London. Hardly surprising since once we look at his credibly alleged behavior in NY, where the Epstein home that is the subject of this thread is located, a whole new raft of laws come into play. Prince Harry is a member of the Royal Family. By all means attack him with the vitriol you reserve for him and his wife, but please lay off your ridiculous hypocrisy of enjoying your attacks on Harry and his wife while accusing others of engaging in an ‘attack on British Royalty’ for exercising their right to criticize credibly alleged rapist Prince Andrew. I haven't seen any credible allegations from NY. Just more mud slinging from a few sex workers looking for a payout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 10 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said: Of all the hills to die on the defence of a widely reviled British Royal is the one you chose. Interesting I guess when your idol Trump comes back he will sort all this out on day one and pardon the sleazebag from further plebeian gaze. The rich should be allowed to consume their youthful sexual candy any way they want. Its no wonder randy Andy spent a lot of time in Thailand over the years. Must have been for the temples and the food,that will be it ! My idol Trump? Bit early for strawman arguments, is it not? If any real crimes have been committed then they should feel the full force of the law. I abhor people who abuse children. However, there is a big difference between that and some sex worker who sees a very profitable hustle on the horizon 20 years after sleeping with a client. I would suggest the FBI start with Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. But that's highly unlikely given their links with the Democrat party. If they go after those two then Epstein would have died for nothing. No, much better they focus on a British Prince. "Hey, look over there everyone!!". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 1 hour ago, JonnyF said: By the way in the UK it is only illegal to use a 17 year old prostitute if you do not believe her to be 18. Ignorance of the girls age is not an excuse to break the law, and the people who procured snd trafficked her would have a hard time arguing they did not know her age. In England it is illegal to have sex with a minor trafficked for prostitution. And if you insist that she was a prostitute, then while English law does not penalize prostitutes it does stipulate that participants must be over the age of 18. In this respect procurement of people Under the age of 18 for prostitution and participation in sex with a person under the age who has been procured for prostitution is offense under Clause 47 the UK’s Sexual Offenses Act 2003. Moreover, a U.K. resident who has sex with a minor overseas, in this case NY, and where that minor has been trafficked for the purposes of prostitution commits the offense under Clause 47 the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 as stipulated under Clause72 of the Act. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/offences-outside-the-united-kingdom/enacted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 13 minutes ago, JonnyF said: I haven't seen any credible allegations from NY. Just more mud slinging from a few sex workers looking for a payout. Of course you haven’t because you refuse to accept the published court records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 24 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said: Of all the hills to die on the defence of a widely reviled British Royal is the one you chose. Precisely that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Ignorance of the girls age is not an excuse to break the law, and the people who procured snd trafficked her would have a hard time arguing they did not know her age. In England it is illegal to have sex with a minor trafficked for prostitution. And if you insist that she was a prostitute, then while English law does not penalize prostitutes it does stipulate that participants must be over the age of 18. In this respect procurement of people Under the age of 18 for prostitution and participation in sex with a person under the age who has been procured for prostitution is offense under Clause 47 the UK’s Sexual Offenses Act 2003. Moreover, a U.K. resident who has sex with a minor overseas, in this case NY, and where that minor has been trafficked for the purposes of prostitution commits the offense under Clause 47 the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 as stipulated under Clause72 of the Act. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/offences-outside-the-united-kingdom/enacted I have seen no credible evidence that Andrew either slept with her or paid her for sex. It's her word against his. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Just now, JonnyF said: I have seen no credible evidence that Andrew either slept with her or paid her for sex. It's her word against his. Her word was given under oath. His word was not and was accompanied by a 12million of his mummy’s money to ensure he was not put under oath. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 9 Popular Post Share Posted January 9 8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Precisely that. 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? 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 9 Popular Post Share Posted January 9 1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said: Her word was given under oath. His word was not and was accompanied by a 12million of his mummy’s money to ensure he was not put under oath. 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. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post BobBKK Posted January 9 Popular Post Share Posted January 9 The girls were not forced, and they got paid. Happens daily here. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 1 minute ago, JonnyF said: 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. Poor old Andrew, I wonder did he know his mum was in her last days when he went begging her for her money to shutdown accusations against him before he himself had to go under oath? Since you introduce yourself into the discussion, I trust that’s not something you’d stoop to. Despite our disagreements I like to think better of you than that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 12 minutes ago, JonnyF said: I have seen no credible evidence that Andrew either slept with her or paid her for sex. It's her word against his. And does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Just now, BobBKK said: The girls were not forced, and they got paid. Happens daily here. You are correct. ’Girls’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now