3 hours ago, IsaanGuy said:

Like most of his ilk the scumbag believes his position allows him to do what he wants, financed by the British tax payers, legal or not. Both he and his equally despicable ex-wife courted attention even if it meant socialising with scum like Epstein. They had no morals, only of self gratification of status. Removing of his titles mean nothing to the average Joe. His contempt, and lies, about his activities which eventually led to the 12 million court case settlement only confirmed his guilt to the UK citizens and increased the level of how much he is despised in the country and the desire to see him held to account and punished accordingly. 

Andrew continues to deny that he has ever indulged in any illegal activity.

1 hour ago, Presnock said:

one of his young lady victims just had a book published in which she included him!

She wrote the book and then made suicide.

On the other hand the Brits seem to have total submission and are devoted to their royal UK establishment 🙏, so hard to complain now...

lifestyles of rich and now not so famous 

2 hours ago, Presnock said:

one of his young lady victims just had a book published in which she included him!

 

probably my baffling attempt at humor (make ends meet)   was not understood .  (excuse me for that ) 

 

to be clear.... i don't know what or what not the guy did .   my sense is that he, like most with influence,  gets away with misbehaving .    Its all part of the "world ain't fair" scenario that we all play a part in .    

1 minute ago, rumak said:

 

probably my baffling attempt at humor (make ends meet)   was not understood .  (excuse me for that ) 

 

to be clear.... i don't know what or what not the guy did .   my sense is that he, like most with influence,  gets away with misbehaving .    Its all part of the "world ain't fair" scenario that we all play a part in .    

 

 

He is arguably unlucky 🤥.......................125 years ago his royal ancestors did not need to worry about gutter pressand social media.

1 minute ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

He is arguably unlucky 🤥.......................125 years ago his royal ancestors did not need to worry about gutter pressand social media.

 

don't feel too sorry for him .............. i doubt they're going to tar and feather him and let the serfs give him a good going over .   

On 10/23/2025 at 6:19 PM, Lee65 said:

NEWS FLASH: People for the most part - especially the rich, powerful & privileged - are disgusting, and most of our institutions are rotten to the core.

 

Next ...

 

 

finally !   something everyone here agrees with !    (though somewhere, somehow... someone will find a way  🙄

3 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

don't feel too sorry for him .............. i doubt they're going to tar and feather him and let the serfs give him a good going over .   

 

 

LOL...sympathy is something that the nonce will not get from me...

 

 

 

But 125 years ago I wouldn't even have known about it.

41 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

LOL...sympathy is something that the nonce will not get from me...

 

 

 

But 125 years ago I wouldn't even have known about it.

 

How old ARE you ........???   

39 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

How old ARE you ........???   

 

Okay, Okay...🙂... HAD I been alive 125 years ago........

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

Andrew continues to deny that he has ever indulged in any illegal activity.

But paid an out of court settlement!
If he wasn't guilty of any criminal activity why wasn’t he keen to demonstrate it by going to court and proving his innocence at the quickest opportunity? He’s a liar and obnoxious individual, greatly disliked by of those who had to work in close proximity to him and now hasn’t got his mother to pull the strings to protect her favourite son any longer. The clock is ticking for this PoS.

14 hours ago, Bobthegimp said:

A British royal parasite?  

They all are, hadn't you noticed.

 

Some posts and replies trolling about Trump have been removed as this topic is about:

 

Prince Andrew accused of lavish royal escapades on Thai taxpayer

25 minutes ago, IsaanGuy said:

But paid an out of court settlement!
If he wasn't guilty of any criminal activity why wasn’t he keen to demonstrate it by going to court and proving his innocence at the quickest opportunity? He’s a liar and obnoxious individual, greatly disliked by of those who had to work in close proximity to him and now hasn’t got his mother to pull the strings to protect her favourite son any longer. The clock is ticking for this PoS.

The £12m was paid at the request of HM The Queen who wanted the rumour mill to cease at a time when she was very ill, and her Jubilee was approaching. It was not an admission of guilt.

Ladyboys ? I find that hard to swallow…Lol ! 

8 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

At the time of his marriage split I was told, by someone with a brother in a senior position in the Household Division, that his liking for sausage as well as clams was the final straw for his missus.

 

Are you petty or jealous or both, as it is innuendo at best. I doubt the reliability of your statement, "I was told, by someone with a brother in a senior position in the Household Division".    Perhaps it might be better worded as ; I was taking a  pee down at the pub, and I overheard some guys talking about what they had heard from one of the cleaners at Buckingham who had wanted to impress them with a fantasized story about Andrew.

 

Your claim is implausible. The Household division  is restricted to  public duties primarily in London and at Windsor Castle. Prince Andrew lives  at Royal Lodge approx. 5 miles away from the castle. The Household division has no contact with prince Andrew, nor would anyone from thee Household divisions ever have dealings with the man, let alone be aware of his personal life details.

 

The nonsensical stories get more idiotic with every week. One day he is depraved sexual predator with an obsession for young women. Now you intimate that he is a homosexual, while others offer he  has relations with transgenders. what's next ? Tales of a dominatrix or of furries or perhaps anime cosplay?

 

11 hours ago, BerndD said:

Again and again, Brits are beaten up here. 😉

 

 

if ya can't take it, don't dish it out.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, rumak said:

to be clear.... i don't know what or what not the guy did .   my sense is that he, like most with influence,  gets away with misbehaving .    Its all part of the "world ain't fair" scenario that we all play a part in .    

 

 

Having unwanted sex with a fourteen year old girl is light years past the  "world ain't fair" concept.

 

 

6 hours ago, Presnock said:

And the recently released book of one of his young victim's.

None of the claims of the prostitute were proven. She was a self described "victim". The facts indicate that she was an opportunistic  woman who knew what she was doing. No one forced her to take the lavish holidays and gifts. No one forced to keep doing the activity after Andrew moved on. The reality is that she aged out, lost her looks and was replaced by someone who was better looking and just as eager as she once was and was looking for a payday.

 

The woman who wrote the book was exposed as a pathological liar. She had claimed to be dying,  and when that lie was exposed, she went on her final downward spiral.  Andrew  is obviously a self centered, greedy, opportunistic man, but he is now being pursued by the hyenas of hypocrisy who see this as a sport. If he is smart, he should just go away and hide out in Dubai.

15 minutes ago, In Full Agreement said:

Having unwanted sex with a fourteen year old girl is light years past the  "world ain't fair" concept.

 

Who had sex with 14 year olds?

Virgina Giuffre originally claimed that she was around 18 when she had sexual relations with Andrew. This version was later  changed to  a belief that she may have been 17.  The claims of an orgy with multiple girls has the ages of those women at around 18.

The ages offered for public consumption and what was proven in court are different.  Offering an fluid statement of "around 17" is not a definitive fact and is used to create a negative impression to facilitate a demand for financial compensation.

 

There is no doubt that Andrew was an irresponsible  and stupid man to allow himself to  get anywhere near the young women. However, there is no actual evidence that stands up under scrutiny to support the claims of his sexual activity with minors. Some keep repeating the same unsubstantiated stories as if they were established fact.

 

6 hours ago, Reddavy said:

And you know this because??????

Because I am relying on the established facts and the public documents, not unsubstantiated claims from unknown uncorroborated  sources.

16 hours ago, Bobthegimp said:

A British royal parasite?  

As opposed to the millions of UK residents who are relying on social assistance?

At least Andrew pays income taxes. He does not receive any funds from the UK taxpayers. 

 

13 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Who had sex with 14 year olds?

Virgina Giuffre originally claimed that she was around 18 when she had sexual relations with Andrew. This version was later  changed to  a belief that she may have been 17.  The claims of an orgy with multiple girls has the ages of those women at around 18.

The ages offered for public consumption and what was proven in court are different.  Offering an fluid statement of "around 17" is not a definitive fact and is used to create a negative impression to facilitate a demand for financial compensation.

 

There is no doubt that Andrew was an irresponsible  and stupid man to allow himself to  get anywhere near the young women. However, there is no actual evidence that stands up under scrutiny to support the claims of his sexual activity with minors. Some keep repeating the same unsubstantiated stories as if they were established fact.

 

 

 

It sounds like you're defending pedophilia.

 

 

7 hours ago, Purdey said:

As someone who has never held a proper job in his life, I am surprised that people are concerned that he spent taxpayer money on women. Whose money could he have used?

 

 

A specious contention at best.

 

 

4 minutes ago, In Full Agreement said:

 

 

It sounds like you're defending pedophilia.

 

 

 

No, it sounds as though he is attempting to define it.There is no evidence that Andrew had any connection with ore-pubescent children.The term pedophile is bandied around very loosely, not just in this forum but also in the press.It's not however applicable in the case of Andrew.God knows the wretched man - a proven liar - is despicable enough without having to make up crimes of which he is not guilty.

16 minutes ago, In Full Agreement said:

 

 

It sounds like you're defending pedophilia.

 

 

No. I am pointing out the  inaccuracies and fabrications of some of the claims.

2 hours ago, IsaanGuy said:

But paid an out of court settlement!
If he wasn't guilty of any criminal activity why wasn’t he keen to demonstrate it by going to court and proving his innocence at the quickest opportunity? He’s a liar and obnoxious individual, greatly disliked by of those who had to work in close proximity to him and now hasn’t got his mother to pull the strings to protect her favourite son any longer. The clock is ticking for this PoS.

 

Why is he obliged to prove his innocence? In the  free world, the obligation to prove guilt is on the accuser.  I take it that you do not believe in the concept of the presumption of innocence? 

The settlement was made to prevent more embarrassment to his mother as the demands for  a settlement were made in the lead up to his mother's jubilee.

Whether or not the man is an awful person, a narcissist or greedy are irrelevant. Those are character faults, not crimes.

 

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Why is he obliged to prove his innocence? In the  free world, the obligation to prove guilt is on the accuser.  I take it that you do not believe in the concept of the presumption of innocence? 

Good point.   In the West, one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

1 hour ago, In Full Agreement said:

 

 

Having unwanted sex with a fourteen year old girl is light years past the  "world ain't fair" concept.

 

 

was he convicted of that offense ?      yes or no ?