German Viking Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Randy Andy again I'm not amused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Steely Dan Posted January 4, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 4, 2015 Innocent until proven guilty ........Not in the TV forum, guilt or innocence is determined by what people want to have happened. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Does Thailand's lese majeste laws include foreign royals?yes...but the reaction time by this website is considerably slower. Edited January 4, 2015 by evadgib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post timewilltell Posted January 4, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 4, 2015 There is little to do with Justice in all this and everything to do with trying to make a quick buck decades after something happened, there are periods of limitations for a reason and this woman has no right to sully people's names who she alleges may have had consensual sex with her decades ago. Perhaps she is just too old to turn a trick anymore and is trying this on as a new trick. She says she was 17 anyway so clearly knew what she was doing. If she didn't want to then she should have followed a different profession. No sympathy here. As for the Duke of York having sex with a girl, good luck to him. Aren't we all doing that anyway? Sheesh. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> This trend is becoming endemic in the UK. It seems to me that anyone now can accuse anyone else who is famous of some sort of 'sexual' act 20/30/40 years ago. I know Jimmy Saville etc have been proven 'guilty' but it has started a trend whereby lives of innocent people can be ruined by being on police bail for 12 months etc, then being told there is no validity in the claims. I'm no slavish supporter of the royal family or those who use their positions to exploit vulnerable people, but there has to be some sort of balance. Look at Cliff Richard, an obvious target because he's never married. The cops tip off the press they are going to raid his house whilst he's away. As far as I know nothing has resulted from all of this, but it illustrates my concerns. I do not pretend to know the answer to this problem, but I suspect it's easier to make allegations than for the person to disprove them. Then the mud sticks. The problem with the allegations is that once they have been made, and through due process, have been proven or dis-proven, the mud is there for life. Guilty or innocent, doesn't matter, the doubt will always be there. Not necessarily. Freddie Starr went through absolute hell over similar claims but was found innocent/insufficient evidence. He's not considered a paedophile or sex pest and I believe most people feel very sorry for poor chap. Saw him interviewed recently and he's a wreck, his life has been left in tatters. Others inc the 2 from Corrie, Jim Davidson, Paul Gambochini & DLT who after two trials & public humiliation was guilty of little more than a grope. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> This trend is becoming endemic in the UK. It seems to me that anyone now can accuse anyone else who is famous of some sort of 'sexual' act 20/30/40 years ago. I know Jimmy Saville etc have been proven 'guilty' but it has started a trend whereby lives of innocent people can be ruined by being on police bail for 12 months etc, then being told there is no validity in the claims. I'm no slavish supporter of the royal family or those who use their positions to exploit vulnerable people, but there has to be some sort of balance. Look at Cliff Richard, an obvious target because he's never married. The cops tip off the press they are going to raid his house whilst he's away. As far as I know nothing has resulted from all of this, but it illustrates my concerns. I do not pretend to know the answer to this problem, but I suspect it's easier to make allegations than for the person to disprove them. Then the mud sticks. The problem with the allegations is that once they have been made, and through due process, have been proven or dis-proven, the mud is there for life. Guilty or innocent, doesn't matter, the doubt will always be there. Not necessarily. Freddie Starr went through absolute hell over similar claims but was found innocent/insufficient evidence. He's not considered a paedophile or sex pest and I believe most people feel very sorry for poor chap. Saw him interviewed recently and he's a wreck, his life has been left in tatters. Others inc the 2 from Corrie, Jim Davidson, Paul Gambochini & DLT who after two trials & public humiliation was guilty of little more than a grope. I bet they never even got their money back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uptheos Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It is not by chance he is known as "Randy Andy" At least you can say that and not get locked up for 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share Posted January 4, 2015 Prince Andrew may have been secretly filmed with underage girl he is alleged to have abusedBy Matthew Drake Prince Andrew’s tycoon pal may have taken compromising photos of him with the underage girl he is alleged to have abused. Details buried in original court papers filed against pervert Jeffrey Epstein, 61, reveal that he recorded the sordid orgies he threw for VIPs at his luxury homes using cameras hidden in the walls of guest bedrooms. Read More: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-been-secretly-filmed-4915421 --Daily Mirror 2015-01-03 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Prince Andrew may have been secretly filmed with underage girl he is alleged to have abused By Matthew Drake Prince Andrew’s tycoon pal may have taken compromising photos of him with the underage girl he is alleged to have abused. Details buried in original court papers filed against pervert Jeffrey Epstein, 61, reveal that he recorded the sordid orgies he threw for VIPs at his luxury homes using cameras hidden in the walls of guest bedrooms. Read More: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-been-secretly-filmed-4915421 --Daily Mirror 2015-01-03 I can hardly wait for his video collection to make it to the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> This trend is becoming endemic in the UK. It seems to me that anyone now can accuse anyone else who is famous of some sort of 'sexual' act 20/30/40 years ago. I know Jimmy Saville etc have been proven 'guilty' but it has started a trend whereby lives of innocent people can be ruined by being on police bail for 12 months etc, then being told there is no validity in the claims. I'm no slavish supporter of the royal family or those who use their positions to exploit vulnerable people, but there has to be some sort of balance. Look at Cliff Richard, an obvious target because he's never married. The cops tip off the press they are going to raid his house whilst he's away. As far as I know nothing has resulted from all of this, but it illustrates my concerns. I do not pretend to know the answer to this problem, but I suspect it's easier to make allegations than for the person to disprove them. Then the mud sticks. The problem with the allegations is that once they have been made, and through due process, have been proven or dis-proven, the mud is there for life. Guilty or innocent, doesn't matter, the doubt will always be there. Not necessarily. Freddie Starr went through absolute hell over similar claims but was found innocent/insufficient evidence. He's not considered a paedophile or sex pest and I believe most people feel very sorry for poor chap. Saw him interviewed recently and he's a wreck, his life has been left in tatters. Others inc the 2 from Corrie, Jim Davidson, Paul Gambochini & DLT who after two trials & public humiliation was guilty of little more than a grope. Shabby wasn't it? They even tried having a pop at Jimmy Tarbuck at one point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Prince Andrew may have been secretly filmed with underage girl he is alleged to have abused By Matthew Drake Prince Andrew’s tycoon pal may have taken compromising photos of him with the underage girl he is alleged to have abused. Details buried in original court papers filed against pervert Jeffrey Epstein, 61, reveal that he recorded the sordid orgies he threw for VIPs at his luxury homes using cameras hidden in the walls of guest bedrooms. Read More: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-been-secretly-filmed-4915421 --Daily Mirror 2015-01-03 what are good friends for, i bet he didn't see that coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisinth Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> This trend is becoming endemic in the UK. It seems to me that anyone now can accuse anyone else who is famous of some sort of 'sexual' act 20/30/40 years ago.I know Jimmy Saville etc have been proven 'guilty' but it has started a trend whereby lives of innocent people can be ruined by being on police bail for 12 months etc, then being told there is no validity in the claims.I'm no slavish supporter of the royal family or those who use their positions to exploit vulnerable people, but there has to be some sort of balance.Look at Cliff Richard, an obvious target because he's never married. The cops tip off the press they are going to raid his house whilst he's away. As far as I know nothing has resulted from all of this, but it illustrates my concerns.I do not pretend to know the answer to this problem, but I suspect it's easier to make allegations than for the person to disprove them. Then the mud sticks. The problem with the allegations is that once they have been made, and through due process, have been proven or dis-proven, the mud is there for life. Guilty or innocent, doesn't matter, the doubt will always be there. Not necessarily. Freddie Starr went through absolute hell over similar claims but was found innocent/insufficient evidence. He's not considered a paedophile or sex pest and I believe most people feel very sorry for poor chap. Saw him interviewed recently and he's a wreck, his life has been left in tatters. Perhaps I should have said the damage (instead of doubt) will always be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> This trend is becoming endemic in the UK. It seems to me that anyone now can accuse anyone else who is famous of some sort of 'sexual' act 20/30/40 years ago. I know Jimmy Saville etc have been proven 'guilty' but it has started a trend whereby lives of innocent people can be ruined by being on police bail for 12 months etc, then being told there is no validity in the claims. I'm no slavish supporter of the royal family or those who use their positions to exploit vulnerable people, but there has to be some sort of balance. Look at Cliff Richard, an obvious target because he's never married. The cops tip off the press they are going to raid his house whilst he's away. As far as I know nothing has resulted from all of this, but it illustrates my concerns. I do not pretend to know the answer to this problem, but I suspect it's easier to make allegations than for the person to disprove them. Then the mud sticks. The problem with the allegations is that once they have been made, and through due process, have been proven or dis-proven, the mud is there for life. Guilty or innocent, doesn't matter, the doubt will always be there. Not necessarily. Freddie Starr went through absolute hell over similar claims but was found innocent/insufficient evidence. He's not considered a paedophile or sex pest and I believe most people feel very sorry for poor chap. Saw him interviewed recently and he's a wreck, his life has been left in tatters. Perhaps I should have said the damage (instead of doubt) will always be there. I have no doubt these chaps lives are ruined. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherOneAmerican Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 17 is legal in the UK. But not legal in some US states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherOneAmerican Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) double post Edited January 4, 2015 by AnotherOneAmerican Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share Posted January 4, 2015 Palace: Sex claims against Prince Andrew falseSYLVIA HUI, Associated Press LONDON (AP) — Buckingham Palace on Sunday stepped up efforts to defend Prince Andrew after the British royal was embroiled in claims of sexual impropriety with an underage woman.In a second statement since the claims surfaced, officials "emphatically denied" allegations by an unidentified woman who said she was forced to have sex with the royal when she was under the age of 18.The woman named 54-year-old Prince Andrew, known as the Duke of York, in papers filed with a Florida court last week. The filing was submitted as part of a lengthy lawsuit against American financier Jeffrey Epstein, who the woman claims forced her to have sex with prominent people, including Prince Andrew. The woman was only identified as "Jane Doe Number 3" in the papers.Royal officials on Friday denied "any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors" by Andrew, and strengthened that stance Sunday after two tabloid newspapers published details of interviews with the alleged victim. The controversy has dominated British news coverage since Friday."It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with (the woman)," Buckingham Palace said in a statement. "The allegations made are false and without any foundation."The statements are unusual because royal spokespeople typically refrain from commenting on most media reports.The woman claims she was forced to have sex with the royal in London, in New York and on a private Caribbean island between 1999 to 2002.Those claims were filed Tuesday to court as part of a lawsuit centering on Epstein. The billionaire financier was sentenced to 18 months in prison in 2008 after pleading guilty to child sex offenses, but several women want authorities to reconsider a plea deal that they said allowed Epstein to avoid more serious federal charges.Prince Andrew is not named as a defendant in that case, and no criminal charges or formal allegations have been made against him.The prince, who is Queen Elizabeth II's second son and fifth in line to the throne, has been dogged for years over his relationship with Epstein. In July 2011, the royal stepped down from his role as a U.K. trade ambassador following controversy over his links with the billionaire. -- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Apparently, Virginia Roberts was 17 at the time and the age of consent in Florida was 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loptr Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 The royals can deny it all they like, but with photo evidence and the victim coming forward, it won't just go away... Even though the royals have publicly stated he will be granted amnesty from any charges, this makes Prince Charles' antics appear quite tame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I wonder if he had as much fun as Harry did in Las Vegas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
German Viking Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Age of consent all over the world different countries different rules some are ok some are not and others complicate and hypocritical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil B Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Prince Andrew may have been secretly filmed with underage girl he is alleged to have abused By Matthew Drake Prince Andrew’s tycoon pal may have taken compromising photos of him with the underage girl he is alleged to have abused. Details buried in original court papers filed against pervert Jeffrey Epstein, 61, reveal that he recorded the sordid orgies he threw for VIPs at his luxury homes using cameras hidden in the walls of guest bedrooms. Read More: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-been-secretly-filmed-4915421 --Daily Mirror 2015-01-03 I doubt it... If he had I am sure he would have fallen under a bus by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kooweerup Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Isn't this story in breach of the lese majeste laws in Thailand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post retarius Posted January 5, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 5, 2015 This is a funny case. I have examined my own biases and come to the conclusion that I don't know whether this fellow is telling the truth. I want him to be a scandalous pervert because I don't much care for him and it would be great to see his underwear washed in public...but I also recognise that in cases such as these the mere accusation of impropriety is considered by many to be 'guilty as charged'. What am I to do in such circumstances. Also unlike murder or theft, laws pertaining to the age of legal consent are rather stupidly absurd....that the man is alleged to have done would be illegal (statutory rape) and punishable by 7 years in jail in the US, and not even a crime in the UK. The US claims jurisdiction in pedophile cases if a US citizen is involved or if it took place somewhere under formal US jurisdiction (and I don't know whose jurisdiction the private island falls under). 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucko Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I just cant believe Prince Andrew paid for underage sex ....That family have never paid for anything in their life............... I think Queenie has paid the ultimate price--a lifetime of playing by the rules/protocols/ -- boring dinners/speeches etc.etc, etc and sorting out the wayward family members - that goes way back to when Maggie started " Playing Up" in her youth -- . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Isn't this story in breach of the lese majeste laws in Thailand? Yes, it is indeed. EDIT: the defacing of the UK flag we see here constantly on things like underwear for example would also technically be a lese majeste offense, if they bothered to enforce it. Edited January 5, 2015 by Tatsujin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalf12 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 True or false doesnt really matter. The damage is done and nothing can remove it. As they say "There is no smoke without fire" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1Str8 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Of course they deny it. What did they expect, they they will admit it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikiea Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 True or false doesnt really matter. The damage is done and nothing can remove it. As they say "There is no smoke without fire"hmmm.... a pedo-pete, royal blue perv, yep that be he:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yardrunner Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 So a Buckingham palace spokes person has said Andrew is innocent, unless that person was on the island the whole time with Andrew it is only their opinion and has no validity in law. It is Andrew that should be making a statement, good job it is not like the time of the abdication crisis when the majority of the population of the UK were kept in the dark about what was happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Apparently, Virginia Roberts was 17 at the time and the age of consent in Florida was 18. So what does that make her ? jail bait of the month perhaps. If he had sex with a 17 year old that doesn't make him a pedo in my eyes, different countries, different age limits. There was a suggestion some time ago to raise the age of consent in Thailand to 20 so a husband of 19 with his 18 year old wife on holiday in Thailand would be a pedo. Research done in the schools of Europe found that the first sexual experience for girls was 14, somewhat later for boys. I just don't buy this poor little ''taken advantage of teen'' the little brats know whats what when they are 12 or less, society is inundated with sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
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