| I must confess to having enjoyed this 08:44 - Sep 13 with 5419 views | blueasfook |
Pay respects to Her Maj and all that but Nonce Andrew is fair game for heckling IMO
|  |
| |  |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:43 - Sep 13 with 924 views | MattinLondon |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:38 - Sep 13 by Radlett_blue |
Exactly. I am a republican & no fan of Andrew. He appeared in my office some years ago & came over as an entitled, arrogant moron.
As the poster says, from all the facts he appears to have behaved badly, but committed no offence under UK law so to call him a "paedo" or "nonce" is absurd. |
Behaved badly? Getting drunk and pissing on a war monument is behaving badly.
His alleged crimes - which he has thrown money at and hoped that they disappear - are downright vile. |  | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:43 - Sep 13 with 922 views | brazil1982 |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:39 - Sep 13 by MattinLondon |
Is sexual predator ok?
He’s lied his way through interviews and is now clearly trying to weasel his way into public life. His family response has been to throw money at the accusers without acknowledging the pain and damage he and his mates have done.
Shame on anyone who applauds him and shame on any charity or organisation who accept his patronage or visit. |
He's really not "weaseling" his way back to public life. Doubt we will see much of him after next week except for the coronation.
The whole court/accusation matter was probably, mainly, between lawyers. Who always win. |  | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:44 - Sep 13 with 921 views | leitrimblue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:39 - Sep 13 by Zapers |
I totally agree with what you say, but haters gonna hate whatever the circumstances. |
Yes, most of us hate child abusers. But you feel free to give him all your love and support |  | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:45 - Sep 13 with 909 views | baxterbasics |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:38 - Sep 13 by Radlett_blue |
Exactly. I am a republican & no fan of Andrew. He appeared in my office some years ago & came over as an entitled, arrogant moron.
As the poster says, from all the facts he appears to have behaved badly, but committed no offence under UK law so to call him a "paedo" or "nonce" is absurd. |
Well, if it was non-consensual, which appears to be the allegation, then yes there is an offence in either country - sexual assault or rape. But the age of the victim would not be a factor. |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:46 - Sep 13 with 913 views | blueasfook |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:39 - Sep 13 by MattinLondon |
Is sexual predator ok?
He’s lied his way through interviews and is now clearly trying to weasel his way into public life. His family response has been to throw money at the accusers without acknowledging the pain and damage he and his mates have done.
Shame on anyone who applauds him and shame on any charity or organisation who accept his patronage or visit. |
This photo says it all about the creep. He has "sex pest" written all over his face.
 | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:49 - Sep 13 with 897 views | bluelagos |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:39 - Sep 13 by Zapers |
I totally agree with what you say, but haters gonna hate whatever the circumstances. |
It has been proven, in court (The Maxwell case) that Maxwell and Epstein trafficked children for sex parties.
Andrew attended Epsteins island on many occasions. He entertained them both in the UK. They were friends, clearly.
Even after Epstein was convicted, Andrew visited him and stayed a number of nights.
And a young victim of that trafficking has given evidence, under oath that she was trafficked and then sexually assaulted by Andrew.
Andrew refused to help the FBI in its efforts to prosecute said child traffickers.
Oh, and he paid off his accuser rather than have her allegations tested in court.
None of the above is speculation. |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:50 - Sep 13 with 888 views | Zapers |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:44 - Sep 13 by leitrimblue |
Yes, most of us hate child abusers. But you feel free to give him all your love and support |
I'm not defending him, just saying the trial by public opinion doesn't count. Again, you show your ignorance by suggesting that I love and support him.
Pray, where did i say that! |  | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:50 - Sep 13 with 880 views | MattinLondon |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:43 - Sep 13 by brazil1982 |
He's really not "weaseling" his way back to public life. Doubt we will see much of him after next week except for the coronation.
The whole court/accusation matter was probably, mainly, between lawyers. Who always win. |
Sorry, I thought the whole accusation thing was about Andy Pandy being accused of being a sexual predator. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:56 - Sep 13 with 863 views | leitrimblue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:50 - Sep 13 by Zapers |
I'm not defending him, just saying the trial by public opinion doesn't count. Again, you show your ignorance by suggesting that I love and support him.
Pray, where did i say that! |
I would suggest your line 'haters gonna hate' in this context is a good indication of your support for a child abuser. | | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:57 - Sep 13 with 862 views | blueasfook |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:42 - Sep 13 by baxterbasics |
Point me to the part where I said he had done nothing wrong? |
I am not implying that you said he'd done nothing wrong. My point is that an innocent man doesnt pay off an accuser with 12 million quid. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:58 - Sep 13 with 852 views | BiGDonnie |
Do we think ol' noncey started sweating when this happened  |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:59 - Sep 13 with 847 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:31 - Sep 13 by baxterbasics |
Sigh.
No huge desire to be 'that guy' or to defend Prince Andrew but I tire of all the disinformation.
There is no evidence that the man is a 'nonce' or a 'pedo'.
He has been accused of sexual assault. The age gap with the claimant is a legal issue in certain US states but would not be so here. Even if proved true (and the allegation has not been tested in court), 17 years is not pedophilia territory. It's creepy, sure, and I'd like to see a trial and book thrown if proven, but throwing around nonce and pedo is a little off IMO. The accuser seems satisfied with her big pay day so that's probably the end of the story.
That's all. |
Considering you have no real desire to defend Prince Andrew, you gave it a good go.
Even aside from that individual case, he knew what Epstein was up to, they all did, and he still stuck around to be his mate after it came to surface about him. He may not have been proved guilty, but he isn't innocent. |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:59 - Sep 13 with 849 views | unbelievablue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:57 - Sep 13 by blueasfook |
I am not implying that you said he'd done nothing wrong. My point is that an innocent man doesnt pay off an accuser with 12 million quid. |
I'm not sure that's true to be honest.
If you're famous, wealthy, and wrongly accused of something I could see why you'd want the media circus around it to stop and willingly pay someone off so they'd stop accusing you publicly.
Not saying that's the case here, obviously. |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:03 - Sep 13 with 826 views | Radlett_blue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:57 - Sep 13 by blueasfook |
I am not implying that you said he'd done nothing wrong. My point is that an innocent man doesnt pay off an accuser with 12 million quid. |
The £ms came from mum, bailing out her favourite child and also keen to stop the damaging flow of bad publicity. Yes, Andrew has consistently denied all of the allegations, very unconvincingly & refused to co-operate with the US authorities and yes, you don't pay millions of pounds to someone whom you claim never to have met. He's showed how dim & arrogant he is through this episode - a rich guy starts providing hot & cold running girls & he didn't stop to think that he might want something back in return. But no evidence that Andrew didn't know that these girls might not have been completely willing participants or that he knew they might be under the legal age in Florida. |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:06 - Sep 13 with 821 views | blueasfook |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:59 - Sep 13 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Considering you have no real desire to defend Prince Andrew, you gave it a good go.
Even aside from that individual case, he knew what Epstein was up to, they all did, and he still stuck around to be his mate after it came to surface about him. He may not have been proved guilty, but he isn't innocent. |
Oh that was just because he is too honourable. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:13 - Sep 13 with 808 views | blueasfook |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:59 - Sep 13 by unbelievablue |
I'm not sure that's true to be honest.
If you're famous, wealthy, and wrongly accused of something I could see why you'd want the media circus around it to stop and willingly pay someone off so they'd stop accusing you publicly.
Not saying that's the case here, obviously. |
You're not sure what's true? That he paid many millions of pounds (well actually his mother did) to Virginia Giuffre? Despite claiming to have never met her?
He also said he would fully co-operate with the US authorities and then didn't. Oh and then there was the game of hide and seek he played when they were trying to serve court papers on him. Yes, totally the actions of an innocent man with nothing to hide. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:22 - Sep 13 with 768 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:59 - Sep 13 by unbelievablue |
I'm not sure that's true to be honest.
If you're famous, wealthy, and wrongly accused of something I could see why you'd want the media circus around it to stop and willingly pay someone off so they'd stop accusing you publicly.
Not saying that's the case here, obviously. |
It also happens to the non wealthy.
About twenty years ago I sacked somebody for coming into the office and changing sales by another rep into her name, thereby gaining commision she wasn't entitled to.
Went completely by the book, suspended the individual, held a disciplinary, offered her the opportunity to attend with representation (which she declined), and fired her for gross misconduct.
Three years later I received a reference from a well known bank. One of the questions "would you re employ"? Answer "No". Question, "If not, why not" Answer, the reasons I gave in this post.
I got a letter from a trades union legal dept threatening to sue for defamation. She claimed that she left on her own accord and knew nothing about any disciplinary or being fired.
I had followed all the procedures, had witnesses, collected witness statements for my solicitor and was prepared to go to court. I was advised that I had a 99% chance of winning but that 1% chance of losing could cost me my house and my possessions.
I settled for £12k.
Again, not a defence of Andrew. Also, moral of this story; never give a reference. Simply supply a start and finish date. |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:28 - Sep 13 with 735 views | unbelievablue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:13 - Sep 13 by blueasfook |
You're not sure what's true? That he paid many millions of pounds (well actually his mother did) to Virginia Giuffre? Despite claiming to have never met her?
He also said he would fully co-operate with the US authorities and then didn't. Oh and then there was the game of hide and seek he played when they were trying to serve court papers on him. Yes, totally the actions of an innocent man with nothing to hide. |
No, you've completely misread my post. I was making a theoretical point.
I replied to you, when you said "My point is that an innocent man doesnt pay off an accuser with 12 million quid."
I even went out of my way to say that that isn't necessarily the case here. [Post edited 13 Sep 2022 10:30]
| |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:38 - Sep 13 with 716 views | lowhouseblue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:22 - Sep 13 by GlasgowBlue |
It also happens to the non wealthy.
About twenty years ago I sacked somebody for coming into the office and changing sales by another rep into her name, thereby gaining commision she wasn't entitled to.
Went completely by the book, suspended the individual, held a disciplinary, offered her the opportunity to attend with representation (which she declined), and fired her for gross misconduct.
Three years later I received a reference from a well known bank. One of the questions "would you re employ"? Answer "No". Question, "If not, why not" Answer, the reasons I gave in this post.
I got a letter from a trades union legal dept threatening to sue for defamation. She claimed that she left on her own accord and knew nothing about any disciplinary or being fired.
I had followed all the procedures, had witnesses, collected witness statements for my solicitor and was prepared to go to court. I was advised that I had a 99% chance of winning but that 1% chance of losing could cost me my house and my possessions.
I settled for £12k.
Again, not a defence of Andrew. Also, moral of this story; never give a reference. Simply supply a start and finish date. |
paying people to go away - a sad fact of business life.
i have no idea or view on andrew's case - nothing has yet been proven of course - but given his position, the ability of a legal team in a civil case to do him and the wider royals real reputational damage, without necessarily getting anywhere near a proof of criminality, is very real. for that reason settling or compromising on a civil case does not establish guilt. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:23 - Sep 13 with 656 views | Illinoisblue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:31 - Sep 13 by baxterbasics |
Sigh.
No huge desire to be 'that guy' or to defend Prince Andrew but I tire of all the disinformation.
There is no evidence that the man is a 'nonce' or a 'pedo'.
He has been accused of sexual assault. The age gap with the claimant is a legal issue in certain US states but would not be so here. Even if proved true (and the allegation has not been tested in court), 17 years is not pedophilia territory. It's creepy, sure, and I'd like to see a trial and book thrown if proven, but throwing around nonce and pedo is a little off IMO. The accuser seems satisfied with her big pay day so that's probably the end of the story.
That's all. |
But can anyone watch his car crash of a BBC interview and honestly think, “yeah seems innocent”? |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:25 - Sep 13 with 652 views | unbelievablue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:22 - Sep 13 by GlasgowBlue |
It also happens to the non wealthy.
About twenty years ago I sacked somebody for coming into the office and changing sales by another rep into her name, thereby gaining commision she wasn't entitled to.
Went completely by the book, suspended the individual, held a disciplinary, offered her the opportunity to attend with representation (which she declined), and fired her for gross misconduct.
Three years later I received a reference from a well known bank. One of the questions "would you re employ"? Answer "No". Question, "If not, why not" Answer, the reasons I gave in this post.
I got a letter from a trades union legal dept threatening to sue for defamation. She claimed that she left on her own accord and knew nothing about any disciplinary or being fired.
I had followed all the procedures, had witnesses, collected witness statements for my solicitor and was prepared to go to court. I was advised that I had a 99% chance of winning but that 1% chance of losing could cost me my house and my possessions.
I settled for £12k.
Again, not a defence of Andrew. Also, moral of this story; never give a reference. Simply supply a start and finish date. |
Nightmare.
How did she know that you'd 'defamed' her? Did the bank tell her the details of why they wouldn't be hiring her? | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:38 - Sep 13 with 646 views | baxterbasics |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:23 - Sep 13 by Illinoisblue |
But can anyone watch his car crash of a BBC interview and honestly think, “yeah seems innocent”? |
Oh I agree - and reiterate I would have been happier to see Mrs Giuffre have her day in court. Just felt it worth pointing out the inaccuracy of emotive (but also, quite childish) terms like nonce being thrown about. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:42 - Sep 13 with 643 views | blueasfook |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 10:22 - Sep 13 by GlasgowBlue |
It also happens to the non wealthy.
About twenty years ago I sacked somebody for coming into the office and changing sales by another rep into her name, thereby gaining commision she wasn't entitled to.
Went completely by the book, suspended the individual, held a disciplinary, offered her the opportunity to attend with representation (which she declined), and fired her for gross misconduct.
Three years later I received a reference from a well known bank. One of the questions "would you re employ"? Answer "No". Question, "If not, why not" Answer, the reasons I gave in this post.
I got a letter from a trades union legal dept threatening to sue for defamation. She claimed that she left on her own accord and knew nothing about any disciplinary or being fired.
I had followed all the procedures, had witnesses, collected witness statements for my solicitor and was prepared to go to court. I was advised that I had a 99% chance of winning but that 1% chance of losing could cost me my house and my possessions.
I settled for £12k.
Again, not a defence of Andrew. Also, moral of this story; never give a reference. Simply supply a start and finish date. |
In cases such as that, you can just refuse to provide a reference at all, and let the new employer infer what they wish from that. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:48 - Sep 13 with 611 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:25 - Sep 13 by unbelievablue |
Nightmare.
How did she know that you'd 'defamed' her? Did the bank tell her the details of why they wouldn't be hiring her? |
Yes. I spent months collecting witness statements from those who were involved in the disciplinary process as it was a few years later.
I think she had a good holiday on me. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:56 - Sep 13 with 589 views | Radlett_blue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:42 - Sep 13 by blueasfook |
In cases such as that, you can just refuse to provide a reference at all, and let the new employer infer what they wish from that. |
This wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened & I think that in terms of a reference, most employers these days will only confirm dates of employment, job title and salary. In cases of disciplinary action, many employees choose to go down the resignation route, rather than risk ending up with a poor reference. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
