| I must confess to having enjoyed this 08:44 - Sep 13 with 5422 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 12:28 - Sep 13 with 1019 views | EddyJ |
| 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. |
"Paedophile" is not a perfectly defined word. Literally, it means "one who likes children".
The victim in the Prince Andrew case was 17, i.e. below 18, which is considered the age of majority in most countries in the world, including the UK. While she was over the age of consent in the UK (so legally he would not have been in the wrong had the offense happened here), she was still a child.
If a 40-year old Andrew did have sex with a 17-year old, it is reasonably appropriate to call him a paedophile whether or not he was legally wrong to do so. |  | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 12:31 - Sep 13 with 1020 views | blueasfook |
What about the people who assaulted him? No charges for them? Of course not. They're the monarch's loyal cap doffers | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 12:37 - Sep 13 with 977 views | Ryorry |
| 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 |
Think that's a bit unfair (as in OTT) Leitrim. |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 12:53 - Sep 13 with 949 views | fab_lover |
Perhaps the biggest mistake the late Queen made was her support for her son Andrew.
On the one hand, one can understand that a mother - and also, a mother of advancing years - will naturally want to protect her child and also have a degree of maternal blindness as to his misdeeds. That is itself is not untypical behaviour.
However, HM occupied a privileged position where she was able to fund her son's effective buying his way out of the judicial process. Now, some of that is down to the (alleged) victim who accepted a settlement rather than having her day in court, and with that, presumably justice. And again, she can't be held at blame for making that decision, until one has been involved in the mechanisms of a very public legal process, one cannot say how one would behave, and the desire to get it over and get something positive out of it.
Where things went wrong was then the insistence, which must have come from HM or "The Firm" in general, that Andrew was allowed to remain in public life.
With both the funerals of HM and her late husband, the final internments are not carried out in the public eye. It would have been possible for him to have mourned both outside the gaze of the cameras. His appearing in public is a statement that he is still a member of "The Firm" even if he isn't allowed to wear Army uniform anymore.
Given the nature of the accusations (and, for what it's worth, I'd class it more as statutory rape rather than paedophilia, which technically is the love of the pre-pubescent, but anyway) after the "buy off" he should have been told that he couldn't, in public, be a member of the Royal Family any more. The fact that he can still appear as a Royal remains a serious misjudgement.
His parading behind the coffin is not so much an act of mourning for his mother - which as I've said, he could do outside the public eye - but a statement of position, a position he should no longer occupy. If he could see beyond his arrogance and self-belief, he would understand that occupying that position is not something anyone other than him and his late mother, and possibly "The Firm" itself wants, but that the public would much rather he just disappeared quietly and was never heard from again. |  | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:04 - Sep 13 with 925 views | Ryorry |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 12:53 - Sep 13 by fab_lover |
Perhaps the biggest mistake the late Queen made was her support for her son Andrew.
On the one hand, one can understand that a mother - and also, a mother of advancing years - will naturally want to protect her child and also have a degree of maternal blindness as to his misdeeds. That is itself is not untypical behaviour.
However, HM occupied a privileged position where she was able to fund her son's effective buying his way out of the judicial process. Now, some of that is down to the (alleged) victim who accepted a settlement rather than having her day in court, and with that, presumably justice. And again, she can't be held at blame for making that decision, until one has been involved in the mechanisms of a very public legal process, one cannot say how one would behave, and the desire to get it over and get something positive out of it.
Where things went wrong was then the insistence, which must have come from HM or "The Firm" in general, that Andrew was allowed to remain in public life.
With both the funerals of HM and her late husband, the final internments are not carried out in the public eye. It would have been possible for him to have mourned both outside the gaze of the cameras. His appearing in public is a statement that he is still a member of "The Firm" even if he isn't allowed to wear Army uniform anymore.
Given the nature of the accusations (and, for what it's worth, I'd class it more as statutory rape rather than paedophilia, which technically is the love of the pre-pubescent, but anyway) after the "buy off" he should have been told that he couldn't, in public, be a member of the Royal Family any more. The fact that he can still appear as a Royal remains a serious misjudgement.
His parading behind the coffin is not so much an act of mourning for his mother - which as I've said, he could do outside the public eye - but a statement of position, a position he should no longer occupy. If he could see beyond his arrogance and self-belief, he would understand that occupying that position is not something anyone other than him and his late mother, and possibly "The Firm" itself wants, but that the public would much rather he just disappeared quietly and was never heard from again. |
Not sure I agree entirely with that, though can certainly see your point of view.
Even prisoners are allowed out of jail to attend the funeral procession (& burial or cremation of course) of a parent or other very close relative.
I think it possible it might even have tainted the solemn occasion had he *not* been there, because then that might have been the ensuing main topic of discussion. Nothing should deflect from the proper main focus - people paying their respects to the late Queen. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:28 - Sep 13 with 900 views | fab_lover |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:04 - Sep 13 by Ryorry |
Not sure I agree entirely with that, though can certainly see your point of view.
Even prisoners are allowed out of jail to attend the funeral procession (& burial or cremation of course) of a parent or other very close relative.
I think it possible it might even have tainted the solemn occasion had he *not* been there, because then that might have been the ensuing main topic of discussion. Nothing should deflect from the proper main focus - people paying their respects to the late Queen. |
Hang on. He wasn't, when in Edinburgh, attending his mum's burial or indeed funeral procession. He was part of a parade, for want of a better word - the funeral isn't until Monday. As I said, the actual burial takes place in private.
"The Monarchy, in order to be believed, has to be seen" is a statement attributed to the late Queen. What has been happening - including the re-appearance of Harry and Meghan - is PR, pure and simple. It's not children or grandchildren saying goodbye to a family member, that part can be and probably has been done in private. It's announcing the continuity of the whole shebang (and I am not, by the way, Republican).
If things had been done properly, after the lawsuit was settled, a statement by the Crown saying that "from henceforth, Andrew Windsor is no longer entitled to the position of Prince / Duke of York and will retire from public life" then no-one would have expected him to have been in public life any more.
We make a great mistake if we conflate what has happened / will be happening up until the funeral with a family in mourning. They might well be, but their appearances are there to bolster the institution that they are part of - hence they are in the public eye. | | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:43 - Sep 13 with 884 views | blueasfook |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:48 - Sep 13 by GlasgowBlue |
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 would have done Maldives I think. Just need to find an ex-employer to sue now! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:49 - Sep 13 with 861 views | Ryorry |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:28 - Sep 13 by fab_lover |
Hang on. He wasn't, when in Edinburgh, attending his mum's burial or indeed funeral procession. He was part of a parade, for want of a better word - the funeral isn't until Monday. As I said, the actual burial takes place in private.
"The Monarchy, in order to be believed, has to be seen" is a statement attributed to the late Queen. What has been happening - including the re-appearance of Harry and Meghan - is PR, pure and simple. It's not children or grandchildren saying goodbye to a family member, that part can be and probably has been done in private. It's announcing the continuity of the whole shebang (and I am not, by the way, Republican).
If things had been done properly, after the lawsuit was settled, a statement by the Crown saying that "from henceforth, Andrew Windsor is no longer entitled to the position of Prince / Duke of York and will retire from public life" then no-one would have expected him to have been in public life any more.
We make a great mistake if we conflate what has happened / will be happening up until the funeral with a family in mourning. They might well be, but their appearances are there to bolster the institution that they are part of - hence they are in the public eye. |
Sorry but disagree, think your comment that the procession "is PR, pure and simple" is fundamentally incorrect. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:56 - Sep 13 with 867 views | BlueBadger |
| 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. |
What is it about hanging around with known criminals, rapists and abusers that appeals to you? |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:57 - Sep 13 with 867 views | BlueBadger |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 11:38 - Sep 13 by baxterbasics |
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. |
Would you prefer 'man with flexible approach to consent' as a term? | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 14:16 - Sep 13 with 847 views | Zapers |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:56 - Sep 13 by BlueBadger |
What is it about hanging around with known criminals, rapists and abusers that appeals to you? |
Here comes the presiding judge. | | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 14:20 - Sep 13 with 815 views | monytowbray |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 14:16 - Sep 13 by Zapers |
Here comes the presiding judge. |
You used the term “haters gonna hate” to describe the feelings of dislike towards a sexual predator that evaded justice. You really have made yourself look quite weird.
What next? Put the Jimmy Saville statues back up because his charity work should be celebrated?
I know you really the the Queen and the flag and your entire identity is based around a tiny island, but that shouldn’t overrule highly deserved criticism. |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 14:22 - Sep 13 with 807 views | monytowbray |
| 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. |
Sounds like you’re belittling the testimony of rape survivors to me. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 14:37 - Sep 13 with 800 views | Darth_Koont |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 13:28 - Sep 13 by fab_lover |
Hang on. He wasn't, when in Edinburgh, attending his mum's burial or indeed funeral procession. He was part of a parade, for want of a better word - the funeral isn't until Monday. As I said, the actual burial takes place in private.
"The Monarchy, in order to be believed, has to be seen" is a statement attributed to the late Queen. What has been happening - including the re-appearance of Harry and Meghan - is PR, pure and simple. It's not children or grandchildren saying goodbye to a family member, that part can be and probably has been done in private. It's announcing the continuity of the whole shebang (and I am not, by the way, Republican).
If things had been done properly, after the lawsuit was settled, a statement by the Crown saying that "from henceforth, Andrew Windsor is no longer entitled to the position of Prince / Duke of York and will retire from public life" then no-one would have expected him to have been in public life any more.
We make a great mistake if we conflate what has happened / will be happening up until the funeral with a family in mourning. They might well be, but their appearances are there to bolster the institution that they are part of - hence they are in the public eye. |
Largely agree. And it’s the semi-sweeping of the issue under the carpet before the Queen’s death that has caused the problem now with Andrew’s remaining ceremonial duties. |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:01 - Sep 13 with 763 views | Kropotkin123 |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 09:02 - Sep 13 by Mookamoo |
Exactly why there were no games this weekend.
The unwashed can't be trusted. |
Can't be trusted not to heckle someone who settled out of court for sex offence charges and said they're innocent of sex offence charges because they can't sweat?
If this wasn't the monarchy, he'd be getting abuse or worse from the same people who defend him. He's a symbol of everything that is wrong with our democracy - That money and power can circumvent accountability and equality across the judiciary, electorate and legislative.
You are right that the unwashed can't be trusted. You can't be trusted to act in the interest of the most vulnerable in society. You don't have the resources or means to make objective decisions and effective use of your rights.
Name another person accused of sex offences who was given hour long slots on the national media to publically defend themselves, paid off their accusers, joined a procession televised to millions, and were then defended because their mum died. Disgraceful. [Post edited 13 Sep 2022 15:04]
|  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:13 - Sep 13 with 719 views | lowhouseblue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:01 - Sep 13 by Kropotkin123 |
Can't be trusted not to heckle someone who settled out of court for sex offence charges and said they're innocent of sex offence charges because they can't sweat?
If this wasn't the monarchy, he'd be getting abuse or worse from the same people who defend him. He's a symbol of everything that is wrong with our democracy - That money and power can circumvent accountability and equality across the judiciary, electorate and legislative.
You are right that the unwashed can't be trusted. You can't be trusted to act in the interest of the most vulnerable in society. You don't have the resources or means to make objective decisions and effective use of your rights.
Name another person accused of sex offences who was given hour long slots on the national media to publically defend themselves, paid off their accusers, joined a procession televised to millions, and were then defended because their mum died. Disgraceful. [Post edited 13 Sep 2022 15:04]
|
i'm not defending andrew, separate from the court case he seems to be a weasel, i'm also not questioning the testimony of the complainant. but when it comes to civil cases 'money and power' can also be a disadvantage. having money with which to pay damages can make you a target, with the complainants lawyers willing to work on a no win no fee basis cos of the potential sums involved. equally, for someone in the public eye the threat of a court process that may expose all sorts of peccadillos only tangentially related to the claim makes them likely to settle. this will have been driven by the complainants lawyers and andrew having money and renown probably makes the financial calculation for them more attractive. |  |
| 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 15:15 - Sep 13 with 712 views | leitrimblue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 12:37 - Sep 13 by Ryorry |
Think that's a bit unfair (as in OTT) Leitrim. |
Sorry Ryorry, gonna have to disagree with you on this occasion. I find this whole Epstein/Maxwell/Andrew story completely abhorrent. The idea of these super wealthy and powerful people using that wealth and power to groom and abuse vulnerable children is absolutely sickening. The fact they then attempted to use that same wealth and power to avoid justice just adds to my zero empathy for them. If people ( not yerself) want to make excuses for them then unfortunately for them I can only judge them on their choices |  | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:34 - Sep 13 with 659 views | monytowbray |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:13 - Sep 13 by lowhouseblue |
i'm not defending andrew, separate from the court case he seems to be a weasel, i'm also not questioning the testimony of the complainant. but when it comes to civil cases 'money and power' can also be a disadvantage. having money with which to pay damages can make you a target, with the complainants lawyers willing to work on a no win no fee basis cos of the potential sums involved. equally, for someone in the public eye the threat of a court process that may expose all sorts of peccadillos only tangentially related to the claim makes them likely to settle. this will have been driven by the complainants lawyers and andrew having money and renown probably makes the financial calculation for them more attractive. |
Not defending Andrew, but here’s a whole justification as to why he could have been the real victim in all this.
Jesus wept. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:41 - Sep 13 with 653 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:13 - Sep 13 by lowhouseblue |
i'm not defending andrew, separate from the court case he seems to be a weasel, i'm also not questioning the testimony of the complainant. but when it comes to civil cases 'money and power' can also be a disadvantage. having money with which to pay damages can make you a target, with the complainants lawyers willing to work on a no win no fee basis cos of the potential sums involved. equally, for someone in the public eye the threat of a court process that may expose all sorts of peccadillos only tangentially related to the claim makes them likely to settle. this will have been driven by the complainants lawyers and andrew having money and renown probably makes the financial calculation for them more attractive. |
Impressive levels of disingenuousness there.... |  |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:43 - Sep 13 with 648 views | Ryorry |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:15 - Sep 13 by leitrimblue |
Sorry Ryorry, gonna have to disagree with you on this occasion. I find this whole Epstein/Maxwell/Andrew story completely abhorrent. The idea of these super wealthy and powerful people using that wealth and power to groom and abuse vulnerable children is absolutely sickening. The fact they then attempted to use that same wealth and power to avoid justice just adds to my zero empathy for them. If people ( not yerself) want to make excuses for them then unfortunately for them I can only judge them on their choices |
I 100% share your abhorrence re that circle of sex trafficking & its perpetrators (incl Andrew & his role).
I did actually also dislike Zaper's reply ("haters gonna hate" etc), thought it poor, but just felt that to infer from that that he "loved & supported" Andrew was a step too far.
I think precision of language is imporant in instances like this, so dislike the description "paedo" applied to Andrew, because technically inaccurate, at least in the UK. "Nonce", as used in USA, meaning "person who commits a crime involving sex," probably is reasonable one to use - but in the real world, people probably won't differentiate. [Post edited 13 Sep 2022 15:44]
| |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:50 - Sep 13 with 629 views | lowhouseblue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:41 - Sep 13 by Ewan_Oozami |
Impressive levels of disingenuousness there.... |
why? in most cases people take civil action in the hope that the prospect of court will cause the defendant to settle. or do you think that's not true? | |
| 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 15:54 - Sep 13 with 615 views | leitrimblue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:43 - Sep 13 by Ryorry |
I 100% share your abhorrence re that circle of sex trafficking & its perpetrators (incl Andrew & his role).
I did actually also dislike Zaper's reply ("haters gonna hate" etc), thought it poor, but just felt that to infer from that that he "loved & supported" Andrew was a step too far.
I think precision of language is imporant in instances like this, so dislike the description "paedo" applied to Andrew, because technically inaccurate, at least in the UK. "Nonce", as used in USA, meaning "person who commits a crime involving sex," probably is reasonable one to use - but in the real world, people probably won't differentiate. [Post edited 13 Sep 2022 15:44]
|
As of yer 2nd paragraph, perhaps I should have just gone for support? Difficult to see his reply as anything less then support.
On yer 3rd paragraph, I'm often quite busy with work during the daytime and I guess the precision of my language is often dependent on how my day is going and how busy I am. The more time I have the more precise the wording. Not sure I have used peado or nonce. Like to imagine the term nonce is the UK prison meaning not the US | | | |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 16:03 - Sep 13 with 586 views | Ryorry |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:54 - Sep 13 by leitrimblue |
As of yer 2nd paragraph, perhaps I should have just gone for support? Difficult to see his reply as anything less then support.
On yer 3rd paragraph, I'm often quite busy with work during the daytime and I guess the precision of my language is often dependent on how my day is going and how busy I am. The more time I have the more precise the wording. Not sure I have used peado or nonce. Like to imagine the term nonce is the UK prison meaning not the US |
Oh, didn't mean you had used those words, apols for any lack of clarity on my part! (ironic eh?!).
I suspect Zapers' was just a throwaway catchphrase, chucked in without much (any?) thought, as often with casual s m 'internetting'. | |
| |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 18:17 - Sep 13 with 509 views | Radlett_blue |
| I must confess to having enjoyed this on 15:15 - Sep 13 by leitrimblue |
Sorry Ryorry, gonna have to disagree with you on this occasion. I find this whole Epstein/Maxwell/Andrew story completely abhorrent. The idea of these super wealthy and powerful people using that wealth and power to groom and abuse vulnerable children is absolutely sickening. The fact they then attempted to use that same wealth and power to avoid justice just adds to my zero empathy for them. If people ( not yerself) want to make excuses for them then unfortunately for them I can only judge them on their choices |
No evidence that Andrew was involved in grooming & trafficking. Ghislaine Maxwell, who was, has gone to jail. It would have been interesting if Andrew had actually faced criminal charges in the US; no wonder he wasn't willing to go there. Without Maxwell being willing to give evidence against Andrew, it's hard to see how a criminal case against him could be made to stick. No doubt Giuffre was abused; Epstein is dead & Maxwell in jail so I think the civil case against Andrew was there to bring him (or his mum) to the negotiating table. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
