|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Thu 30 Oct 20:41
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor……no longer a Prince. At last!
Also, from the Palaces statement, it looked like a small admission of his wrong doing at the end…..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Thu 30 Oct 21:04
Mountbatten, that`s some name to make him use, the name of his paedophile uncle.
I can only assume there is more to come on this story, that scummy family normally close ranks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Thu 30 Oct 21:18
There were rumours going about that Charlies health wasn’t improving, so the conspiracy could be that Williams pushed this through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 30 Oct 23:54
Losing a pointless title and moving from one free mansion to another free mansion is not a reasonable punishment for what he did.
There should also be an investigation into why his mum used taxpayer money to pay off one of his victims.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dandy Warhol
Date: Fri 31 Oct 06:51
He`s a rapist, he should be in jail.
I don`t wanna go down like disco.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Fri 31 Oct 10:02
Quote:
red-star-par, Thu 30 Oct 21:04
Mountbatten, that`s some name to make him use, the name of his paedophile uncle.
I can only assume there is more to come on this story, that scummy family normally close ranks
Like 40 prostitutes in four days on a tax-payer funded trip to Thailand?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Fri 31 Oct 10:19
Not being funny but I don’t think he was only involved with prostitutes that were old enough to be prostitutes. I may be wrong but I don’t think I am.
I would happily become a republic. If it was just tax dodging then it wouldn’t be so much of an issue but I keep saying it - there’s only one family in the world that had close ties to both Epstein and Saville. That’s only what’s publicly known.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 31 Oct 11:25
So far the RF has paid off a victim to avoid open discussion of the facts in court and has waited until it started to impact the institution as a whole before acting.
And when they did act, they basically told the perpetrator that he had to move to a different palace and change his name.
It is a rotten institution and it needs to go.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Big T Par
Date: Fri 31 Oct 11:58
👆Spot on
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 31 Oct 12:01
Quote:
Dandy Warhol, Fri 31 Oct 06:51
He`s a rapist, he should be in jail.
allegedly
Quote:
Wotsit, Thu 30 Oct 23:54
Losing a pointless title and moving from one free mansion to another free mansion is not a reasonable punishment for what he did.
.
allegedly
I have no time for the sleazy, entitled, arrogant Tw*t - but let’s be real, not convicted in any courts.
- But hung dried and quartered on the word of an already well paid, blackmailing ex-prostitute and self-confessed recruiter for Maxwell and Epstein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Fri 31 Oct 13:07
I have a feelings my like one of the posters above. There is more to come. This is being drip fed from somewhere so I wonder how much more they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 31 Oct 13:36
Indeed Lux, we are not courts of law, but Andrew is perfectly free to discuss these matters in a court at any time. He seems reluctant though, and in the absence of legal clarification I am going to reach my own conclusion based on the available evidence which points firmly at him being a sweaty nonce who has been protected by a corrupt institution.
Saville never had to face a court either, are we supposed to caveat any suggestions that he was an abusive monster too?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 31 Oct 16:31
Quote:
Wotsit, Fri 31 Oct 13:36
a sweaty nonce who has been protected by a corrupt institution.
No arguement there. However, not convicted, or even charged with the alleged crimes.
Again, on the word of one deified former hooker and recruiter.
Quote:
Wotsit, Fri 31 Oct 13:36
Saville never had to face a court either, are we supposed to caveat any suggestions that he was an abusive monster too?
He managed to die before most of the accusations were out - pretty hard to prosecute a corpse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: P
Date: Fri 31 Oct 16:58
“Again, on the word of one deified former hooker and recruiter.”
Why do you not also say ‘alleged’ hooker and recruiter since she was never convicted of anything either or do you hold her to a lesser standard with your thinly veiled contempt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 31 Oct 17:36
Quote:
P, Fri 31 Oct 16:58
“Again, on the word of one deified former hooker and recruiter.”
Why do you not also say ‘alleged’ hooker and recruiter since she was never convicted of anything either or do you hold her to a lesser standard with your thinly veiled contempt?
‘Self-confessed ex-hooker and recruiter’ better for you?
There is no thinly veiled contempt here.
Much open contempt for both of them.
For all his sleaziness, I don’t believe AMW is a rapist.
This self-important, entitled, arrogant scumbag likely held himself in such high regard that it was easy to assume that all these girls were delighted to sleep with him!
Remember, he had already been with a number of beauties that wouldn’t have looked at him twice if he were not a prince of the realm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 31 Oct 17:40
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Fri 31 Oct 17:36
Quote:
P, Fri 31 Oct 16:58
“Again, on the word of one deified former hooker and recruiter.”
Why do you not also say ‘alleged’ hooker and recruiter since she was never convicted of anything either or do you hold her to a lesser standard with your thinly veiled contempt?
‘Self-confessed ex-hooker and recruiter’ better for you?
There is no thinly veiled contempt here.
Much open contempt for both of them.
For all his sleaziness, I don’t believe AMW is a rapist.
This self-important, entitled, arrogant scumbag likely held himself in such high regard that it was easy to assume that all these girls were delighted to sleep with him!
Remember, he had already been with a number of beauties that wouldn’t have looked at him twice if he were not a prince of the realm.
Bloody hell 🤦🏻♂️ imagine openly defending a sex trafficker and dirty old man who knew exactly what he was doing by victim blaming.
What an absolute low life you are. Hope you don’t have a daughter if thats your views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 31 Oct 17:58
Quote:
Dave_1885, Fri 31 Oct 17:40
Bloody hell 🤦🏻♂️ imagine openly defending a sex trafficker and dirty old man who knew exactly what he was doing by victim blaming.
What an absolute low life you are. Hope you don’t have a daughter if thats your views.
Defending WHICH sex trafficker?
Is that another allegation made at AMW?
Dirty old man - yep, fair enough.
Victim blaming? Have a word with yourself.
A well paid escort/hooker/entertainment paid for and laid on by yet another scumbag is hardly the victim.
Low life?
Cool - I’ll let you know when I’m back next and you can say that to my face 😚
And yes, I have two daughters - neither of whom would have been allowed to do that ‘work’ - where was her father while this was going on? Oh yeah, working at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, and got her the job there, where she met Maxwell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 31 Oct 19:04
There`s one thing in particular about this that has puzzled me. In his interview with Emily Maitlis on the BBC Andrew said that on one occasion when it was claimed he was with Virginia Giuffre he was in fact visiting a pizza restaurant in Woking with his two daughters. Surely this alibi would have easy to verify by speaking to the management of the restaurant or tracking down customers of the restaurant on that particular day? They were unlikely to forget if royalty had been present. But no attempt seems to have been made by the media or anyone else to confirm or disprove what Andrew claimed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: FifeEternal
Date: Fri 31 Oct 22:58
Dirty sex case. Should be investigated fully and prosecuted accordingly. New leaks tonight showing he emailed Epstein asking to catch up after his prison release... Probably to silence him for good before Clinton got to him. Unfortunately this will go on forever whenever there is power to be grabbed without consequence. Digital footprints are what started this semi downfall and hopefully continue to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 31 Oct 23:01
Thing is, it`s all allegations but he`s a bloody Royal. If these allegations are coming out then the truth is likely even worse. When you know you`re a person of interest you need to keep your nose clean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Fri 31 Oct 23:09
He should be prosecuted. Royals are not above the law. Ask Anne Boleyn or Chick the first
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Fri 31 Oct 23:14
Luxembourg Par coming across very badly in his defence of the Paedo Prince. Pretty disgusting to be victim blaming the poor girl who has been groomed as a child into a life of sexual exploitation at the hands of the rich. Makes you wonder what sort of man he is....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 31 Oct 23:43
Andrew was clearly a dirty old pervert of course.
Abused his privilege to demean and possibly rape girls 3 times younger than him at the time.
Was he a Pedo? That might be up for debate if the incidents happened in the UK as she was 17 so legally he might be cleared of that charge if it ever went to court.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Fri 31 Oct 23:54
Quote:
wee eck, Fri 31 Oct 19:04
There`s one thing in particular about this that has puzzled me. In his interview with Emily Maitlis on the BBC Andrew said that on one occasion when it was claimed he was with Virginia Giuffre he was in fact visiting a pizza restaurant in Woking with his two daughters. Surely this alibi would have easy to verify by speaking to the management of the restaurant or tracking down customers of the restaurant on that particular day? They were unlikely to forget if royalty had been present. But no attempt seems to have been made by the media or anyone else to confirm or disprove what Andrew claimed.
They did approach the pizza place and nobody had any recollection of him and his daughters attendance at a party.
The question of who`s party it was should have been asked so they would be able to confirm or deny it.
Another thing that annoyed me was that when challenged about the photo, he said he had never been upstairs in Ghislaine Maxwell`s house. I would have immediately asked how on earth he knew that`s where the photo was taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sat 1 Nov 00:08
Quote:
red-star-par, Fri 31 Oct 23:14
Luxembourg Par coming across very badly in his defence of the Paedo Prince. Pretty disgusting to be victim blaming the poor girl who has been groomed as a child into a life of sexual exploitation at the hands of the rich. Makes you wonder what sort of man he is....
Not defending him - pointing out the difference between allegations and convictions.
You can wonder all the **** you like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sat 1 Nov 06:57
Maitlis is on the record as saying
- the pizza line was ridiculous
- he insisted adding it in after it originally wasn`t covered
- that the BBC had serious conversations about not including as it just sounded nuts
Roll all that together with the "how do you prove something that didn`t happen", and avoiding calling him a liar.
Then I think you end up with them deciding just to say nothing and let folk draw their own conclusions. I would believe her story rather than his any day of the week.
I would also stop well short of making any judgement of Giuffre. Poor girl clearly ended up in a place that I wouldn`t wish on anybody and had been dealt a pretty crap hand in life but had managed, for a while at least, to get some enjoyment with building her family. He, however, had the opportunity and privilege to do so much good and decided not to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dandy Warhol
Date: Sat 1 Nov 07:50
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Sat 1 Nov 00:08
Quote:
red-star-par, Fri 31 Oct 23:14
Luxembourg Par coming across very badly in his defence of the Paedo Prince. Pretty disgusting to be victim blaming the poor girl who has been groomed as a child into a life of sexual exploitation at the hands of the rich. Makes you wonder what sort of man he is....
Not defending him - pointing out the difference between allegations and convictions.
You can wonder all the **** you like.
Even the mainstream news describe the victim as "having been forced to sleep with Prince Andrew", that`s rape.
Victim blaming is exactly what you are doing, i quote "well paid hooker".
I don`t wanna go down like disco.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Sat 1 Nov 08:17
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Fri 31 Oct 17:58
Quote:
Dave_1885, Fri 31 Oct 17:40
Bloody hell 🤦🏻♂️ imagine openly defending a sex trafficker and dirty old man who knew exactly what he was doing by victim blaming.
What an absolute low life you are. Hope you don’t have a daughter if thats your views.
Defending WHICH sex trafficker?
Is that another allegation made at AMW?
Dirty old man - yep, fair enough.
Victim blaming? Have a word with yourself.
A well paid escort/hooker/entertainment paid for and laid on by yet another scumbag is hardly the victim.
Low life?
Cool - I’ll let you know when I’m back next and you can say that to my face 😚
And yes, I have two daughters - neither of whom would have been allowed to do that ‘work’ - where was her father while this was going on? Oh yeah, working at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, and got her the job there, where she met Maxwell.
The fact you are calling her a “well paid hooker” covers all of the above. I don’t need to say much more really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Sat 1 Nov 14:02
There women who made choices to go into prostitution, there’s women who were manipulated into prostitution. There’s 18yr old plus teenagers who were manipulated into prostitution and there 15year old plus teenagers who were manipulated into prostitution. There’s also children who were trafficked and abused.
Some of those cases involve rape and some don’t. It needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.
All round though, Andrew and the RF are in so deep it’s disgusting 🤮
Had to edit because wee plus sights didn’t work
COYP
Post Edited (Sat 01 Nov 14:05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sat 1 Nov 14:03
So now we are concentrating on the perception of Guiffre? Sad deflection.
The thread and the conversation was about the ALLEGATIONS against Andrew - being stated as facts.
My pointing out the absolute lack of convictions - hell not even charges - with the insistance of some in here calling him ‘rapist’, ‘pedo’, ‘trafficker’ etc
Isn’t that pretty close to libel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: shellypar
Date: Sat 1 Nov 14:40
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Sat 1 Nov 14:03
So now we are concentrating on the perception of Guiffre? Sad deflection.
The thread and the conversation was about the ALLEGATIONS against Andrew - being stated as facts.
My pointing out the absolute lack of convictions - hell not even charges - with the insistance of some in here calling him ‘rapist’, ‘pedo’, ‘trafficker’ etc
Isn’t that pretty close to libel?
Mate gon just stop please
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: P
Date: Sat 1 Nov 17:05
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Fri 31 Oct 17:36
Quote:
There is no thinly veiled contempt here.
Much open contempt for both of them.
Open contempt for a girl groomed as a teenager - wow, just wow, what a disturbing lack of empathy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 1 Nov 21:58
I don`t think anyone involved in the whole (alleged) debacle comes off well.
Surely even the most staunch Royalist has to question why we still accept their existence? They`re just the descendants of a bunch of people who years ago fenced off land and claimed it was theirs. I`ve nothing against them as people but it`s time to get real and chuck them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 2 Nov 00:22
ALLEGED...?
I`ll bet you £12 million he was guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rusty Shackleford
Date: Sun 2 Nov 10:09
I know this has been printed a million (or 12 million?) times but it`s very valid.
Oh, the grand old Duke of York,
He had twelve million quid.
He gave it to someone he`d never met,
For something he never did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 2 Nov 10:35
Little edit required, he didnt pay the 12m
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 2 Nov 11:24
Oh dear, DBP. I don`t need to edit anything. I will explain it to you.
In February 2022, Prince Andrew settled his civil lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre for a reported sum of around £12 million ($24 million). The settlement was paid out of court, but a substantial portion was reportedly funded by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, and a loan from his brother, King Charles.
On February 15, lawyers for both parties announced that a settlement in principle had been reached, which would avoid the possibility of the case going to trial. The exact compensation was undisclosed, but it is estimated to be worth around £12 million ($16.3 million), with some of the money going to Giuffre directly and the rest to her victim support charity.
I believe Andrew sold his Swiss chalet to repay the loans.
Would he have accepted liability if he were innocent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 2 Nov 18:30
Quote:
OzPar, Sun 2 Nov 11:24
...
a substantial portion was reportedly funded by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, and a loan from his brother, King Charles.
...so sounds like he didnt pay the 12m?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 2 Nov 22:52
The taxpayer basically did. For whatever reason we continue to pay for having the Royals.
Post Edited (Sun 02 Nov 22:52)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Mon 3 Nov 06:17
Yep, would disband the whole lot of them tomorrow if it was up to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Wed 5 Nov 22:26
Quote:
OzPar, Sun 2 Nov 11:24
Oh dear, DBP. I don`t need to edit anything. I will explain it to you.
In February 2022, Prince Andrew settled his civil lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre for a reported sum of around £12 million ($24 million). The settlement was paid out of court, but a substantial portion was reportedly funded by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, and a loan from his brother, King Charles.
On February 15, lawyers for both parties announced that a settlement in principle had been reached, which would avoid the possibility of the case going to trial. The exact compensation was undisclosed, but it is estimated to be worth around £12 million ($16.3 million), with some of the money going to Giuffre directly and the rest to her victim support charity.
I believe Andrew sold his Swiss chalet to repay the loans.
Would he have accepted liability if he were innocent?
Is the reported £12 million compensation accurate ?
I thought the big bucks was lawyers fees, rather than direct damages ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 6 Nov 17:51
Charles Mountbatten Winsor has a bit of a ring to it, why stop with Andrew?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Thu 6 Nov 18:55
Apparently Andrew wanted to publish a book of his memoirs.
Publisher turned it down, saying that he had an interesting storyline, but no title…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Fri 7 Nov 04:21
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Thu 6 Nov 18:55
Apparently Andrew wanted to publish a book of his memoirs.
Publisher turned it down, saying that he had an interesting storyline, but no title…
🤣
|
|
|
|
|
|
