Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
oldius said:
I think it is your belief that this is IRA propaganda.
We all are aware that paedophiles, especially powerful ones, have evaded justice for years, and who is going to speak up and advocate for orphans giving evidence against royalty?

en.wikipedia.org

Kincora Boys' Home - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Have you read the single author that alleges Mountbatten was involved?
 
Chippy_boy said:
I've not read all this thread so forgive me if this has already been discussed.

But I am troubled by the treatment of Andrew. Not because I am a fan of his. Far from it - I gather he's not a particularly nice bloke irrespective of his involvement with Epstein and the Virginia Giuffre scandal.

But in our generally civilised country, we work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. People accused of crimes are judged either by magistrates or by a jury, and in the absence of any such trial or guilty verdict, they are by definition innocent.

Andrew is innocent of any crime relating to Epstein or Giuffre. This fact may not sit comfortably with his many detractors, but it is the case.

It cannot be right that anyone - prince or otherwise - is hounded out of their home and stripped of their wealth or possessions by an angry mob baying for blood. No matter how much we may be convinced "well he did do it, didn't he". Rightly we don't do kangaroo courts in the UK.

So the way the media in particular have gone after him, I find troubling. He maintains throughout that he has done nothing wrong, and we have no idea whether that is true or not. Yes his paying off Giuffre looks bad. But we should not assume that is indicative of guilt. As @gordondaviesmoustache points out, there's other reasons why the royal family may have thought that was preferable to a public spectacle in court. And whether it does or it doesn't, the fact remains he is innocent under the law.

<Stands back and awaits the inevitable abuse from the usual suspects. Tommy Robinson will likely be mentioned.>
Click to expand...
No mention of the £12m payout from the public purse signed off by Lizzie?

No one is forcing Chuck to take the baubles from the nonce. He’s doing the bare minimum in the circumstances.
 
oldius said:
She wasn't a volunteer, fella, she was bestowed with immense wealth and privilege as a result of that service. Effectively, it was her job. As a consequence of that job, she was able to give away £12m to protect her son from facing court. In my view, that is not a good look.

I absolutely respect your point that a mother will do what they can to protect their children, so I do not think she is entirely to blame here. He brought this on and appears to have repeatedly abused trafficked minors supplied to him by a convicted sex offender. If this were not the Royal Family, I suspect many more people would not dream of defending them. She may have been a fantastic woman - I have never met her. She may have been highly skilled at her job - I don't know enough about her job to analyse her skillset. She did, however, raise a family who appear not to respect their roles, their marriages, or their debt to the nation.
Click to expand...
Not £12m - a £2m donation to Giuffre's charity.
 
johnny crossan said:
It's enthymematic in my replies - pretty obvious really but for the avoidance of all doubt the late Queen & Prince Philip bear zero responsibility for their son's misconduct .
Click to expand...
Finally. Well done.

I take you you feel that parents in general bear no responsibility for how their children end up?
 
Lowtower said:
Correct mate - An email Andrew sent to Epstein said ... "It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it. Otherwise keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!!!!"
Click to expand...

johnny crossan said:
..but not the less desirable elements of your personality or indeed actions in your life it seems. That's a real pettifogger's reply and completely disingenuous. I repeat - your trying to blame the late Queen for this man's conduct is simply disgusting.
Click to expand...
I had to look pettifogger up. Never heard it before
 
johnny crossan said:
The Queen said nothing and was 96 suffering from advanced bone cancer when this happened in 2022. She died after 70 selfless years of service to this country eighteen months later. I'll bet your parents would do all they could to help you in the same situation too. Another really unpleasant comment, shame on you and anybody else endorsing such depressing abuse
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure my dad would have thrown me to the wolves if I'd raped under age girls, not paid them off.
 
oldius said:
He isn't an unsavoury character, he is a convicted sex offender.
It is correct that Andrew has not been charged and convicted in the same way.
I don't think that will ever happen because of the death of his main accuser. The other victims of Epstein seem unable to speak out for their own safety. Majorie Taylor Greene has said that she will speak on their behalf. Time will tell and, hopefully, the truth will out.
Click to expand...
I don't think a prosecution will ever happen because the CPS never had sufficient evidence for a realistic chance of a conviction, even when Giuffre was alive.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Finally. Well done.

I take you you feel that parents in general bear no responsibility for how their children end up?
Click to expand...
I think your congratulations are misplaced
Definition: An enthymematic argument is one that contains an unstated, implied premise that the audience is expected to understand and accept.

The rest of the world - including our family - play their part in shaping us but in the end we are on our own and face sole responsibility for all our actions.
 
Last edited:
johnny crossan said:
I think your congratulations are misplaced
Definition: An enthymematic argument is one that contains an unstated, implied premise that the audience is expected to understand and accept.

The rest of the world - including our family - play their part in shaping us but in the end we are on our own and face sole responsibility for all our actions.
Click to expand...
Unless the family has a hell of a lot of money.
 
johnny crossan said:
So you see they are unproven allegations from an IRA sympathiser.
Click to expand...
Allegations against Savile were similarly unproven.
If the police are forbidden from investigating, then they will always remain so.
Thankfully, we take more account of the words of abused children now (I think).
During this time, in England, saying that allegations had been made by IRA sympathisers would immediately throw millions off the scent, refusing to even countenance the possibility as the source was so repugnant to them (IRA). It is probably why that particular care home was chosen by those alleged to have abused vulnerable children.
 
Last edited:
oldius said:
From that article:
The Queen poured millions of pounds into her son’s civil suit against Giuffre, The Daily Telegraph reported. And, as Andrew’s income is not enough to cover the £12 million ($16.3 million) settlement, she will reportedly be helping to cover those costs too.
Click to expand...
Why don't you quote the second part of that paragraph which is quite specific?
The Queen poured millions of pounds into her son’s civil suit against Giuffre, The Daily Telegraph reported. And, as Andrew’s income is not enough to cover the £12 million ($16.3 million) settlement, she will reportedly be helping to cover those costs too. According to the Daily Mirror, the Queen agreed to contribute £2 million ($2.7 million) as long as she was not connected to any personal payment to Giuffre. Instead, the money will go towards Giuffre’s victim support charity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top