I've done a fair bit of background reading on Epstein's antics, and I've also watched the 'Filthy Rich' documentary (Netflix). I've come to the conclusion that anyone who ever visited Epstein's island as a guest and didn't have some concerns as to where all the young, pretty girls were coming from is either complicit in what was going on or INCREDIBLY stupid.
I've met him, and this is 100% true. He didn't speak to me personally, but what he said to others and the manner in which he said it (I won't elaborate) was pretty abrasive and rude.Long before Epstein, I read an article about Andrew when he was being flown all over the world at taxpayers expense as Britain’s Global Ambassador for Trade. It said that British embassy staff in every country desperately didn’t want him on their patch as his legendary arrogance and rudeness upset everyone he met and it took ages to try to smooth things over.
Is he a thick as pigshit, arrogant, rude, jumped up ****? In my opinion he is.
Is he a paedophile? I’ve no idea and I’m happy to see what happens via the legal process.
This doesn't make any sense. Are jurors legally trained?
It absolutely doesn't; that's for the courts to decide.It still doesn't make someone guilty of the strongest of allegations, however.
Bill Clinton, Trump, plenty of high profile visitors. As you say, complicity, ignorance, plenty of that on show, akin to all those high-profile female actresses who knew about Weinstein, later shamed into admitting they knew what was going on for years.
Of course it makes sense. Jurors only get involved in the process once something is brought to court. Thankfully, there are legal processes before that which establishes if it is even worth bringing before a Court in the first place.
It absolutely doesn't; that's for the courts to decide.
However, he's been particularly ill advised in what he's said and done since the allegations came to light. It's almost as if he's gone out of his way to make it look like he's got something to hide. Whether he has or not is another matter, but seeing as the Met have dropped the case we'll (probably) never know.
The met should have gone foward with the investigation if only to show the public they are not shrinking away because he is a royal, if they found nothing to charge him on he had nothing to worry about did he
It still doesn't make someone guilty of the strongest of allegations, however.
Bill Clinton, Trump, plenty of high profile visitors.
They handled the cliff investigation appalling and tbf he wasnt good friends with a sex offender , staying with him for four days after he came out of prison is surely a red flag as was his no sweating and pizza stuff and also not meeting the seventeen yr old despite there being a pic of them , gary from a council estate would have been investigated to death, andrew is not in the uk , queens son , very bad opticsThe Met wouldn't go forward on any real investigation if the CPS tell them there is not enough to proceed?
Opening a very dangerous can of worms there if the police can basically ignore legal counsel and fast-track stuff to sate the appetite of the public.
We've seen some investigations they have carried out on people like Cliff Richard and where that has landed.
The Met wouldn't go forward on any real investigation if the CPS tell them there is not enough to proceed?
So you don't think his behaviour and obvious lies about what he would wear on a night out or inability to sweat are the least bit suspicious?
Dishonest behaviour that would be used against him if he ever ended up in court.
Why would you lie about something that could be easily disproven unless reacting to stress and guilt?
Even if he didn't commit any crimes himself he know more about what Epstein was up to than he let on.
They handled the cliff investigation appalling and tbf he wasnt good friends with a sex offender , staying with him for four days after he came out of prison is surely a red flag as was his no sweating and pizza stuff and also not meeting the seventeen yr old despite there being a pic of them , gary from a council estate would have been investigated to death, andrew is not in the uk , queens son , very bad optics
He's accused of rape, that's all he is defending himself on, not what else he might know or not.
Plenty of contradictory stuff, lies/vagueness to disassociate himself from any type of culpability, whatsoever, but being an entitled, arrogant snob, isn't enough for the Police or the CPS to push for Court, certainly if they have already concluded they don't have the sufficient evidence to proceed on a rape accusation.
Isn't that backwards? The CPS decide whether to prosecute, not whether to investigate.
It's the police's job to decide if it's in the public interest, then thoroughly investigate and present everything to the CPS.
That is simply incorrect. The CPS do not do that, t isn't their role. They review files of evidence prepared in police investigations. They don't decide what is investigated. They review what is given to them to see if charges will be brought. Cases also have to meet an evidential test prior to and in order for them to get to the CPS.The Met wouldn't go forward on any real investigation if the CPS tell them there is not enough to proceed?
Opening a very dangerous can of worms there if the police can basically ignore legal counsel and fast-track stuff to sate the appetite of the public.
We've seen some investigations they have carried out on people like Cliff Richard and where that has landed.
Ah yes because those two would never be connected to anything shady?!
Andrew's problem is that he stayed friends with Epstein once the whole world knew he was a sex trafficking pimp and rapist of underage girls.
The only reason you'd do that is if you a) Don't care b) Are friends with him because of that or c) Don't have a choice because he's blackmailing you.
In all three scenarios you're a guilty of something.
That is simply incorrect. The CPS do not do that, t isn't their role. They review files of evidence prepared in police investigations. They don't decide what is investigated. They review what is given to them to see if charges will be brought. Cases also have to meet an evidential test prior to and in order for them to get to the CPS.
Someone can be guilty of being an arrogant dickhead, but it's still not enough to proceed with a rape investigation if they have already established to the best of their ability that they don't enough to go with.
In this case there is a fourth scenario:Ah yes because those two would never be connected to anything shady?!
Andrew's problem is that he stayed friends with Epstein once the whole world knew he was a sex trafficking pimp and rapist of underage girls.
The only reason you'd do that is if you a) Don't care b) Are friends with him because of that or c) Don't have a choice because he's blackmailing you.
In all three scenarios you're a guilty of something.