Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
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...
Unfortunately most of us ordinary folk don't have a mum who's prepared to pay out £12,000,000 to sweep the allegations under the carpet. Why doesn't the nonce come out and prove his innocence?
 
Trickyblues said:
They have. I’ve witnessed it for almost 10 years, and it’s still going on now.
Meanwhile Andrew was protected until about 3 weeks ago.
Click to expand...
The suggestion that the negativity towards Andrew started three weeks ago is simply wrong. That interview was six years ago and he got absolute and widespread pelters for it at the time and every day since.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The suggestion that the negativity towards Andrew started three weeks ago is simply wrong. That interview was six years ago and he got absolute and widespread pelters for it at the time and every day since.
Click to expand...
Everyday since? That’s not true. He got pelters for a few weeks after and that was it. Whenever the monarchy wanted a distraction from Andrew theyd go back to harassing Harry and Meghan. The evidence is out there and as I said I witnessed it.
 
I have no idea whether Prince Andrew is telling the truth or not about the now-deceased woman and whether he did or did not have nefarious activities with her when she was younger BUT what is obvious is that he was a known associate of Epstein at some point in the past and has been caught out in a web of lies about the length and timing of that association thus bringing a reputational stain on the Monarchy. If only he'd have come clean on that from day 1 rather than trying to lying his way out of it he might have 'survived' it. The King's hand has been forced and he's done the right thing for the good of the monarchy, as all monarchs do over the years (as recently as the Edward VIII debacle). Andrew is now just collateral damage of his own making, like Edward Windsor was. Time to move on.
 
crublue1 said:
In what way?
I'd say that sums the relationship up completely.
I respected our queen until she paid hush money to protect that ****.
I understand mothers want to deny their sons are wrong uns, but to use our money to shush her up was unforgivable, and she will always be remembered for that.
She should have disowned him, or said nothing.
Instead she took the piss.
The royal family are a fucking joke.
Click to expand...
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
 
Trickyblues said:
Everyday since? That’s not true. He got pelters for a few weeks after and that was it. Whenever the monarchy wanted a distraction from Andrew theyd go back to harassing Harry and Meghan. The evidence is out there and as I said I witnessed it.
Click to expand...
I think you are not capable of objective thought on the subject if you actually believe that the pelters towards Andrew stopped after a few weeks. There were two TV dramas produced about his interview ffs.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I think you are not capable of objective thought on the subject if you actually believe that the pelters towards Andrew stopped after a few weeks. There were two TV dramas produced about his interview ffs.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying they stopped but he wasnt talked about every day on every single news/daytime programme like Harry and Meghan were. (Who have been accused of nothing btw). Just saying. As for the two TV dramas - is that it?
 
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...
The continuing soap opera on Newsnight as the BBC seeks to expiate its Saville sins with whole programmes devoted to marketing the sobbing family's book is truly sickening. Now some BM sages are trying to blame Andrew's parents for his conduct - utterly contemptible.
 
Trickyblues said:
I’m not saying they stopped but he wasnt talked about every day on every single news/daytime programme like Harry and Meghan were. (Who have been accused of nothing btw). Just saying. As for the two TV dramas - is that it?
Click to expand...
You literally said he got pelters for a few weeks ‘and that was it’. Your words not mine. How else can those words be interpreted other than it stopped?

Now you appear to be backtracking from what you chose to post, but simultaneously going on the attack, which is amusing if nothing else.
 
johnny crossan said:
The continuing soap opera on Newsnight as the BBC seeks to expiate its Saville sins with whole programmes devoted to marketing the sobbing family's book is truly sickening. Now some BM sages are trying to blame Andrew's parents for his conduct - utterly contemptible.
Click to expand...
You haven’t responded to my previous point. Are you suggesting his mother bears no responsibility for how he ended up?
 
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...
Rachael and Angela say 'Hi'
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
You literally said he got pelters for a few weeks ‘and that was it’. Your words not mine. How else can those words be interpreted other than it stopped?

Now you appear to be backtracking from what you chose to post, but simultaneously going on the attack, which is amusing if nothing else.
Click to expand...
I’m not backtracking on anything. The level of ‘pelters’ he immediately and rightly received in the aftermath of the interview can not be compared to how he was (or wasn’t) reported on further down the line.

Enjoy the rest of your day :)
 
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