PDA

View Full Version : Andy


dazdaz1
2nd Jan 2015, 15:20
Never knew of this...........

BBC News - Prince Andrew sex case claim denied (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30659629)

Lon More
2nd Jan 2015, 15:22
been a bit handy




(allegedly)

G-CPTN
2nd Jan 2015, 16:07
Never knew of this . . .
Why would you? :confused:

SpringHeeledJack
2nd Jan 2015, 16:37
Probably been off the radar, hiding in plain sight and managed by those with much influence. That friend of his is……an interesting character. The headline is provocative as it leads one to think of JS and his ilk. In this case it's more likely a very worldly 17 year old, though that doesn't diminish the sociopathic pimping of such girls to business associates. As an aside an ex concubine of Epstein became a pilot and was doing very well for herself as of a year ago :suspect:


SHJ

Tankertrashnav
2nd Jan 2015, 16:51
I rarely look at Twitter, mainly because I can never work out how to tweet, but this afternoon I had a look and noticed on there that Andy was alleged to have had sex with a miner.

I guess if you like your sex dirty...

;)

Linedog
2nd Jan 2015, 18:17
Now't dirtier than a ginger................ :)

coldair
2nd Jan 2015, 21:04
In the Daily Mail ;


Woman who accuses Prince Andrew of abusing her says she will 'not be victimised' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2894480/Prince-Andrew-repeatedly-slept-sex-slave-controlled-underage-prostitution-ring-U-S-court-papers-claim.html)




coldair

Mr Chips
2nd Jan 2015, 21:11
The BBC just reported on the news about this case and then said "Prince Andrew now has to live with an allegation he denies"...well, don't make it lead story then!

Also, slightly confused...

As part of the latest court motion, documents have been filed in which the woman alleges she slept with Andrew at three locations; London, New York and the US Virgin Islands.
The woman involved in the case is said to have been 17 at the time of the alleged meetings, meaning she was underage according to the law in Florida.
London- not in Florida
New York - not in Florida
US Virgin Islands - not in Florida

VP959
2nd Jan 2015, 21:43
Like a few here, I suspect, I came into contact with him a few times during his RN career. The first occasion was when he was a midshipman at Culdrose, and rather pompously insisted on being referred to as "HRH Midshipman Prince Andrew". Having vaguely known his older brother a few years earlier, who insisted that everyone just called him Charles (and signed 700's and his own log books as Charles Windsor), I thought Prince Andrew was a bit of a prat, TBH.

This was confirmed when I had the misfortune to be drinking in the Lady Street Club when he was kicked out for spitting beer across the dance floor, and then a few years later when I had dealings with him when he was in operational requirements.

Although I think the blokes a prat, I don't think he would have engaged in anything that's been suggested in the recent press articles. He was too dim, for one thing, with the exception that he was actually a pretty natural pilot, IIRC. I do remember chatting to his SB PPOs a few times, who were pretty stressed at having to try and look after him.

419
2nd Jan 2015, 21:54
Also, slightly confused...

London- not in Florida
New York - not in Florida
US Virgin Islands - not in Florida

There is a reason the case was filed in Florida.

Buckingham Palace has denied "any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors" by Prince Andrew, after he was named in US court papers.

A woman named him in documents she filed in a Florida court over how prosecutors handled a case against financier Jeffrey Epstein.

and the prince had also visited Epstein at his Florida home over the years.

Epstein is a Florida resident so the case can be heard in a Florida court.

Bronx
2nd Jan 2015, 23:50
VP959 I thought Prince Andrew was a bit of a prat, TBH.

I guess it depends on how well you know someone.

I don't think Flying Lawyer would agree with you if this picture is anything to go by.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Album/TA%20Banquet%202013/DoY1.jpg
HH Judge Tudor Owen & HRH Prince Andrew Duke of York


More pictures here of Prince Andrew with a true American hero. (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/524800-jim-lovell-honoured-guild-air-pilots-now-incl-photographs.html)


B.

oldpax
3rd Jan 2015, 00:26
Prince Andrew denies it."Well he would wouldn't he!!!"famous words from long ago!!

Don_Apron
3rd Jan 2015, 06:54
Too many lids, been kept on too many wiffs of scandal for far too long, by too many people in high places.!! The lid on this one obviously wasn't "screwed down"!

One photo speaks a 1,000 words.

Thank God for "free speech".

Flagon
3rd Jan 2015, 09:34
Hey, Bronx - do you or FL know if there is a third verse of "The Grand Old Duke of York"? We know about "the 10,000 men".

funfly
3rd Jan 2015, 09:51
Takes after Uncle Mountbatten perhaps?

chevvron
3rd Jan 2015, 09:56
Probably trying to divert attention from the fact Barack Obama's marriage is on the rocks and he maintains a 'love nest' in a Washington Hotel where he 'meets' his girlfriends.
(My wife reads the 'National Enquirer' and it's all there in great detail.)

VP959
3rd Jan 2015, 11:25
Bronx,

I guess we're all different. FL knows me slightly (as in we've met professionally a few times) and I suspect we have different views about a lot of people.

On every occasion that I had contact with Prince Andrew (almost all work-related) I just had an instinctive dislike of the bloke, as a person. Just a personal thing, nothing more.

Lord Spandex Masher
3rd Jan 2015, 11:37
VP959

I guess it depends on how well you know someone.

I don't think Flying Lawyer would agree with you if this picture is anything to go by.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Album/TA%20Banquet%202013/DoY1.jpg


More pictures here of Prince Andrew with a true American hero. (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/524800-jim-lovell-honoured-guild-air-pilots-now-incl-photographs.html)


B.

Of course, one would have to assume they're not of the same ilk.

Flagon
3rd Jan 2015, 12:35
Well, Bronx, while I know FL would agree with you 100%, this from August 2011 would influence my opinion, at least.
The Trouble with Andrew | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/08/prince-andrew-201108#)

Bronx
3rd Jan 2015, 13:31
Flagon third verse of "The Grand Old Duke of York"? We know about "the 10,000 men".

Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand women;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.

And when he was up, he was up,
And when they were down, he was up,
And when he was only half-way up,
He was getting kinda tired.



Prince Andrew comes across as a spoilt brat.
All credit to him for a full career as a helicopter pilot in the Royal Navy but has he worked since then? He's still only in his 50's.
Has Princess Ann ever had a proper job or has she always been a professional Royal?
I guess if you have a monarchy then funding them to live a life of luxury goes with the territory.

VP959
3rd Jan 2015, 13:49
Prince Andrew comes across as a spoilt brat.
All credit to him for a full career as a helicopter pilot in the Royal Navy but has he worked since then? He's still only in his 50's.

I first met him at Culdrose when he was on 705 as a student. He came across as an obnoxious prat, both on and off duty. To give him credit, he was, by all accounts, a pretty good helo pilot though.

He did serve for longer than a lot of royals and had a fair few desk jobs (I next came across him when he was in town working in OR).

Anyone who was around him then will know full well that he was close to being childish and definitely boorish when it came to women, embarrassingly so at times. It's one reason I just took an instant dislike to him, together with his daft (but strictly correct) insistence on the use of his full royal title (even to the extent of insisting it be on his coverall name tag).

What jobs are the Queen's children allowed to do outside the military? Has Princess Ann ever had a proper job or has she always been a professional Royal?
I guess if you have a monarchy then funding them to live a life of luxury goes with the territory.

Princess Anne does a heck of a lot of work, most of which she won't talk about, and without a doubt "earns her keep" in terms of the income she generates. I met her a few times when she was eventing (my ex was also into the sport) and she was a very different person to the one the press portrayed her as at the time. Personally I have a fair bit of admiration for her, as she's veered away from precedent and done her own thing (for example, her children have no titles, at her insistence).

As for jobs, then I'd guess most of the royals end up supporting charities by way of work, and very good they are at it too. Some do far more than they ever allow to be made public. Some also have enough income from their estates as to be net contributors to the economy, the Queen and Prince Charles spring to mind as being amongst those who pay as much (maybe more) in tax than they receive from taxpayers.

Prince Andrew's specific problem is that he feels duty-bound to fund his ex-wife, who, by all accounts, spends money like water and has no official source of income from the taxpayer or the Royal Family. In order to bail her out he seems to often form ill-judged alliances.

Flagon
3rd Jan 2015, 13:52
Bronx - "third verse of "The Grand Old Duke of York"?" I LIKE that! However, there goes your knighthood.......

fitliker
3rd Jan 2015, 13:52
Did Epstein know Saville ?

Low Flier
3rd Jan 2015, 14:07
Andrew is the spitting image of his natural father.:E

Whoops! There goes my knighthood.

Bronx
3rd Jan 2015, 14:44
there goes your knighthood.......
Arise Sir Bronx?
I don't think so.
Not unless they make me Mayor of NYC first.


http://www.toonpool.com/user/997/files/knighthood_money_instead_king_1552485.jpg

dazdaz1
3rd Jan 2015, 14:55
I was wondering, if there are a few more twists and turns in this case could the Florida Judge order the extradition (I think that's the right word) of Andy to give his version of events in the court?

Tankertrashnav
3rd Jan 2015, 15:18
No fan of HRH, but I am even less of a fan of the situation where a woman can make an accusation like this which is bound to make the world's headlines, and yet retain total anonymity. At least one source has said she has a history of making false accusations, but of course as we aren't allowed to know who she is, this can neither be proved or disproved.

One things for sure, even if Andy emarges from this with his reputation 100% intact, there will still be malicious people hinting that there's no smoke without fire, etc. Just look at all the morons (including plenty on here) who do silly nudge nuge wink wink posts about Prince Harry's paternity, in spite of that particular rumour being well and truly scotched years ago. Btw Low Flier, what natural father are you referring to?

Never thought I'd feel sorry for "air miles Andy", but in this occasion I do!

Andrew is the spitting image of his natural father.

Whoops! There goes my knighthood.

What natural father would that be Low Flier? In other words who was HM having an affair with around 1960?

Or are you getting a bit confused?

VP959
3rd Jan 2015, 15:30
Confused I think. By all accounts the Queen was smitten with the Duke of Edinburgh (as he became) from the time she was a very young girl.

dazdaz1
3rd Jan 2015, 16:06
VP959.... "Confused I think. By all accounts the Queen was smitten with the Duke of Edinburgh (as he became) from the time she was a very young girl."

It may be so, young ladies are smitten, I doubt very much that sexual intercourse took place before their marriage. Having said that, maybe the odd hand job.

Lon More
3rd Jan 2015, 16:42
Has Princess Ann ever had a proper job or has she always been a professional Royal?

I heard, from an ex-army bloke a number of years ago that fit young guardsmen at Windsor were expected to provide services above and beyond the call of duty. No idea if there's any truth in it.

Andrew is the spitting image of his natural father.
Getting confused with Harry? :eek:


The ffrench had the right idea with their royals http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww173/prestonjjrtr/Halloween/GuillotineHeadChop.gif

NutLoose
3rd Jan 2015, 16:47
VP959.... "Confused I think. By all accounts the Queen was smitten with the Duke of Edinburgh (as he became) from the time she was a very young girl."

It may be so, young ladies are smitten, I doubt very much that sexual intercourse took place before their marriage. Having said that, maybe the odd hand job.



Rofl, I wonder if he got a Queens or at the time Princesses Royal Warrant for supplier of services..

As for Prince Andrew, totally not surprised if it is true, I feel for the girl getting dragged through this, but if one felt uncomfortable about it all the first time, why on earth would you go back for the desert course?

fitliker
3rd Jan 2015, 17:04
Play nice boys , That is someone`s mum you are talking about .

funfly
3rd Jan 2015, 17:07
Andrew is someone's mum ?

fitliker
3rd Jan 2015, 18:25
No, no him, Him`s maw.


She is not in a position to defend herself against gossip and gutter snipping. She cannot climb down into the cesspit of the internet or tabloids .Like the Maxwells.


Andy is a big enough lad let him fight his own battles. But leave his maw ,oot of it please, as she is a very nice person. Who deserves our loyalties and respect.

Fareastdriver
3rd Jan 2015, 18:38
I would have thought that this young lady was at the time officially a minor. Therefore she would have had to obtain parential permission to obtain a passport.

"Hey Mom! This guy's taking me over to Europe and I'm going to meet a real prince."

Oh Yeah.

Lon More
3rd Jan 2015, 18:58
sounds like the bass for a reality tv programme, A Royal Screwing (but think the Muricans already did it)

Low Flier
3rd Jan 2015, 19:59
What natural father would that be Low Flier?

Andrew's natural father, natch.

G-CPTN
3rd Jan 2015, 22:10
The first full account of the masseuse at the centre of the explosive Prince Andrew 'sex slave' drama | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895735/The-account-masseuse-centre-explosive-Prince-Andrew-sex-slave-drama-telling-truth.html)

More at:- Home | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html)

OldCessna
3rd Jan 2015, 23:02
He is not the only person named.

Good luck trying to prosecute this guy

Alan Dershowitz Denies Sexual Assault Allegations As 'A Complete And Total Lie' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/03/alan-dershowitz-sexual-assault_n_6410380.html)

Flagon
4th Jan 2015, 07:46
Let's hope Virginia Roberts doesn't have any unfortunate accidents.:=

Flying Lawyer
4th Jan 2015, 07:49
BronxPrince Andrew comes across as a spoilt brat.
All credit to him for a full career as a helicopter pilot in the Royal Navy but has he worked since then? He's still only in his 50's.
He is a full-time working member of the Royal Family.
In addition to his own official duties he represents The Queen both in Britain and overseas. (HM is 88.)
He is actively involved in promoting education and skills (including vocational learning for youngsters), entrepreneurship and Britain's science, technology and engineering sector.
He also supports many charitable and 'not for profit' organisations, not just as a Royal figurehead but taking a keen interest in and actively supporting the work. I have had personal experience of things mysteriously happening following a conversation with him where the only possible explanation was that he had intervened, but he has never once accepted the credit and carries off (feigned) surprise extremely well when formally told about the welcome development.
He isn't popular with the Press so very little of the work he does is reported. In contrast, whenever they have an opportunity to try to damage him there is extensive no holds barred press coverage - as can be seen currently.


VP959
I'm very surprised that you consider the Duke of York to be "dim". That's certainly not my experience of him; far from it.
I have had several discussions on various topics with him over the years, some formal on pre-arranged subjects and some which have arisen during the course of ordinary conversation on social occasions, and I have always found him to be well-informed, insightful and shrewd. He can be outspoken and blunt at times - no prizes for guessing where he gets that from. ;)

He can certainly be brusque on occasions, and I doubt if he would claim to be the most easy going of the Royals. That accolade goes, without question in my opinion, to the Duke of Edinburgh who is truly wonderful company. (The only people I know who'd disagree with that are those who've failed to distinguish between appropriate courtesy and obsequious sycophancy - a very big mistake with the Duke of Edinburgh.) However, he is a very hard act for anyone to follow.


TankertrashnavOne things for sure, even if Andy emerges from this with his reputation 100% intact, there will still be malicious people hinting that there's no smoke without fire, etc. Just look at all the morons (including plenty on here) who do silly nudge nudge wink wink posts about Prince Harry's paternity, in spite of that particular rumour being well and truly scotched years ago.
Sad though it is, you're absolutely right.


Low Flier
I'm old enough to know what you're getting at. However, I regard that rumour with the same contempt as I regard the utter nonsense about Prince Harry's paternity that, disgracefully, is dragged through the gutters from time to time.
Hope you do too.


FL

Low Flier
4th Jan 2015, 08:09
I stand by my assertion that Andrew is the spitting image of his natural father. I also recognise that he has adopted some of the notorious crassness of Philip. Those two facts are not at all incompatible.

One is nature, the other is nurture.

As for Harry and his Afrika Korps jape, that was more nurture than nature. Not a genetic thing at all.

As a lawyer, I'm sure you'll have smiled a wry grin at Andrew's non-denial denial that he porked the femme in question.

VP959
4th Jan 2015, 09:24
FL wrote:

VP959
I'm very surprised that you consider the Duke of York to be "dim". That's certainly not my experience of him; far from it.
I have had several discussions on various topics with him over the years, some formal on pre-arranged subjects and some which have arisen during the course of ordinary conversation on social occasions, and I have always found him to be well-informed, insightful and shrewd. He can be outspoken and blunt at times - no prizes for guessing where he gets that from.

He can certainly be brusque on occasions, and I doubt if he would claim to be the most easy going of the Royals. That accolade goes, without question in my opinion, to the Duke of Edinburgh who is truly wonderful company. (The only people I know who'd disagree with that are those who've failed to distinguish between appropriate courtesy and obsequious sycophancy - a very big mistake with the Duke of Edinburgh.) However, he is a very hard act for anyone to follow.


My view was formed mainly from near-daily contact with him in the wardroom at Culdrose, back when he was a student, plus a few occasions later in his naval career when he was in OR, and didn't (in my view) seem to have a good handle on what his job actually was (and I'll admit that he wasn't unique in that respect, in that particular role). I accept that he may have changed, but most of what I've read since about him shows that he is still obnoxious and blunt.

His older sister has the same inherited trait of being blunt, but in her case she is actually a very different person underneath what often seems a brash exterior, or at least was on the few relaxed occasions when I met her during her competitive career.

Sadly, I have the view that Prince Andrew has never quite learned to rein in his inherited rudeness, or, perhaps, his penchant for behaving inappropriately with women. His unofficial nickname when he was younger (at least around the time I regularly came into contact with him) was "Randy Andy". I doubt that side of his behaviour has changed.

I remember being in a club in Helston when he was there and one of his PPOs was looking bored, stood at the door end of the bar, whilst his charge was behaving pretty atrociously with some fellow students. I remarked to the PPO that he didn't seem to have an easy job and got a terse reply saying he was asking for a transfer as he'd had enough of it.

The difference may be that you have met him as a more mature individual in more formal circumstances, whereas most occasions when I came into contact with him the surroundings were fairly, or very, informal.

dazdaz1
4th Jan 2015, 16:17
From reading the OP it seems, that the alleged happenings took place in New York, London and Caribbean Island.

London, no charge as to age.

New York, I found it totally complicated to determine the AOC with a 10+ years older adult.

Caribbean Island (which one?) I presume under British law. 16 years of age.

Daz

airship
4th Jan 2015, 18:02
I'm no great fan of the Royal family. But wonder what all the fuss is about? Who here have not 'bonked' a few 16 or 17 year olds...?! Though admittedly the last time I had the pleasure of doing so, was back in the late '70s / early '80s.

It will nevertheless, be interesting to see if His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Canadian Forces Decoration, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty etc. would voluntarily appear 'in person' as a witness at any subsequent trial if or when called to do so. Or if things ever took a turn for the worse and he's named a defendant, whether or not the UK government would accede (quite so easily as they usually do) to any US court's request for extradition...?!

I recall how David Cameron addressed the House of Commons when the Duke and Duchess and Cambridge were expecting their second child : "On behalf of the whole country, I'm sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating them on this fantastic news and wishing them well in the months ahead."
Will the PM make any similar announcement concerning Andy when parliament reconvenes in the New Year...? :}

I'm pleasantly surprised that the UK press have not yet apparently been subjected to any "gag orders" or "super-injunctions". Of course, if there were any "secret ones", I (we) wouldn't know about them. Having said that, I've noted that any discussion of Andy's tribulations have been scrupulously avoided on recent Sky News' evening press reviews. I do admire how those participating have managed to talk about everything on the front pages except for...?! Perhaps Rupert Murdoch is still hoping for a Knighthood in addition to the "Companion of the Order of Australia", despite his recent News of the World activities? It's never too late. For him or for me, I'd like to think. :ok:

Bronx
4th Jan 2015, 18:20
dazdaz1 New York, I found it totally complicated to determine the AOC with a 10+ years older adult.
The age of consent in New York State is 17 years.


airship

Why should the British Prime Minister make an announcement about allegations made in some civil case in Florida? :confused:

G-CPTN
4th Jan 2015, 18:21
The alacrity with which an official denial was issued suggest that these events were known about and acknowledged but have been assessed and adjudged as benign (on the grounds that no criminal offence was committed).

If there was any new evidence, then there would, presumably, have been a hiatus whilst the allegations were considered.

airship
4th Jan 2015, 19:03
Bronx wrote: Why should the British Prime Minister make an announcement about allegations made in some civil case in Florida? :confused:

Why should the British Prime Minister have made an announcement about someone expecting a (2nd) baby...? :p

Bronx
4th Jan 2015, 19:24
Why?

I guess because the parents are the future King and Queen of England and the pregnancy was a confirmed fact not just some allegation.

airship
4th Jan 2015, 19:26
I give up... :zzz:

fitliker
4th Jan 2015, 20:02
I wonder if Koo Stark will be in the new Star Wars movie ?

VP959
4th Jan 2015, 20:19
One has to remember that there is a certain favouritism regarding the Royal Family, both within the family (much as with any other family) and within the country.

Some have deep respect and affection within both their own family and within the country. Some have respect and affection within their own family, but less so with the general public, and vice versa, and some have little respect on either side.

Sometimes these reputations are deserved, sometimes they aren't.

For example,I gather that Prince William is regarded quite highly both within the family and by the public, whereas Prince Andrew may be highly regarded by his family but generally doesn't command a great deal of public respect. For that matter neither does his older brother who is (rather unfortunately in my view) looked upon as a bit odd, and his older sister earned a reputation for being rather too like her father when she was much younger, and doesn't deserve it either, in my view.

My other half had some professional dealings with Prince Harry for a year or so (and had occasion for him to call her ma'am and apologise to her) and she thinks he's a pretty normal sort of bloke (for an AAC pilot), and a bit of a jack-the-lad like his colleagues. I gather he's well-liked generally, but suspect that he's somewhat treading a fine line with his family.

All of these factors have a massive impact on reporting in the media, particularly the tabloids. They like nothing better than playing to the old and established stereotypes, whether they be true or false. So, Prince Andrew pretty much always gets played up as the "Randy Andy" character, with rather poor judgement when it comes to forming relationships with both men and women. Prince Charles inevitably gets portrayed as a harmless eccentric with the press inevitably focussing on his second wife, rather than him. Princess Anne has struggled to escape from the reputation she earned for being blunt and rude to the press when she was younger, and her long-term commitment and hard work for a number of good causes often seems to be overshadowed. Prince William is always portrayed as the "golden boy" in the media, whereas his brother, Prince Harry, is often singled out and portrayed as a bit of a playboy (undeserved, as he is the most professional one of the Royal Family, bar none, when it comes to doing his job).


I'd guess that 90% of what's published in the media is either outright untrue or gross exaggeration. Much as I have a fairly low opinion of Prince Andrew, I doubt very much if even he would indulge in sex with an under-age girl. He may lack judgement, and be somewhat obnoxious towards women generally, but I don't think he'd do something so daft, even in one of his weaker moments.

Loose rivets
5th Jan 2015, 00:22
Posted it seems from my home in Texas. 2005. I haven't changed my views.




I've said all this before, but I recall thinking that if I had been the King or Queen during the war, I wouldn't have been climbing over bomb rubble in the East end of London when I could have been in Scotland or even Canada.

It meant so much to the people in the Blitz.

People now think that they don't need royalty, or God, or anything really - except perhaps a new telly and here, a truck the size of a house.

I think it's probably true the Queen will be the last truly royal, Royal, but I remember Charles as a bright eyed young man with all the expectations of a future king and also the hopes of a normal youngster. He was a goon fan...remember the B&W film of him raising an axe to his flying instructor and falling over backwards? He was a hoot.

If you keep, and I mean for 30 years, lampooning a future monarch, finally you will break their spirit and leave them not really caring for the ‘top job' in the same way that their predecessors would have done. Even his beloved Spike turned on him in the most cruel way imaginable in front of a huge audience. Later banter was probably made with a heavy heart.

The infamous phone call? Well, just more Goonery. Just the sort of thing that I would have said to Mrs LR when we were courting. Come to think of it, I said a lot worse...in the name of humor. The people that re-promulgated it were the total B#$tards. "you be the judge" they cried. NO, you be the money-orientated scum that snigger away at an indiscretion.
It reminded me of the story of a Chinese couple that had their room bugged on their wedding night. The nuptials were Tannoyed over the village. The bride killed herself.

The very nature of our island, with the Queen as its head, make us just a little different to many of the nations we seem to be surreptitiously melding with. The royal family really do not place a significant NET financial burden on the British people. Look at some of the big British company names that invest here . . . until recently exceeding the sum of five other major investors - including Germany and Japan. Perhaps we should be more concerned with some of the accounting associated with this kind of international business, rather than concern ourselves with people that have assets that make the public money look like loose change.

I know that some people would like to see the Monarchy stripped of these assets. Well, that's quite another argument. But suffice it to say that I was under the impression that we have spent a lot of lives fighting against people that had taken such action in recent history.

Flying Lawyer
5th Jan 2015, 00:32
Low FlierAs a lawyer, I'm sure you'll have smiled a wry grin at Andrew's non-denial denial that he porked the femme in question.
I didn't.
Nor did I interpret the statement(s) as you have done.

VP959The difference may be that you have met him as a more mature individual
That may well explain our different perceptions.
It's just one of the several reasons I regard old tales about him "behaving pretty atrociously with some fellow students" and allegations about him having a "penchant for behaving inappropriately with women" as so unfair, particularly at the moment. He's been single for much of his adult life and, unsurprisingly, he's been involved with several attractive women over the years. So what? He's also a famously devoted father, and has been impeccably loyal to his ex-wife in circumstances in which many men might not.
It's all very well to say "I doubt very much if he would indulge in sex with an under-age girl" - so why bring up old tittle tattle?

I'm relieved that people don't drag up some of the things I did when I was a student on a night out and I'm sure many of my fellow students feel the same. We had to work hard on a notoriously demanding degree course and when we played we played hard. Looking back, some of our activities could also be described as 'pretty atrocious' and/or 'inappropriate', and older observers probably held much the same view as you watching students, but it was very enjoyable at the time - and best left in the mists of 'a long time ago'.
I'm certain the women involved would take the same view, perhaps even more strongly.

airshipIt will nevertheless, be interesting to see if His Royal Highness .... would voluntarily appear 'in person' as a witness at any subsequent trial if or when called to do so.
I see no reason why he should. It's a civil claim in a Florida court by some people who hope to obtain damages from the US government.
Parties and their lawyers may have all sorts of reasons for naming public figures in legal actions, sometimes good and sometimes not. Is it just possible they think the inevitable international publicity will help them? Perhaps by inducing the government to agree to a settlement that would not otherwise be offered? I have no idea, but it would be naive not to consider the possibility. Or if things ever took a turn for the worse and he's named a defendant, whether or not the UK government would accede ... to any US court's request for extradition...?!
No country, as far as I'm aware, extradites defendants named in civil actions.

fitliker
5th Jan 2015, 04:29
They are trying too hard to get the media excited.Attempting to get a trial by media .Might backfire,as thin evidence that might fool a simple jury . The shallowness and lack of evidence will be subject to a real grinding by Jurists and talking heads.
My guess is that there is no evidence of non-consensual activity with regards to our Prince.A Prince who has been in harms way ,so the Falklanders would not have to learn a foreign language.
Even though the UK does not have a national guard ,A spoilt brat would have found an easy way of dodging bullets.He has been in harms way defending people,that earns him some respect in my local.

The retired sluts should have just stuck to seeking damages from Epstein the purveyor of prepubescent poontang and his female cohort Maxwell.

Alloa Akbar
5th Jan 2015, 08:07
I know Andy gets a bit of a slating in some sections of the Navy, I met him when he was (I believe..??) XO of 815 NAS. I was on MARTSU at the time and along with a colleague we were spending the bank holiday repairing a Lynx ready for deployment. I recall being in the back of the cab when this head popped in through a hole we had cut in the fuselage - Prince Andrew. He stayed and chatted for a bit and thanked us for working the weekend, and then left. We stayed inside the cab and carried on working, but about half an hour later when we stopped for lunch we found two slabs of beer and a note from HRH repeating his appreciation..

OK like many others I saw him kick a few doors / bins / desks.. But then so did I.. doesn't make him a bad bloke, and I can't imagine too many Royals who would take time out of their weekend to buy some beer for a couple of Chief Tiffs..

VP959
5th Jan 2015, 08:36
FL wrote:

That may well explain our different perceptions.
It's just one of the several reasons I regard old tales about him "behaving pretty atrociously with some fellow students" and allegations about him having a "penchant for behaving inappropriately with women" as so unfair, particularly at the moment. He's been single for much of his adult life and, unsurprisingly, he's been involved with several attractive women over the years. So what? He's also a famously devoted father, and has been impeccably loyal to his ex-wife in circumstances in which many men might not.
It's all very well to say "I doubt very much if he would indulge in sex with an under-age girl" - so why bring up old tittle tattle?
I'm relieved that people don't drag up some of the things I did when I was a student on a night out and I'm sure many of my fellow students feel the same. We had to work hard on a notoriously demanding degree course and when we played we played hard. Looking back, some of our activities could also be described as 'pretty atrocious' and/or 'inappropriate', and older observers probably held much the same view as you watching students, but it was very enjoyable at the time - and best left in the mists of 'a long time ago'.
I'm certain the women involved would take the same view, perhaps even more strongly.


The main difference was that he was an officer in the Royal Navy, not just a student. Yes, aircrew in general have a reputation for high spirits, and students perhaps a little more so, but there are limits. Most would get the message when a woman didn't want her bottom pinched, or worse, for example, even then.

My comment on the under age bit you have edited and hence changed the emphasis somewhat. It was a comment intended by me to demonstrate that, although I don't like the chap, I simply don't believe that he has done what he is being accused of by the media and the woman at the heart of this civil case.

I know that he sometimes behaved pretty inappropriately around women that were around his own age, some of whom accepted it (or even welcomed the attention) but equally some of them made it clear that they didn't, but he never quite seemed to get that message and behaved in the same way towards them anyway.

Another point that comes up time and time again is that he has seemingly made a habit of forming friendships and relationships with people that many would consider to be ill-judged for someone in his position. You and I both had very different careers, but nevertheless I suspect that you, like I considered personal friendships and relationships carefully in light of the impact they may have on our careers. Sadly I'm not at all sure that Prince Andrew has ever grasped that those he chose to be friends with, or have relationships with, would have a direct bearing on his "career" as a working member of the Royal Family "firm".

airship
5th Jan 2015, 19:20
FL wrote: It's a civil claim in a Florida court by some people who hope to obtain damages from the US government...

Ahh yes, "some people". Which might more accurately describe "one's own" viewpoint or stance when dealing with the riffraff...?!

No country, as far as I'm aware, extradites defendants named in civil actions.

But do "civil actions" ever lead to or result in "criminal prosecutions"?

I do hope FL's "client" (or why on earth is he defending him here pro-bono as it were...?!) is eventually cleared (despite my not being a great fan of the Royal family).

If only not to preserve my own UK-passport inviolability , or risk being considered an International 'laughing stock' each time I venture out of the Schengen-area and have to present my UK passport on re-entry...?!

PS. I'm eternally grateful that I've never received any personal invitations to attend one of Silvio's bunga-bunga gatherings. They might be a great way to make new contacts with influential folk, but wouldn't all those adolescent females wandering about the place somewhat negate the real purpose of my most honourable intentions? Whether or not in the service of Her Majesty? :ok:

Flash2001
5th Jan 2015, 22:32
There was a certain Harvard Law Professor on CNN today who seemed a trifle miffed that he had been listed as a transgressor along with HRH. He used phrases like "Sue for $100,000,000" and "Disbarred and jailed". He also gave an ad hoc lesson on legal ethics. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

After an excellent landing etc...

fitliker
5th Jan 2015, 23:33
Bill Clinton Underage Sex Lawsuit Shocker! - The National Enquirer (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/bill-clinton-underage-sex-lawsuit-shocker-jeffrey-epstein)


Sloppy seconds and dirty thirds ,yuck.

Bronx
6th Jan 2015, 20:15
Hey VP959.
Good to see you online.

Were you ever an officer in the Royal Navy?
Or a military pilot of any sort?
Or were you civilian staff?

Just curious.
Respect your anonymity but a short answer would be good.
Yes/No even better. :)


Thanks.

B.

V2-OMG!
7th Jan 2015, 02:59
Had Messr. Dershowtiz been retained by HRH, instead of being implicated as a co-accused, he would be experiencing considerable deja vu while browsing through some of your reply:

Alan Dershowitz (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0798779/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): You do have one thing in your favor: everybody hates you.
Claus von Bülow (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000460/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Well, that's a start.
- Reversal of Fortune (1990)

OutlawPete
7th Jan 2015, 08:59
From reading the OP it seems, that the alleged happenings took place in New York, London and Caribbean Island.

London, no charge as to age.

New York, I found it totally complicated to determine the AOC with a 10+ years older adult.

Caribbean Island (which one?) I presume under British law. 16 years of age.

Daz


Debatable when discussing this issue in relation to London. The age of consent for England and Wales is, of course 16. However, if a 30-something male, engages in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old girl AND he is considered to be in a "trusted position" then it may require investigation. If she is over 18 at the time then it's not an issue.

A grey area and it all depends on the view of whether the older party is considered to be in a trusted position or not.

Low Flier
8th Jan 2015, 07:59
http://s11.postimg.org/pmzs0d1ub/Andy2.jpg

Low Flier
8th Jan 2015, 08:01
http://s10.postimg.org/m2nlypgah/Andy1.jpg

CISTRS
23rd Jan 2015, 12:52
The British "Establishment" is sailing so very close to the wind.

So Andy's Davos statement is it?
The child sex abuse enquiry is in terminal disarray.
Leon Brittan has died, leaving many unanswered questions.
The Chilcot enquiry (supposed to be independent of politics) has been delayed to be released after the next election.

fitliker
23rd Jan 2015, 14:39
What do you think Epstein's motives were for providing party girls to the rich and powerful ?
Blackmail ?
Favour for favours ?


If it was blackmail ,I would suspect that more pictures and possibly video somewhere that will not be safe for showing on TV.
The sweetheart deal Epstein made with the authorities means he must have given the authorities something useful ,names ,dates ,pictures ???
Or maybe the Andy smokescreen is just to protect Epstein's other very important "friends" from media scrutiny in an election year.

oldchina
23rd Jan 2015, 14:59
Yep, I bet the local girls work overtime when the bigwigs are there.

airship
24th Jan 2015, 13:38
Whatever the truth behind all the allegations and present controversy, speaking on the subject at Davos would have required a major effort from HRH Prince Andrew. Davos is quite a distance from the £13 million chalet the Royal couple recently acquired (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-30759303) in Verbier:

A 7-hour (train+bus) ride, cost approx. SFR 145.
Or 4-hours by road.
But just a mere 215km or so by air and HRH could fly himself saving a few bob too... ;)

Super VC-10
24th Jan 2015, 18:51
I don't think there's anything in it. I saw a photo and thought "Ewww, who'd want to sh*g that!" Then I saw a photo of the woman alleged to be involve, and thought to myself "she's no looker either". :}

Wedge
25th Jan 2015, 16:03
Like everyone else on this thread, I don’t know if these allegations are true. And in fact, notwithstanding their two public denials, Buckingham Palace don’t know if they’re true or not.

The only people who know the truth are Andrew himself, Virginia Roberts and the others who were there at the time. And if the allegations are true, Andrew is hardly likely to admit that they are. That’s why such public denials don’t take us very far. If the allegations are true they’d be denied, and if they’re lies they’d also be denied. That does leave Andrew in a rather unenviable position, and the damage now done to his reputation by the publication of these allegations cannot be reversed regardless of their truth or otherwise.

However, the more that is made public about the allegations, the more credible they sound to me.

Andrew has been photographed with the complainant, so he can’t say he’s never met her.

His former friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is a matter of public record which he has been forced to apologise for.

Ms Roberts has released a diary which she purportedly kept at the time (what, if genuine, a historian would call a 'primary source') referring to the ‘member of the British Royal Family she knew at first only as ‘Andy’, and gives a detailed account of the time she spent with Andrew in London.

Roberts’ lawyers say that flight data from Epstein’s private jet corroborate Roberts’ account (although I’ve yet to see that evidence).

But in Andrew’s favour, she was not underage in English law (it appears she was at least 17 on all three occasions she states she had sex with Andrew). That’s irrelevant of course to the legal position in the USA/Virgin Islands where the other two episodes are alleged to have happened but it does go to the morality of it. However, if she was held as a ‘sex slave’ as she suggests, or was there in any way against her will, then the English law as it is today would raise a presumption of rape (although wouldn’t have done at the time the events are alleged to have happened, FWIW).

Of course there is a potential motivation (money) for concocting such a story. But it sounds like a very elaborate lie to me if she is lying.

FL:

I have had personal experience of things mysteriously happening following a conversation with him where the only possible explanation was that he had intervened, but he has never once accepted the credit and carries off (feigned) surprise extremely well when formally told about the welcome development.

Such influence which leads to things 'mysteriously happening', which I don't doubt he has, can be used for nefarious as well as charitable means, can't it?

G-CPTN
7th Apr 2015, 16:57
Judge orders Prince Andrew sex allegations struck from court record | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/07/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-florida)

Lon More
7th Apr 2015, 18:39
Only the allegations which were deemed irrelevant to the class action she was trying to bring

broadreach
7th Apr 2015, 21:41
And beware of trolls on here lest you be called on as a character witness.