Tony EH wrote: » Never mentioned anything about things not "being wrong". It's only about what can be proven.
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » A 'psychopathic sadist' 'powerful billionaire*' will attract similar types. The question now, is will anyone else be held accountable? *Very unlikely.
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » Tony EH wrote: » Never mentioned anything about things not "being wrong". It's only about what can be proven. He was proven/convicted before. Could well in future be proven again - if that's at all possible when he's absent, down in the burning pits of hell. We are of course talking about things being wrong, on various levels. Through actions, associations and the few misguided people who have/do support him. A 'psychopathic sadist' 'powerful billionaire*' will attract similar types. The question now, is will anyone else be held accountable? *Very unlikely.
tuxy wrote: » The best we can hope for is that the civil cases go well and info on some living people who may also be guilty comes out. They won't get into any legal trouble but will probably have an impact on them professionally. Civil cases can allow circumstantial evidence so some interesting things may be relieved, however civil cases can also be settled out of court. On a completely different point, he signed a new will two days before he died and no one had any concern for someone who had just been taken off suicide watch doing this?
TomOnBoard wrote: » Mebbe my brain is fried
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » tuxy wrote: » The best we can hope for is that the civil cases go well and info on some living people who may also be guilty comes out. They won't get into any legal trouble but will probably have an impact on them professionally. Civil cases can allow circumstantial evidence so some interesting things may be relieved, however civil cases can also be settled out of court. On a completely different point, he signed a new will two days before he died and no one had any concern for someone who had just been taken off suicide watch doing this? Sounds about right, it would be very difficult for anyone to up against a billionaire regardless. It's a huge story in the wider context that gives foundation to an absoloute huge array of conspiracy theories. Not to mention a likely forward advance for a dozen more, sell-out Icke books/tours. Perhaps the most significant outcome will just be reputation destruction to his inner circle and close assosicates/friends. E.g. Can you imagine the shame the windsor clan are projecting upon Andy, they must be mortified by all this. TomOnBoard wrote: » Mebbe my brain is fried Maybe so.
TomOnBoard wrote: » Nope.. brain not fried... original post simply incomprehensible. ..
TomOnBoard wrote: » Mebbe my brain is fried,
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » He was proven/convicted before.
Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: » None of us is arguing before a court of law here.
Tony EH wrote: » Who? Prince Andrew? Read the exchange before replying. I'm not talking about Epstein.
Tony EH wrote: » That doesn't matter.
Hobosan wrote: » Objection!
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » Mainly JE (already proven/convicted). But there was also some talk from a lady that Andy also acted improper i.e. groping, and possibly other acts [Virginia ROBERTS]. Likely that's as far as it goes as too powerful, difficult to prove (word against word), and located in different country. His reputation damage has already been done regardless, simply by close association with the convict (JE).https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7373083/GUY-ADAMS-details-Prince-Andrews-toxic-fixation-Jeffrey-Epstein.html The hundreds and thousands of comments seem to clearly reflect this.
Tony EH wrote: » Again. I'm not talking about Epstein, upon whom there's already been a case drawn, and a conviction. I'm talking about Prince Andrew's involvement and, as of yet, it has been secondary involvement at best. And until better evidence is produced, it remains secondary involvement.
JMMCapital wrote: » He was pictured with Epstein in Central Park ‘11 - 2 years after his first charge I believe he was well aware and involved. Then again innocent till proving guilty as they say.
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » Where is your evidence that Andy only had 'secondary involvement' (at best)?
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » Well If you have to ask (mebbe?), if your brain is fried, chances are that it is somewhat. Thanks for your useful contribution in the 'subtle art of distraction and misdirection' anyway, very insightful, well done on the derailment.
TomOnBoard wrote: » It's becoming a bit more clear now... David Icke lizard- men disciple on board...Or, mebbe, that's David himself? If so, hiya David!!
Tony EH wrote: » It has been photographs and hearsay, all of which amount to *nothing really*.
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » It amounts to a huge amount of reputation damage, to someone (often already refered to as 'air miles Andy') being plastered across front pages of the press. He who has already in the past caused other embarasments. But clearly your a very big fan of the chap, fair enough. So far, the allegations come from Virginia ROBERTS. Who knows if there may be other developments. However, it's more likely the media will have any developments brushed away by next week.
Woodsie1 wrote: » Off topic but WTF accent is that?
Tony EH wrote: » "Reputation damage" is nothing for randy Andy. How old are you? This guy has had shit rolling off of him since the 80's.
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » Lol, can only imagine it as some posh royalist tone. Rather spiffing.
Woodsie1 wrote: » Ive never heard maybe said that way,reading the post in my head sounds unnatural. Is it said fast or slow?
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » It sure is weird, and to have been used twice. Maybe it's Zulu or something for the actual proper word: 'maybe'.
sabat wrote: » Yeah we all know that when you go to hang out with a friend and he has a group of young teenage girls around him all the time and he says "Oh those? They're just the sex slaves" that the proper course of action is to keep coming back. Absolutely no ethical issues there. Even if Andrew Windsor never touched any of them in a sexual manner his mere presence on the scene makes him culpable-given his status he is adding to the critical mass of the power, both real and perceived, of that sordid little clique.
