nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Andrew formally known as Prince in jep?

Hitchens

"Suggestion of impropriety with minors untrue," says Buckingham Palace after Prince Andrew named in US sex lawsuit

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30659629

this is surprising if it's true

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

dubrov wrote: »

To be fair, only the third point you made could be classed as valid evidence.
The rest is all conjecture.

I doubt we'll ever know the truth

To summarize my points, his conclusion appears to be, "I have no recollection if I had sex multiple times with an underage girl".

For someone who a) doesn't drink or b) take drugs, that's quite a statement.

The cumulative case I made above (and lawyers can tear apart that interview and amass the evidence needed etc.) quite clearly show that he's guilty.

[Deleted User]

tedbrennan wrote: »

Did he show his hand to match the one around her waist in that photo.

Plus, if you were accused of sleeping with a teenage girl - three times over a prolonged period - would you say, "I have no recollection of meeting her", or instead do what most people would do - deny it ever happened and then express in robust terms that it's not something you could ever do.

In that interview, he never claims that it's something he could never do. He just claims not to remember perhaps doing it.

That itself is a form of tacit admission that he believes the crime was at least possible for him to do.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Plus, if you were accused of sleeping with a teenage girl - three times over a prolonged period - would you say, "I have no recollection of meeting her", or instead do what most people would do - deny it ever happened and then express in robust terms that it's not something you could ever do.

In that interview, he never claims that it's something he could never do. He just claims not to remember perhaps doing it.

That itself is a form of tacit admission that he believes the crime was at least possible for him to do.

Exactly, where is the anger at been questioned about the incidents?I'd presume any innocent man would be fuming if they were wrongly associated with anything similar..it seems to be that he won't deny anything because he's worried there is definitive evidence out there..he's a worried man imo.

The Rape of Lucretia

These are the kind of dilemmas you can be presented with if you are a Prince. But look, we've all been there : sex with an underage girl, or go for a pizza in Woking. I think Pizza Express has gone downhill a little, and not sure that Woking has anything much to recommend it at all, but all in all, I think he made the right decision.

Twister2

omerin wrote: »

I wonder were the questions given to him prior to the interview?

Yes i would say they were agreed

He seemed to have answers at the ready, although looks like he was on his own with no backing

padd b1975

Paddy Cow wrote: »

It was all over twitter a few months ago. He cheated with one of their country friends. The press were starting to hint at it and William brought in the lawyers to shut them up. You can't stop twitter though.

Oh yeah I remember reading somewhere that Kate had cut some toff couple from their Sandringham inner circle.
I never thought that was why.

Leg End Reject

Andy looks rather uncomfortable throughout that interview. I bet he had no problem sweating then.

seenitall

padd b1975 wrote: »

Oh yeah I remember reading somewhere that Kate had cut some toff couple from their Sandringham inner circle.
I never thought that was why.

Yes, they may not be besties any more, but they have to look at each other still fairly regularly. David Rocksavage is the Lord Great Chamberlain. He's definitely part of the inner workings, if not the inner circle.

The whole setup is sickening. It will be a good thing whenever the UK dissolves, and the whole sorry, entitled mess gets massively reduced to England and the eating up of English resources. The English supremacy is what it has always been about anyway.

In the meantime, it is a guilty watching sordid royal soap opera.

pure.conya

omerin wrote: »

I wonder were the questions given to him prior to the interview?

of course they were, that's how media works

Paddy Cow

padd b1975 wrote: »

Oh yeah I remember reading somewhere that Kate had cut some toff couple from their Sandringham inner circle.
I never thought that was why.

When William brought in the lawyers, not much was mentioned about it but when Harry did the same to stop the hate against Meghan, he's the worst person in the world! I guess that's the difference between being the Heir and the Spare

I don't even think Meghan is that bad. Her biggest crime is being a super confident American. She's not all timid like Kate and that's a massive crime in the UK where they champion the underdog and not the go getter. Everything Meghan does is blown out of proportion to take the spotlight away from the other Royals.

[Deleted User]

And Andrew tripped himself up during the sweating nonsense.

He denies every meeting the victim etc. at a nightclub. She claims that he was "sweating profusely".

When talking about his sweat, Andrew says that he wasn't "sweating at the time", implying the time he was at the event with the victim.

It was a poor choice of words, and he later goes on to try and correct it as best he can - failing as he always does, digging a mass grave for himself in the process.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Deleted User wrote: »

Prince Andrew was lying through his massive teeth.
Stating "I have no recollection", then going on to say, "That didn't happen". Both of those statements cannot be true. It's either one or the other.

Stating he worked closely with children's abuse charities etc., and knew what to look for, yet couldn't find an iota of suspicion - nothing, nada - with Epstein or in any of Epstein's properties.

Stating that he didn't want to be seen in public with Epstein (who wasn't a "close friend") after his release from prison in 2010, yet had to meet him in order to say that; and stay for 4-days, one of which was a dinner party, in Epstein's properties at the same time ("it was a convenient place to stay", as if a member of the Royal family would find it difficult to procure accommodation in the US). Weird way to split up a friendship and not be seen in public.

Showing no remorse for Epstein's victims, which says a lot about how he must view his own victims.

Throughout the program, he nods his head (a sign of agreement) whilst disagreeing with something Maitlis is saying; that's often a micro-expression for lying (example: 27 minutes 45 into the program.

When asked about the photo of himself with Victoria in one of Epstein's properties, he claims that he has "no recollection" and that he "never went upstairs", despite the fact the photo shows him upstairs. Even if he claims the photo is a fake, how could he know what upstairs in Epstein's property looks like?

When asked if he met Victoria in the Tramp club. He denies this and says "he doesn't drink", even though a) that's not the question b) he wasn't asked if he drank alcohol or bought her an alcoholic drink, it could be non-alcoholic etc. for both and c) claimed he doesn't know where the club is, then 2 sentences later he slips out the words, "whenever I went there".

His bizarre claim to remember an outing in Pizza Express on 10 March 2001. I can barely remember the dates of meals from last month, let alone almost 20 years ago. This claim simply cannot be true.

His even more bizarre - and false - claim that he cannot sweat. Even if that were true, it wouldn't nullify the claims against him as a sex offender.

His general demeanour throughout the interview, discomfort at the questions, and general obfuscation with his answers.

I could go on, but it was a quite catastrophic performance on a gigantic scale.

micro expressions are nonsense as is body language in guaging lying

[Deleted User]

Annika Glamorous Race wrote: »

micro expressions are nonsense as is body language in guaging lying

I disagree.

You can comfortably determine if someone if lying courtesy of their body language and micro-expressions.

The fool is the person who takes one example and disregards all other factors. For example: the nonsense that people who fold their arms are "defensive", I think is ridiculous. Most people do it because its comfortable. Regardless, the point is that body language should be analyzed in the widest possible context - claims, language choice, themes - to give the greatest approximation as to whether an individual is likely to be lying.

In the case of Andrew, his total body language coupled with its answers and language choice, is exactly what you would expect it to be from a guilty party; all three are in perfect alignment, hence why this is such an embarrassing interview.

I think to throw out the subject so flippantly is to overlook a lot of value. True, there is a lot of nonsense pop psychology around, but there are serious means of using body language as one factor (not the only one) in coming to a wider conclusion.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree.

You can comfortably determine if someone if lying courtesy of their body language and micro-expressions.

The fool is the person who takes one example and disregards all other factors. For example: the nonsense that people who fold their arms are "defensive", I think is ridiculous. Most people do it because its comfortable. Regardless, the point is that body language should be analyzed in the widest possible context - claims, language choice, themes - to give the greatest approximation as to whether an individual is likely to be lying.

In the case of Andrew, his total body language coupled with its answers and language choice, is exactly what you would expect it to be from a guilty party; all three are in perfect alignment, hence why this is such an embarrassing interview.

I think to throw out the subject so flippantly is to overlook a lot of value. True, there is a lot of nonsense pop psychology around, but there are serious means of using body language as one factor (not the only one) in coming to a wider conclusion.

not in any scientific way. No serious means of body language can determine for 100% if someone lies.

[Deleted User]

Annika Glamorous Race wrote: »

not in any scientific way. No serious means of body language can determine for 100% if someone lies.

That's precisely why, in my answer, I fleshed out that body language should be a component element of any analysis, but not an individual component trusted on its own "merits".

Whilst it's not "scientific", the relationship between truth and body reactions does show correlations.

We have, as best possible, to navigate this fact without throwing the entire subject of body language under the bus just because pop psychology has penetrated large parts of society.

We can, and should, salvage the legitimate elements of the subject.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Deleted User wrote: »

That's precisely why, in my answer, I fleshed out that body language should be a component element of any analysis, but not an individual component trusted on its own "merits".

Whilst it's not "scientific", the relationship between truth and body reactions does show correlations.

We have, as best possible, to navigate this fact without throwing the entire subject of body language under the bus just because pop psychology has penetrated large parts of society.

We can, and should, salvage the legitimate elements of the subject.

correlations are not enough to determine truth. And who is to say what are legitimate elements of the subject. It is guesswork.
People project their beliefs - guesses- on a subject

[Deleted User]

Annika Glamorous Race wrote: »

correlations are not enough to determine truth. And who is to say what are legitimate elements of the subject. It is guesswork.
People project their beliefs - guesses- on a subject

We'll have to agree to disagree on the topic and, dare I say, return to Prince Andrew.

beejee

Total jep, like

[Deleted User]

omerin wrote: »

I wonder were the questions given to him prior to the interview?

Twister2 wrote: »

Yes i would say they were agreed

He seemed to have answers at the ready, although looks like he was on his own with no backing

pure.conya wrote: »

of course they were, that's how media works

From an article in The Guardian...

Newsnight sources said the interview was a result of six months of negotiations with the royal household, with an agreement that there would not be any advance vetting of the questions.

Interviewer Emily Maitlis told BBC Radio 4's Today programme...

I was expecting to be told it’s beneath the BBC to be questioning a senior royal about his sexual history. And to be fair to the Duke of York, we had no comeback, there was no question he didn’t address, there was nothing that was off limit.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/16/top-lawyer-calls-prince-andrew-bbc-interview-catastrophic-error

Leg End Reject

^^^That explains why he handled it so poorly. I wonder did he think he'd be given an easier ride?

*no pun intended!

blinding

At least Emily didn’t have her Sometimes News-Night legs out .

Andrew drooling over those was the only way this interview could have gone worse .

JupiterKid

Prince Andrew's bare-faced lies are as obvious and unbelievable as he is arrogant and actually rather stupid.

How else can he explain that photograph with Virginia Andrews and Ghisanne Maxwell - who herself was a madam who procured underage girls for "associates" of Epstein's?

His reputation - not that he had much of one - is in tatters. He should just face the music and admit his guilt and then go away to somewhere very cold and remote.

blinding

JupiterKid wrote: »

Prince Andrew's bare-faced lies are as obvious and unbelievable as he is arrogant and actually rather stupid.

How else can he explain that photograph with Virginia Andrews and Ghisanne Maxwell - who herself was a madam who procured underage girls for "associates" of Epstein's?

His reputation - not that he had much of one - is in tatters. He should just face the music and admit his guilt and then go away to somewhere very cold and remote.

If the truth is as it may well be ; Should he not be going to Jail ?

Richard Hillman

Christmas Dinner at Sandringham will be spectacular this year. Andrew getting it all ends, Charles being quizzed about the whereabouts of Harry and Meghan. Her madge will be on the Gin early doors. Phillip, knowing it could be his last hurrah will be making it count.

skimpydoo

The Pizza Express that Andrew mentioned only opened in 2004 when a 25-year lease was signed.

ceadaoin.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Her madge will be on the Gin early doors.

Standard for her isnt it? Apparently she starts off her drinking with a gin before lunch. Followed by more gin and wine with lunch. Every single day. NHS alcohol guidelines are only for the plebs clearly.

Widdershins

the_monkey wrote: »

Would be surprised if it wasn't true to be honest.

All the UK Royal family are up to all sorts of sick twisted sh/it

It's a longstanding tradition...debauchery, lewdity and general scabbiness in royal courts. Im always amazed when people seem shocked.

Lillyfae

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Standard for her isnt it? Apparently she starts off her drinking with a gin before lunch. Followed by more gin and wine with lunch. Every single day. NHS alcohol guidelines are only for the plebs clearly.

Heaven :pac:

Table Top Joe

Genuinely amazed that some people think the questions were vetted beforehand, you think he would have been allowed come out with that absolute nonsense if he had 6 months to prepare?......He’s never been held to account his entire life, he probably thought “era be grand, I’ll wing it”, there is no way on earth any normal person would have seen those questions beforehand and told him, “can’t sweat? You remember being In pizza express 18 years ago but can’t remember the girl in the picture with you? And it’s not your hand?.....and you only wear suits in London?......I see no problems here go for it”.

FrancieBrady

Woking - that must be the closest a royal has got to 'working' in centuries.