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

tuxy

Looks like the reviews were removed for google reviews also.

Leg End Reject

tuxy wrote: »

That's incorrect, the victims and accusers have asked him to speak to the FBI.
The FBI has made no request from him that I know of.

Oh sorry, you're right. It was on the BBC news and it was a lawyer (I think) with a victim of Epstein. Monday brain!

tuxy

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Oh sorry, you're right. It was on the BBC news and it was a lawyer (I think) with a victim of Epstein. Monday brain!

Yeah it would be major news if the FBI came out and said they wanted to speak to him. I can't see it happening.

Hannibal_Smith

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

wasn't this back in 2001, before digital cameras, before any sort of social media,

There was still media!

Quantum Erasure

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

There was still media!

yeah, but it was a physical copy, that Epstein took / had

Hannibal_Smith

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

yeah, but it was a physical copy, that Epstein took / had

So Epstein said... Here Andy stand there with that girl and I'll take a picture of you both. Don't worry I won't show it to anyone else... Its just for my private collection

. And Andrew agrees?

seamus

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

So Epstein said... Here Andy stand there with that girl and I'll take a picture of you both. Don't worry I won't show it to anyone else... Its just for my private collection . And Andrew agrees?

People continue to be insanely naive about photos to be fair. Even in the age of social media, people still get willingly caught on camera in places they shouldn't be, with people they shouldn't be, or with less clothes than they'd usually have. And for some reason they trust the person taking the photos won't publish them.

Not hard to believe someone would be taking photos at a party in 2001.

Hannibal_Smith

seamus wrote: »

People continue to be insanely naive about photos to be fair. Even in the age of social media, people still get willingly caught on camera in places they shouldn't be, with people they shouldn't be, or with less clothes than they'd usually have. And for some reason they trust the person taking the photos won't publish them.

Not hard to believe someone would be taking photos at a party in 2001.

But we're not talking about people. We're talking about a Prince in the British Royal family happily posing in a photo with an underage girl for a guy organising parties with under age girls. Surely he got a talking to at some stage in his life about being photographed? His sister in law was hounded by people trying to snap her. There was no conversation about how photos could change hands? How photos could damage the royal family?

I find it really hard to believe he did that. And I don't mean that in a way that I doubt the photos are genuine. I mean I can't believe he was so stupid.

Bob Harris

He doesn't seem the sharpest knife in the drawer. The whole sweating condition, then his boloney about having sex being a positive action, had never been upstairs in the house, used to staff milling around at the palace so thought nothing of it...utter rubbish.

He had a fair idea that this interview was coming. He knew pretty much exactly what he would be asked without needing to be told and with all the time in the world to prepare some coherent and robust answers he came out with some awful rubbish.

Paddy Cow

skimpydoo wrote: »

This is funny.

That's absolutely brilliant. I genuinely laughed out loud. Leave Andrew alone. He's innocent

Simmer down

Maybe auld handy andy should stay away from driving around Paris for a while...

minikin

Well he certainly had the facial behaviour of an honest and innocent man.
Jesus, Lizzie must clean him out at poker every payday.

Leg End Reject

He's stepped down from public duty and issued a more contrite statement. Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Larbre34

When Spurs considered a new Manager, the job spec said someone who can get the best out of youngsters and doesn't sweat under pressure.

New job for Prince Andrew!

FrancieBrady

The subjects are revolting on the Palace's Twitter acc.

Good craic.

screamer

Prince Andrex - busy cleaning up the crap.

blinding

Leg End Reject wrote: »

He's stepped down from public duty and issued a more contrite statement. Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

After the Horse sh!t has hit the fan .

Letwin_Larry

personally i'm not that surprised by this. tbh i'm surprised there isn't more of it with the Windsors.
they live a totally unnatural existence, completely out of touch with ordinary people and are part of abnormal, archaic and silly institution, that is totally at odds with the 21st Century.

way past time to scrap it imo.

ceadaoin.

I wonder how prince Charles got away with his friendship with Jimmy Savile? That definitely deserves more looking into also, the level of access that Savile had means theres no way they weren't aware of his activities and chose to associate with him anyway. And didnt he (charles) also write a letter defending another convicted paedophile? It does seem like they are a thoroughly despicable family really but that isnt surprising.

Letwin_Larry

tuxy wrote: »

Yeah it would be major news if the FBI came out and said they wanted to speak to him. I can't see it happening.

i disagree. the US prosecutors are no respecter of status or position, if they decide you have questions to answer.
Royalty will mean nothing to those guys.

sligojoek

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I wonder how prince Charles got away with his friendship with Jimmy Savile? That definitely deserves more looking into also, the level of access that Savile had means theres no way they weren't aware of his activities and chose to associate with him anyway. And didnt he (charles) also write a letter defending another convicted paedophile? It does seem like they are a thoroughly despicable family really but that isnt surprising.

How many million a year is it costing us to keep 'welcoming' them over here?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

He's been kicked out of Buckingham Palace the absolute maniac.

Charles taking over soon will add to the public sourness.

Will the crown survive public opinion when the current Queen passes away?
The royals left over are not liked. We could see a Republican Brexit vote emerging fully.

Let's see what happens with them.

Mad_maxx

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

He's been kicked out of Buckingham Palace the absolute maniac.

Charles taking over soon will add to the public sourness.

Will the crown survive public opinion when the current Queen passes away?
The royals left over are not liked. We could see a Republican Brexit vote emerging fully.

Let's see what happens with them.

The brexit vote are pro monarchy for the most part

4068ac1elhodqr

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Will the crown survive public opinion when the current Queen passes away?
The royals left over are not liked. We could see a Republican Brexit vote emerging fully.

In the first instance places such as Aus, Can & NZ will reject them as HoS, the previous vote came close down in Aus, likely the next time they'll opt for a Republic along with a new flag etc.

Paddy Cow

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The brexit vote are pro monarchy for the most part

Pro the Queen or pro the monarchy? I think once the Queen dies the Royal Family will struggle to survive. Harry was their PR golden boy but now the public have turned on him.

Muahahaha

Jayde Lazy Heater wrote: »

In the first instance places such as Aus, Can & NZ will reject them as HoS, the previous vote came close down in Aus, likely the next time they'll opt for a Republic along with a new flag etc.

The 2000 vote in Australia was rigged in a way, their choice was to vote for a system where the politicians got to select the Head of State and a lot of voters wanted a direct vote so they voted the proposal down. Next time out Id expect them to remove the queen as HoS provided they get to directly elect her successor.

Anyway was reading that Virginia Guiffre is to give an interview to the BBC, this story is set to get more interesting now it is in the full gaze.

Accepting Cookies

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Pro the Queen or pro the monarchy? I think once the Queen dies the Royal Family will struggle to survive. Harry was their PR golden boy but now the public have turned on him.

The public haven't turned on him, he and Meghan have one of the largest (or the fastest/largest) Instagram pages ever, he just won People's 2019 Sexiest Dad Alive award (hey, a lot of people love these silly awards) and Meghan won 2019 most powerfully dressed woman (in terms of driving sales, etc) so I would say it's just the smut news like the Daily Mail/Sun and the racists who have "turned" on him. And who cares what they think!

4068ac1elhodqr

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anyway was reading that Virginia Guiffre is to give an interview to the BBC, this story is set to get more interesting now it is in the full gaze.

Monday 2nd Dec 20:30hrs, BBC One. That's a primetime slot.

The effects are already being felt, read somewhere the one/two big girls that are getting married soon will no longer have live tv coverage, or a fancy horse carrige thing. Maybe just minicab Ford Mondeo across to the Chapel, then onto to Wetherspoons or something like that now.

[Deleted User]

I just watched the full interview there. What an obnoxiously self interested boor he is.

He's the author of his own downfall, and it couldn't happen to a more deserving chap. Ugly to the bone.

Muahahaha

Jayde Lazy Heater wrote: »

Monday 2nd Dec 20:30hrs, BBC One. That's a primetime slot.

.

From what I read the interview is with the Panorama team and she did it a number of weeks ago but it wasnt screened, perhaps as they knew the Newsnight team were working on an interview with Andrew himself so they held her interview with Virginia back until now.