Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

Oh dear.

'Friends of Ghislaine Maxwell are worried the disgraced socialite could get whacked in prison or die by suicide like her predator ex-lover and boss, Jeffrey Epstein.

“I’m absolutely worried for her safety,” said Christopher Mason, a TV host and journalist who has known Maxwell since the 1980s. “Do I think [she’s] in danger? Yes.” Mason, who is appearing in the new docu-series “Surviving Jeffrey Epstein” in August on Lifetime, added that the threat to Maxwell — now headed to the same Manhattan lock-up where Epstein died last August — could be greater because of reports she might cooperate with authorities. “The authorities are open to the possibility of some cooperation,” Mason said.'


 
Oh dear.

'Friends of Ghislaine Maxwell are worried the disgraced socialite could get whacked in prison or die by suicide like her predator ex-lover and boss, Jeffrey Epstein.

“I’m absolutely worried for her safety,” said Christopher Mason, a TV host and journalist who has known Maxwell since the 1980s. “Do I think [she’s] in danger? Yes.” Mason, who is appearing in the new docu-series “Surviving Jeffrey Epstein” in August on Lifetime, added that the threat to Maxwell — now headed to the same Manhattan lock-up where Epstein died last August — could be greater because of reports she might cooperate with authorities. “The authorities are open to the possibility of some cooperation,” Mason said.'


Why is a "friends" opinion newsworthy? Hes just after some attention.
 
Why is a "friends" opinion newsworthy? Hes just after some attention.
Feeding the 24hr 'news' cycle. New click-bait needed to maintain advertiser's investment.
 
I heard that he was well known at Stoke Manderville as a perv and they had a rule that no young nurses were to be left alone with him.
That's why they only let him push trolleys
John Lydon from the Sex Pistols claims he was banned from the BBC for speaking out about him the interview from 1978 is on you tube
He was. I was there as a kid, and when he would turn up, nurses would tell everyone to pretend they were asleep.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
No but if I had a security detail who may record things like that they might be able to remind me.
And if I were doing an interview on national TV which would make or break my career, I'm fairly sure that I would reference that particular piece of conclusive evidence. I wonder why that dog didn't bark?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Convenient possibly, implausible certainly not.
Sure, on its own, but in the context of the rest of the nonsense he spouted during the interview, a degree of scepticism is in order. Unless he's going to claim that the image is photoshopped, the facts are that he met the girl at some point, that the location was, on his own admission to Maitlis, Maxwell's flat, and that he continued to hang out with a known paedophile after that individual had been convicted.

Currently I'm in the camp of those who say he's done nothing criminal on the basis of what's been revealed so far. However, I also trust the impeccable judgement of HMQ that he's been sufficiently stupid to be put on the naughty step indefinitely.
 
No but if I had a security detail who may record things like that they might be able to remind me.
possibly , in the same way that when the media was all over Harry for smoking a spliff when he was much younger, they basically said they were there to protect him
 
Sure, on its own, but in the context of the rest of the nonsense he spouted during the interview, a degree of scepticism is in order. Unless he's going to claim that the image is photoshopped, the facts are that he met the girl at some point, that the location was, on his own admission to Maitlis, Maxwell's flat, and that he continued to hang out with a known paedophile after that individual had been convicted.

Currently I'm in the camp of those who say he's done nothing criminal on the basis of what's been revealed so far. However, I also trust the impeccable judgement of HMQ that he's been sufficiently stupid to be put on the naughty step indefinitely.
The Grand of Duke of York is not someone who will survive contact with his attitudes to women publically scrutinised in public. Even when in uniform, his behaviour towards females was on the extreme end of virulently misogenistic. If his Mam didn't own the Navy, some of his antics would have seen him charged at the very least with conduct prejudicial.
he is what he is, a spoiled brat who has exploited his exceedingly privileged, effectively untouchable lifestyle to treat women as toys for his amusement.
 
The Grand of Duke of York is not someone who will survive contact with his attitudes to women publically scrutinised in public. Even when in uniform, his behaviour towards females was on the extreme end of virulently misogenistic. If his Mam didn't own the Navy, some of his antics would have seen him charged at the very least with conduct prejudicial.
he is what he is, a spoiled brat who has exploited his exceedingly privileged, effectively untouchable lifestyle to treat women as toys for his amusement.
I don't think anybody is suggesting the bloke is a paragon of virtue, or even a particularly pleasant human being.

But there is a great deal of difference between being an unpleasant tosser and a paedophile who should be in jail.
As yet there is no evidence of criminal behaviour.
 

DarkBrig

Old-Salt
The Grand of Duke of York is not someone who will survive contact with his attitudes to women publically scrutinised in public. Even when in uniform, his behaviour towards females was on the extreme end of virulently misogenistic. If his Mam didn't own the Navy, some of his antics would have seen him charged at the very least with conduct prejudicial.
he is what he is, a spoiled brat who has exploited his exceedingly privileged, effectively untouchable lifestyle to treat women as toys for his amusement.
He told me off for driving too fast when he came to Brunei, apparently driving down the road with blue lights on was not what he wanted, although that changed at the lights in Tuong when he got bored sitting there.
 
I don't think anybody is suggesting the bloke is a paragon of virtue, or even a particularly pleasant human being.

But there is a great deal of difference between being an unpleasant tosser and a paedophile who should be in jail.
As yet there is no evidence of criminal behaviour.
there is plenty of evidence of him being a manchild with no self control who does what he wants, safe in the knowledge he will never be taken to task.

ask yourself this..... when you were in uniform, on duty, attending a function, would you have goosed a female officer in public, repeatedly, for the entertainment of yourself and your tittering clique of cronies you surrounded yourself with?

Indeed not, as well as being morally wrong, you’d rightly expect to be hauled up by your senior and put on a charge, but that that was the sort of behaviour he was notorious for.

I have no doubt presented with a room full of rather young semi naked girls, he would have been in like a child in a sweatshop. Was he explicitly a pedo? no, but his total lack of self control would have allowed the likes of Epstein to furnish him with the means to put himself in Epstein’s permanent debt.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
The Grand of Duke of York is not someone who will survive contact with his attitudes to women publically scrutinised in public. Even when in uniform, his behaviour towards females was on the extreme end of virulently misogenistic. If his Mam didn't own the Navy, some of his antics would have seen him charged at the very least with conduct prejudicial.
he is what he is, a spoiled brat who has exploited his exceedingly privileged, effectively untouchable lifestyle to treat women as toys for his amusement.
Know him well do you?
 
I think that there are a number of ways in which the UK needs to grow up and come to terms with life in the 21st century. One is that we are no longer a world power and never will be again. We no longer have an empire and that we no longer need to 'know our place' and be the 'subjects' of an ancient hereditary monarchy.

The third, I believe, tends to perpetuate the belief that the first two might still apply. More so when members of the Royal Family behave as if it was still the Restoration.
 
possibly , in the same way that when the media was all over Harry for smoking a spliff when he was much younger, they basically said they were there to protect him
Whats that got to do with Andy?
 
And if I were doing an interview on national TV which would make or break my career, I'm fairly sure that I would reference that particular piece of conclusive evidence. I wonder why that dog didn't bark?
Would you? You would become an expert in defending yourself from accusations? It's quite easy to be an armchair expert with the benefit of hindsight isn't it?
 

syrup

LE
No but if I had a security detail who may record things like that they might be able to remind me.
Wouldn't that same security detail also be able to remind you of the night you were in the company of the people you claim you weren't in the company off
 

syrup

LE
I don’t think he’s been particularly stupid. He porked willing, overage (as far as he knew) totty in a very exclusive and private environment on a private island. It’s not as if he was caught in a knee-trembler out the back of the Windsor Weatherspoons with the local bike.
It might have been easier if he'd simply taken the same route himself.
" I went to a nightclub met a girl, the entrance age at the club was 21 so I had no need to challenge her age and she never mentioned it. We had a fling nothing else to report, I met her anytime she was in England"
 

Awol

LE
It might have been easier if he'd simply taken the same route himself.
" I went to a nightclub met a girl, the entrance age at the club was 21 so I had no need to challenge her age and she never mentioned it. We had a fling nothing else to report, I met her anytime she was in England"
Agree 100%.
 
Not with our libel laws. I am quite sympathetic to Mrs S actually - a simple understandable mistake, tragic as the consequences are, should not lead to a criminal prosecution. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
That is bollocks, at the very least she would get done for causing death by careless driving and that can get you a maximum of 5 years at Lizzie's pleasure.
 

Latest Threads

Top