Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
His lack of compassion to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
So Businesses will be well aware he's toxic after the interview, so I don't blame them for wanting to distance themselves from the Prince. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's not innocent of staying friends with a convicted sex offender. Staying with him for four days, in a so called finishing his friendship visit
His lack of compassion to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
So Businesses will be well aware he's toxic after the interview, so I don't blame them for wanting to distance themselves from the Prince. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc.?" He is toxic for any business's reputation. None want the association. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"lol he's convicted then, see thats what he is up against "He has confirmed he went to a paedophile's 'release from prison' celebration dinner party. Why would businesses, Universities and charities want to be associated with someone who did this ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"lol he's convicted then, see thats what he is up against
He has confirmed he went to a paedophile's 'release from prison' celebration dinner party. Why would businesses, Universities and charities want to be associated with someone who did this ? "guilty by association ok epstein was guilty and has served the ultimate penalty for his crime death by suicide doesn't make prince Andrew a paedophile does it he's done the right thing and pulled away from public life but he probably never knew of Epsteins past i certainly never knew | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"lol he's convicted then, see thats what he is up against "We're talking reputations here. He's done a Ratner. He's finished. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ?" who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ?who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. " it would all be conjecture would it not certainly if i knew i wouldn't have associated with him and Prince Andrew is an intelligent man so surely you would think the same of him | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ? who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. " It is fact that Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 and was convicted by a Florida court for procuring an underage girl for the purpose of prostitution. How could Andrew not be aware of that ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ? who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. It is fact that Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 and was convicted by a Florida court for procuring an underage girl for the purpose of prostitution. How could Andrew not be aware of that ?" it was in florida I'm just saying maybe he didn't thats quite a plausible thought surely? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ? who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. It is fact that Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 and was convicted by a Florida court for procuring an underage girl for the purpose of prostitution. How could Andrew not be aware of that ?" He was probably in a random Pizza Express when the news hit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He was probably in a random Pizza Express when the news hit. " Of course. A remote branch without wifi. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ?who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. " He knew ....from the interview he was asked, here is his answer Andrew: Right, I have always … ever since this has happened and since this has become, as it were, public knowledge that I was there, I’ve questioned myself as to why did I go and what was I doing and was it the right thing to do? Now, I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him that because he had been convicted, it was inappropriate for us to be seen together. I felt that doing it over the telephone was the chicken’s way of doing it. I had to go and see him and talk to him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Innocent until proven guilty is another way of expressing the standard in criminal trials. It's not something which is or should be universally applied. " And right there you show how twisted our society has become because of 'Social media'. So its OK to judge people right off? Bring in the vigilantes .. On Social Media (like here) people who are able to convict people on hearsay or rumour or just because they dislike the person. Many here hate Royalty so, inter alia, Andrew is a nonce. I use that word carefully as it has been used twice to my knowledge on Threads here. Disgusting attitude. Andrew made an error of judgment and has fessed up to that and the way it has tarnished his Family. He has apologised for that in public and (despite what some on here saying otherwise) he has also been very sympathetic to people affected by Epstein. I hope you are never confronted by a jury who have the same mindset as yourself. Everyone, as defined in Magna Carta of 1215, are INNOCENT until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. Andrew is, was always and remains INNOCENT. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ?who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. He knew ....from the interview he was asked, here is his answer Andrew: Right, I have always … ever since this has happened and since this has become, as it were, public knowledge that I was there, I’ve questioned myself as to why did I go and what was I doing and was it the right thing to do? Now, I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him that because he had been convicted, it was inappropriate for us to be seen together. I felt that doing it over the telephone was the chicken’s way of doing it. I had to go and see him and talk to him." oh well their you have it, i never saw the interview but he went to advise him he was disassociating with him, probably a bad decision in hindsight but maybe he really liked the guy and felt that was the honest thing to do, sometimes you just don't know a person you like as well as you think you do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's not innocent of staying friends with a convicted sex offender. Staying with him for four days, in a so called finishing his friendship visit
His lack of compassion to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
So Businesses will be well aware he's toxic after the interview, so I don't blame them for wanting to distance themselves from the Prince. "Correct Steph ..... Co fookin' correct !! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ?who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. " He knew about Epstein's conviction for grooming girls for solicitation and trafficking. How do I know. Because said so himself. It was the reason he went to see him, to end their friendship. Now, if you'd just discovered your friend was a paedophile who ran a grooming gang - and had just served time in prison for it - how would you end the friendship? By shunning him completely? Writing him a "fuck off you nonce" letter? Or going to stay at his house for 4 nights? Wakey, wakey, time to smell the coffee on this one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no sympathy for him. However there is nothing that I've seen that suggests he's guilty of anything more than being entitled and arrogant with a serious lack of judgement and empathy. " This. It's trial by idiot. I saw a post the other condemning him as a mid 50s bloke screwing a 17 year old girl. FFS, he wasn't 54 at the time. He's a paedophile!!!! No he's not. Never been charged let alone found guilty. Did he break the law? No. Was it morally wrong? Possibly. Is his judgement sound? No. Should he have distanced himself from those convicted of heinous crimes? Hell yes. Is he a bit of a pillock? Uh huh..... I saw a post a couple of days ago where someone suggested it would be ok if he was killed. His crime? Being a toff. I question people's logic, good old fashioned gumption and sanity sometimes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ?who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. He knew ....from the interview he was asked, here is his answer Andrew: Right, I have always … ever since this has happened and since this has become, as it were, public knowledge that I was there, I’ve questioned myself as to why did I go and what was I doing and was it the right thing to do? Now, I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him that because he had been convicted, it was inappropriate for us to be seen together. I felt that doing it over the telephone was the chicken’s way of doing it. I had to go and see him and talk to him.oh well their you have it, i never saw the interview but he went to advise him he was disassociating with him, probably a bad decision in hindsight but maybe he really liked the guy and felt that was the honest thing to do, sometimes you just don't know a person you like as well as you think you do "i would have sent a text and blocked him from my phone but if you can afford a return ticket to the USA........ Prince Andrew as far as we know is not a paedophile though but as with all people in the public eye they have to set an exemplary example so he is therefore right to pull away from the public eye and the charities he supported or that required his support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no sympathy for him. However there is nothing that I've seen that suggests he's guilty of anything more than being entitled and arrogant with a serious lack of judgement and empathy. This. It's trial by idiot. I saw a post the other condemning him as a mid 50s bloke screwing a 17 year old girl. FFS, he wasn't 54 at the time. He's a paedophile!!!! No he's not. Never been charged let alone found guilty. Did he break the law? No. Was it morally wrong? Possibly. Is his judgement sound? No. Should he have distanced himself from those convicted of heinous crimes? Hell yes. Is he a bit of a pillock? Uh huh..... I saw a post a couple of days ago where someone suggested it would be ok if he was killed. His crime? Being a toff. I question people's logic, good old fashioned gumption and sanity sometimes. " And that , young man, is EXACTLY why I value you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ? who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. It is fact that Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 and was convicted by a Florida court for procuring an underage girl for the purpose of prostitution. How could Andrew not be aware of that ?it was in florida I'm just saying maybe he didn't thats quite a plausible thought surely? "Plausible yes but Andrew has got staff and advisors around who would have been able to tell him of Epstein sentence. They would probably have advised against going but Andrew has a reputation of ignoring those people and doing as he wants. Dont forget that his nickname was Randy Andy many years ago. He didnt get that by being an innocent onlooker. On this occasion he made a big mistake by going to Epsteins premises and being seen where young ladies were. He is now paying the price of his folly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"omg hes human with human desires we've all got them just because he associated with a wrongun doesnt make him one, we can't all choose the right friends or be good pickers "he had sex with an under age child that is wrong and against the law as their are allegations he had sex with a child coming from the person who he abused he encouraged epstein to pay off his wife's debts because even she said she was sorry years ago that he had thing is we will never know the truth because the queen may or may not gag people because she can | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"omg hes human with human desires we've all got them just because he associated with a wrongun doesnt make him one, we can't all choose the right friends or be good pickers
he had sex with an under age child that is wrong and against the law as their are allegations he had sex with a child coming from the person who he abused
he encouraged epstein to pay off his wife's debts because even she said she was sorry years ago that he had
thing is we will never know the truth because the queen may or may not gag people because she can
"Whoa ......... ! Who had sex ? There were NO children present ever from what I know. Young women , yes, children no. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no sympathy for him. However there is nothing that I've seen that suggests he's guilty of anything more than being entitled and arrogant with a serious lack of judgement and empathy. This. It's trial by idiot. I saw a post the other condemning him as a mid 50s bloke screwing a 17 year old girl. FFS, he wasn't 54 at the time. He's a paedophile!!!! No he's not. Never been charged let alone found guilty. Did he break the law? No. Was it morally wrong? Possibly. Is his judgement sound? No. Should he have distanced himself from those convicted of heinous crimes? Hell yes. Is he a bit of a pillock? Uh huh..... I saw a post a couple of days ago where someone suggested it would be ok if he was killed. His crime? Being a toff. I question people's logic, good old fashioned gumption and sanity sometimes. And that , young man, is EXACTLY why I value you." Thanks Granny. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"omg hes human with human desires we've all got them just because he associated with a wrongun doesnt make him one, we can't all choose the right friends or be good pickers
he had sex with an under age child that is wrong and against the law as their are allegations he had sex with a child coming from the person who he abused
he encouraged epstein to pay off his wife's debts because even she said she was sorry years ago that he had
thing is we will never know the truth because the queen may or may not gag people because she can
"Here we go again. FFS. He did not have sex with an underage child. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think when Corby gets in it is the beginning of the end of the toffs. More social mobility is needed.. but hang on.. the poor become the new toffs. I am confused " Corbyn covered up a child abuse case what makes him any different. Alex salmond the scottish MP is being tried on sexual allegations and he too covered up on a case involving a child in scotland .... sexual abuse within Parliament is old news it has been going on for years but they do not get tried for it. BBC employed Saville for years and they all knew he was a paedophile ...so was Rolf Harris. Royalty will just get a ticking off and the queen will demand no one to know it will be a done and closed case | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sex or sexual activities with anyone underage is statutory r**e regardless of if they agreed to it. " I think statutory r*pe in the UK is sex with a child under the age of 12 years - the law presumes that someone under that age isn't mature enough to make their own decisions about such things. I agree with you, though. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a creep. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" he had sex with an under age child that is wrong and against the law" No he didn't and you have no proof he did so you are judging without cause like most others on here and have done in two other Threads. " as their are allegations he had sex with a child coming from the person who he abused " yes 'allegations' that have emerged some 17 years after the event as lawyers pick over Epsteins huge wealth for their percentage. And so if I 'allege' you are lying does that make it a fact? " thing is we will never know the truth because the queen may or may not gag people because she can " Ah OK. So let me get this right? So because there have been no charges, he hasn't been arrested let alone convicted and remains innocent HM The Queen is involved and will make sure it remains covered up? Right? That has to be the biggest load of conspiracy theory crap ever. But its the sort of crap that gains traction on Social Media. As someone once said "Twitter is not real life" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" he had sex with an under age child that is wrong and against the law No he didn't and you have no proof he did so you are judging without cause like most others on here and have done in two other Threads. as their are allegations he had sex with a child coming from the person who he abused yes 'allegations' that have emerged some 17 years after the event as lawyers pick over Epsteins huge wealth for their percentage. And so if I 'allege' you are lying does that make it a fact? thing is we will never know the truth because the queen may or may not gag people because she can Ah OK. So let me get this right? So because there have been no charges, he hasn't been arrested let alone convicted and remains innocent HM The Queen is involved and will make sure it remains covered up? Right? That has to be the biggest load of conspiracy theory crap ever. But its the sort of crap that gains traction on Social Media. As someone once said "Twitter is not real life"" Preach. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
" Preach. Eh? " I agree with your post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Preach. Eh? I agree with your post." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Preach. Eh? I agree with your post. "Get with the lingo Flirty Old Man. Like the rest of us dudes n dudettes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no sympathy for him. However there is nothing that I've seen that suggests he's guilty of anything more than being entitled and arrogant with a serious lack of judgement and empathy. " This. And I don't like him either but that doesn't actually make him a bad person.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept?" True but do you ever think he would be prosecuted even if he was guilty.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept?" I can see why they are disassociating themselves from him, because of his association with Epstein. But it is not proven he's had sex with anyone who's not of a legal age. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In fairness despite the association and the allegations being widespread for many, many months people have only dropped hom since the disastrous interview " Yes I'm sure it didn't help. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Preach. Eh? I agree with your post.
Get with the lingo Flirty Old Man. Like the rest of us dudes n dudettes."One does try ...
Or is that 'very trying'? ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Innocent until proven guilty is another way of expressing the standard in criminal trials. It's not something which is or should be universally applied. And right there you show how twisted our society has become because of 'Social media'. So its OK to judge people right off? Bring in the vigilantes .. On Social Media (like here) people who are able to convict people on hearsay or rumour or just because they dislike the person. Many here hate Royalty so, inter alia, Andrew is a nonce. I use that word carefully as it has been used twice to my knowledge on Threads here. Disgusting attitude. Andrew made an error of judgment and has fessed up to that and the way it has tarnished his Family. He has apologised for that in public and (despite what some on here saying otherwise) he has also been very sympathetic to people affected by Epstein. I hope you are never confronted by a jury who have the same mindset as yourself. Everyone, as defined in Magna Carta of 1215, are INNOCENT until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. Andrew is, was always and remains INNOCENT." ... Woah woah woah. All I said was that the criminal standard only applies in criminal courts. Which is true. I said nothing about the merits of any judgement of anyone in any way. I don't know enough to comment specifically, and I have not. But courts apply different standards in different circumstances, and outside of courts different rules apply. I'm sorry, but that is bland, boring, fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"omg hes human with human desires we've all got them just because he associated with a wrongun doesnt make him one, we can't all choose the right friends or be good pickers
he had sex with an under age child that is wrong and against the law as their are allegations he had sex with a child coming from the person who he abused
he encouraged epstein to pay off his wife's debts because even she said she was sorry years ago that he had
thing is we will never know the truth because the queen may or may not gag people because she can
"who had sex with an underage child Prince Andrew because the question is about Prince Andrew, Epstein was convicted of having sex with an underage prostitute and went to jail and subsequently killed himself but Prince Andrew is only guilty of association nothing else hes stepped down from public duty what more can he do he's not a crook himself although the gutter press would have you believe that too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept?" It’s business, if his association is causing profits to drop, then chop you’re gone | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? True but do you ever think he would be prosecuted even if he was guilty. "He wouldn't be guilty until he was tried and proven so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? True but do you ever think he would be prosecuted even if he was guilty.
He wouldn't be guilty until he was tried and proven so."He wouldn't be FOUND guilty until tried. Someone can be guilty without having been found guilty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He wouldn't be FOUND guilty until tried. Someone can be guilty without having been found guilty. " Sorry but absolutely no. A person is innocent until such time as a jury find them guilty of whatever offence. Innocence is a presumed and sacred right and exists in perpetuity. Guilt is a defined event To prove my point much as it may offend people including myself but Saville died an innocent man. Happily Lords Brittain and Bramall both died innocent men despite the best efforts of the Met's Operation Midland to pursue them and others (also innocent) on the word of 'Nick' and egged on by the Nonce Finder General Tom Watson. A better example of 'presumed guilt', political interference and social media stupidity regarding sex offences will never be found and it cost £ Mns. We now can add Prince Andrew .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He wouldn't be FOUND guilty until tried. Someone can be guilty without having been found guilty. Sorry but absolutely no. A person is innocent until such time as a jury find them guilty of whatever offence. Innocence is a presumed and sacred right and exists in perpetuity. Guilt is a defined event To prove my point much as it may offend people including myself but Saville died an innocent man. Happily Lords Brittain and Bramall both died innocent men despite the best efforts of the Met's Operation Midland to pursue them and others (also innocent) on the word of 'Nick' and egged on by the Nonce Finder General Tom Watson. A better example of 'presumed guilt', political interference and social media stupidity regarding sex offences will never be found and it cost £ Mns. We now can add Prince Andrew ...." I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. A person who has committed a crime cannot, by definition be innocent of that crime. They can however, be presumed innocent by others until guilt is either determined or not. Interestingly, a person who is found Not Guilty at court is still not proved to be innocent, even though they may be actually innocent, as a court does not address innocence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. A person who has committed a crime cannot, by definition be innocent of that crime. They can however, be presumed innocent by others until guilt is either determined or not. Interestingly, a person who is found Not Guilty at court is still not proved to be innocent, even though they may be actually innocent, as a court does not address innocence." Whoaaa ... back the bus up ... Can we clarify the sequence here? A person is only CONVICTED of committing a crime AFTER they have been found GUILTY by a Jury (or magistrates). They are totally, absolutely and forever INNOCENT until that conviction. You are placing guilt before conviction. And how can you possibly then say someone found 'not guilty' is still 'not innocent'? Is this some new creation of the world of social media reversal. So a man goes to trial and is found Not Guilty but is still 'not innocent'? How very very wrong you are and I hope you never have that experience. And for good order lets just note Andrew has never been questioned, arrested, charged, put before a court, convicted let alone found Guilty of anything. He is therefore not only NOT guilty he remains therefore innocent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. A person who has committed a crime cannot, by definition be innocent of that crime. They can however, be presumed innocent by others until guilt is either determined or not. Interestingly, a person who is found Not Guilty at court is still not proved to be innocent, even though they may be actually innocent, as a court does not address innocence. Whoaaa ... back the bus up ... Can we clarify the sequence here? A person is only CONVICTED of committing a crime AFTER they have been found GUILTY by a Jury (or magistrates). They are totally, absolutely and forever INNOCENT until that conviction. You are placing guilt before conviction. And how can you possibly then say someone found 'not guilty' is still 'not innocent'? Is this some new creation of the world of social media reversal. So a man goes to trial and is found Not Guilty but is still 'not innocent'? How very very wrong you are and I hope you never have that experience. And for good order lets just note Andrew has never been questioned, arrested, charged, put before a court, convicted let alone found Guilty of anything. He is therefore not only NOT guilty he remains therefore innocent." exactly this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. A person who has committed a crime cannot, by definition be innocent of that crime. They can however, be presumed innocent by others until guilt is either determined or not. Interestingly, a person who is found Not Guilty at court is still not proved to be innocent, even though they may be actually innocent, as a court does not address innocence. Whoaaa ... back the bus up ... Can we clarify the sequence here? A person is only CONVICTED of committing a crime AFTER they have been found GUILTY by a Jury (or magistrates). They are totally, absolutely and forever INNOCENT until that conviction. You are placing guilt before conviction. And how can you possibly then say someone found 'not guilty' is still 'not innocent'? Is this some new creation of the world of social media reversal. So a man goes to trial and is found Not Guilty but is still 'not innocent'? How very very wrong you are and I hope you never have that experience. And for good order lets just note Andrew has never been questioned, arrested, charged, put before a court, convicted let alone found Guilty of anything. He is therefore not only NOT guilty he remains therefore innocent." Because being found guilty is not the same thing as being guilty. A man may go to trial and be found guilty of a crime he did not commit, this has happened many times. According to your position, even though he did not commit a crime, he's still guilty. Conversely, a person who did commit a crime can be found not guilty at court. This is because the prosecution did not present a good enough case. He's not innocent of that crime despite being found not guilty. A court never decides on innocence, only guilt. And the presumption of innocence is utterly independent of the truth of innocence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. A person who has committed a crime cannot, by definition be innocent of that crime. They can however, be presumed innocent by others until guilt is either determined or not. Interestingly, a person who is found Not Guilty at court is still not proved to be innocent, even though they may be actually innocent, as a court does not address innocence. Whoaaa ... back the bus up ... Can we clarify the sequence here? A person is only CONVICTED of committing a crime AFTER they have been found GUILTY by a Jury (or magistrates). They are totally, absolutely and forever INNOCENT until that conviction. You are placing guilt before conviction. And how can you possibly then say someone found 'not guilty' is still 'not innocent'? Is this some new creation of the world of social media reversal. So a man goes to trial and is found Not Guilty but is still 'not innocent'? How very very wrong you are and I hope you never have that experience. And for good order lets just note Andrew has never been questioned, arrested, charged, put before a court, convicted let alone found Guilty of anything. He is therefore not only NOT guilty he remains therefore innocent." By that logic Jimmy saville was innocent... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. A person who has committed a crime cannot, by definition be innocent of that crime. They can however, be presumed innocent by others until guilt is either determined or not. Interestingly, a person who is found Not Guilty at court is still not proved to be innocent, even though they may be actually innocent, as a court does not address innocence. Whoaaa ... back the bus up ... Can we clarify the sequence here? A person is only CONVICTED of committing a crime AFTER they have been found GUILTY by a Jury (or magistrates). They are totally, absolutely and forever INNOCENT until that conviction. You are placing guilt before conviction. And how can you possibly then say someone found 'not guilty' is still 'not innocent'? Is this some new creation of the world of social media reversal. So a man goes to trial and is found Not Guilty but is still 'not innocent'? How very very wrong you are and I hope you never have that experience. And for good order lets just note Andrew has never been questioned, arrested, charged, put before a court, convicted let alone found Guilty of anything. He is therefore not only NOT guilty he remains therefore innocent." Also you seem to be excluding people who plead guilty with your bizarre interpretation of the law | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. A person who has committed a crime cannot, by definition be innocent of that crime. They can however, be presumed innocent by others until guilt is either determined or not. Interestingly, a person who is found Not Guilty at court is still not proved to be innocent, even though they may be actually innocent, as a court does not address innocence. Whoaaa ... back the bus up ... Can we clarify the sequence here? A person is only CONVICTED of committing a crime AFTER they have been found GUILTY by a Jury (or magistrates). They are totally, absolutely and forever INNOCENT until that conviction. You are placing guilt before conviction. And how can you possibly then say someone found 'not guilty' is still 'not innocent'? Is this some new creation of the world of social media reversal. So a man goes to trial and is found Not Guilty but is still 'not innocent'? How very very wrong you are and I hope you never have that experience. And for good order lets just note Andrew has never been questioned, arrested, charged, put before a court, convicted let alone found Guilty of anything. He is therefore not only NOT guilty he remains therefore innocent. Also you seem to be excluding people who plead guilty with your bizarre interpretation of the law " It's not an interpretation of the law, just a fairly common misapplication of logic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. A person who has committed a crime cannot, by definition be innocent of that crime. They can however, be presumed innocent by others until guilt is either determined or not. Interestingly, a person who is found Not Guilty at court is still not proved to be innocent, even though they may be actually innocent, as a court does not address innocence. Whoaaa ... back the bus up ... Can we clarify the sequence here? A person is only CONVICTED of committing a crime AFTER they have been found GUILTY by a Jury (or magistrates). They are totally, absolutely and forever INNOCENT until that conviction. You are placing guilt before conviction. And how can you possibly then say someone found 'not guilty' is still 'not innocent'? Is this some new creation of the world of social media reversal. So a man goes to trial and is found Not Guilty but is still 'not innocent'? How very very wrong you are and I hope you never have that experience. And for good order lets just note Andrew has never been questioned, arrested, charged, put before a court, convicted let alone found Guilty of anything. He is therefore not only NOT guilty he remains therefore innocent." Also what about cases of murder suicide? The victim will be found to have been unlawfully killed at inquest but you are saying the perpetrator is not guilty because they've being convicted? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept?" So this was the OP. Should these organisations distance themselves, I think he withdrew from some of them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know a lot had to eat humble pie after ched Evans was found to be innocent " It must be the pedant in me. He is innocent and was found not guilty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know a lot had to eat humble pie after ched Evans was found to be innocent It must be the pedant in me. He is innocent and was found not guilty." he won’t get the 2 years he served in prison back | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know a lot had to eat humble pie after ched Evans was found to be innocent It must be the pedant in me. He is innocent and was found not guilty. he won’t get the 2 years he served in prison back " No. The judicial system is not perfect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know a lot had to eat humble pie after ched Evans was found to be innocent It must be the pedant in me. He is innocent and was found not guilty. he won’t get the 2 years he served in prison back No. The judicial system is not perfect. " exactly and the Pitch fork brigade want to bring back hanging | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know a lot had to eat humble pie after ched Evans was found to be innocent " No humble pie here. To turn up uninvited with the sole intention to fuck a girl you've never met but your mate has taken back to the room, only to he acquited in an incredibly high profile retrial after your victoms sex life is used in evidence against her and your family have offered incentives for her ex-partners to come forward and give evidence doesnt make someone innocent. He was acquited but the evidence is there in the court documents for both trials that can be found online. But victim blaming is rife where sex offenders are to blame. And too many men don't understand that d*unk women cant consent. Which is particularly true if you sneak in to their hotel room uninvited | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know a lot had to eat humble pie after ched Evans was found to be innocent No humble pie here. To turn up uninvited with the sole intention to fuck a girl you've never met but your mate has taken back to the room, only to he acquited in an incredibly high profile retrial after your victoms sex life is used in evidence against her and your family have offered incentives for her ex-partners to come forward and give evidence doesnt make someone innocent. He was acquited but the evidence is there in the court documents for both trials that can be found online. But victim blaming is rife where sex offenders are to blame. And too many men don't understand that d*unk women cant consent. Which is particularly true if you sneak in to their hotel room uninvited " I’m sure the evidence was carefully looked at during the second trial unlike the first trial and the Hubble pie comment was aimed at Jennifer Ennis hill and the rest of them in the sporting world that had there say strange not many publicly said sorry to him ( good job we don’t hang people eh) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Any lawyers about? I don't understand the law "lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Any lawyers about? I don't understand the law lol"No comment... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a case of guilty until proved innocent these days unfortunately. The media really doesn't help." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know a lot had to eat humble pie after ched Evans was found to be innocent No humble pie here. To turn up uninvited with the sole intention to fuck a girl you've never met but your mate has taken back to the room, only to he acquited in an incredibly high profile retrial after your victoms sex life is used in evidence against her and your family have offered incentives for her ex-partners to come forward and give evidence doesnt make someone innocent. He was acquited but the evidence is there in the court documents for both trials that can be found online. But victim blaming is rife where sex offenders are to blame. And too many men don't understand that d*unk women cant consent. Which is particularly true if you sneak in to their hotel room uninvited I’m sure the evidence was carefully looked at during the second trial unlike the first trial and the Hubble pie comment was aimed at Jennifer Ennis hill and the rest of them in the sporting world that had there say strange not many publicly said sorry to him ( good job we don’t hang people eh)" Do you think what he did was morally acceptable? I don't see a need to apologise. I dont expect them to either. A woman's sexual history should never be used as evidence against her. It certainly shouldn't be the basis of an acquittal, which given it was the only new evidence provided it effectively was. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd love to go look at all the threads about grooming gangs in Rotherham, Tommy Robinson and trials etc, and compare with the responses on this same question. " Also on newspaper forums I've noticed a couple hundred muted comments yet Meghan not spending Christmas with the queen as she's spending it with her mother: thousands of nasty comments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a case of guilty until proved innocent these days unfortunately. The media really doesn't help." That is right some say even the media can influence the outcome of a case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a case of guilty until proved innocent these days unfortunately. The media really doesn't help.That is right some say even the media can influence the outcome of a case." the media does influence thats what they do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no sympathy for him. However there is nothing that I've seen that suggests he's guilty of anything more than being entitled and arrogant with a serious lack of judgement and empathy. This. It's trial by idiot. I saw a post the other condemning him as a mid 50s bloke screwing a 17 year old girl. FFS, he wasn't 54 at the time. He's a paedophile!!!! No he's not. Never been charged let alone found guilty. Did he break the law? No. Was it morally wrong? Possibly. Is his judgement sound? No. Should he have distanced himself from those convicted of heinous crimes? Hell yes. Is he a bit of a pillock? Uh huh..... I saw a post a couple of days ago where someone suggested it would be ok if he was killed. His crime? Being a toff. I question people's logic, good old fashioned gumption and sanity sometimes. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a case of guilty until proved innocent these days unfortunately. The media really doesn't help.That is right some say even the media can influence the outcome of a case.the media does influence thats what they do " That is right they do that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept?" innocent until proven guilty no such thing anymore, with social media around, as for Prince Andrew he just a pratt, more money then sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By that logic Jimmy saville was innocent... " legally and in fact he was because he was never tried, convicted and therefore never found guilty of any crime. Now I am sure you will say 'Well everyone knows ...'. well maybe they do but probably they do not but he died an innocent man in law. But in the court of public opinion .... " Also you seem to be excluding people who plead guilty with your bizarre interpretation of the law " Nothing 'bizarre' about it. Its a legal fact: A man / woman walks into Court innocent and then either pleads Guilty as you suggest (and is therefore convicted by confession and found guilty) or they are found guilty by a jury / magistrates or they leave as innocent as they came in. Please explain what is in any way 'bizarre' about it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? innocent until proven guilty no such thing anymore, with social media around, as for Prince Andrew he just a pratt, more money then sense." He doesn't have any money and Epstein was a billionaire: that was his problem, the love of money dulled his common sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trial by social media.. " Happens more than it should!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Also what about cases of murder suicide? The victim will be found to have been unlawfully killed at inquest but you are saying the perpetrator is not guilty because they've being convicted? " I said no such thing. Maybe before having a go read what is written. I never said someone is "not guilty because they've being convicted". that is totally misleading so maybe correct it? For clarity the legal position is everyone is innocent until convicted (either by judgment or confession) of a crime at which point they are found guilty of that offence. Its really quite simple so I am not sure what your angle is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? innocent until proven guilty no such thing anymore, with social media around, as for Prince Andrew he just a pratt, more money then sense. He doesn't have any money and Epstein was a billionaire: that was his problem, the love of money dulled his common sense. " And now the hatred of money is trying Prince Andrew. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By that logic Jimmy saville was innocent... legally and in fact he was because he was never tried, convicted and therefore never found guilty of any crime. Now I am sure you will say 'Well everyone knows ...'. well maybe they do but probably they do not but he died an innocent man in law. But in the court of public opinion .... Also you seem to be excluding people who plead guilty with your bizarre interpretation of the law Nothing 'bizarre' about it. Its a legal fact: A man / woman walks into Court innocent and then either pleads Guilty as you suggest (and is therefore convicted by confession and found guilty) or they are found guilty by a jury / magistrates or they leave as innocent as they came in. Please explain what is in any way 'bizarre' about it?" You really cant understand the difference between guilty and convicted can you? Let's really dumb this down. Early today I did 80+mph on the motorway? Am I guilty of speeding? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By that logic Jimmy saville was innocent... legally and in fact he was because he was never tried, convicted and therefore never found guilty of any crime. Now I am sure you will say 'Well everyone knows ...'. well maybe they do but probably they do not but he died an innocent man in law. But in the court of public opinion .... Also you seem to be excluding people who plead guilty with your bizarre interpretation of the law Nothing 'bizarre' about it. Its a legal fact: A man / woman walks into Court innocent and then either pleads Guilty as you suggest (and is therefore convicted by confession and found guilty) or they are found guilty by a jury / magistrates or they leave as innocent as they came in. Please explain what is in any way 'bizarre' about it?" Because it's logically inconsistent with facts. A state of guilt or innocence exists independent of the judicial system. The legal fact is that a defendant walks into a court PRESUMED to be innocent irrespective of whether they are or not. Are you suggesting that the wrongly convicted are actually guilty of a crime? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? innocent until proven guilty no such thing anymore, with social media around, as for Prince Andrew he just a pratt, more money then sense. He doesn't have any money and Epstein was a billionaire: that was his problem, the love of money dulled his common sense. And now the hatred of money is trying Prince Andrew." Think you're right there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? innocent until proven guilty no such thing anymore, with social media around, as for Prince Andrew he just a pratt, more money then sense. He doesn't have any money and Epstein was a billionaire: that was his problem, the love of money dulled his common sense. " He does have money. His official income is £250k from the queen and £20k navy pension but he’s made millions from abusing his position to broker deals between various companies or rich individuals and charging a percentage of the deal. The money is paid to him through property purchases and other high value assets. He sold a property which was valued at 7.5 million and had no sold for years until an unknown buyer paid him about 12 million for it and still it lay empty. He’s a shady character alright. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You really cant understand the difference between guilty and convicted can you? Let's really dumb this down. Early today I did 80+mph on the motorway? Am I guilty of speeding? " No need to patronise me Old Son. I am quite capable of arguing at any level you choose. Its not my fault you have a rather loose understanding that EVERYONE is innocent until convicted and found guilty. As to your actions today legally (and this is what we are discussing) no you are not guilty of an offence. You were selfish, dangerous and wasting fuel and a bit of a prat but as you have not been charged and not been tried and not been convicted then today you remain an innocent man. Like Andrew is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sur he couldn't have been with the girl in question when he was out having pizza "Did he give her a "Stuffed Crust"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You really cant understand the difference between guilty and convicted can you? Let's really dumb this down. Early today I did 80+mph on the motorway? Am I guilty of speeding? No need to patronise me Old Son. I am quite capable of arguing at any level you choose. Its not my fault you have a rather loose understanding that EVERYONE is innocent until convicted and found guilty. As to your actions today legally (and this is what we are discussing) no you are not guilty of an offence. You were selfish, dangerous and wasting fuel and a bit of a prat but as you have not been charged and not been tried and not been convicted then today you remain an innocent man. Like Andrew is." I'm not being patronising I'm trying to make you see that being convicted and being guilty are entirely different. You keep describing what's conviction is. But apparently no one has ever done anything wrong unless a judge has said they are guilty. So earlier today I got caught shoplifting. I accepted a caution from the police as it was my first offence. I'm not going to court. I accepted my guilt. The police proved it. But according to you I'm actually innocent? Is that right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sur he couldn't have been with the girl in question when he was out having pizza
Did he give her a "Stuffed Crust"?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You really cant understand the difference between guilty and convicted can you? Let's really dumb this down. Early today I did 80+mph on the motorway? Am I guilty of speeding? No need to patronise me Old Son. I am quite capable of arguing at any level you choose. Its not my fault you have a rather loose understanding that EVERYONE is innocent until convicted and found guilty. As to your actions today legally (and this is what we are discussing) no you are not guilty of an offence. You were selfish, dangerous and wasting fuel and a bit of a prat but as you have not been charged and not been tried and not been convicted then today you remain an innocent man. Like Andrew is. I'm not being patronising I'm trying to make you see that being convicted and being guilty are entirely different. You keep describing what's conviction is. But apparently no one has ever done anything wrong unless a judge has said they are guilty. So earlier today I got caught shoplifting. I accepted a caution from the police as it was my first offence. I'm not going to court. I accepted my guilt. The police proved it. But according to you I'm actually innocent? Is that right? A judge doesn't say you are guilty. A jury makes that decision and he or she passes sentence." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sur he couldn't have been with the girl in question when he was out having pizza
Did he give her a "Stuffed Crust"? "Did she ask for extra topping? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You really cant understand the difference between guilty and convicted can you? Let's really dumb this down. Early today I did 80+mph on the motorway? Am I guilty of speeding? No need to patronise me Old Son. I am quite capable of arguing at any level you choose. Its not my fault you have a rather loose understanding that EVERYONE is innocent until convicted and found guilty. As to your actions today legally (and this is what we are discussing) no you are not guilty of an offence. You were selfish, dangerous and wasting fuel and a bit of a prat but as you have not been charged and not been tried and not been convicted then today you remain an innocent man. Like Andrew is." Of course he is guilty of speeding, but if he went to court he would be presumed innocent by the court until convicted. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sur he couldn't have been with the girl in question when he was out having pizza
Did he give her a "Stuffed Crust"?
Did she ask for extra topping?"Yeah lots of meat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sex or sexual activities with anyone underage is statutory r**e regardless of if they agreed to it. I think statutory r*pe in the UK is sex with a child under the age of 12 years - the law presumes that someone under that age isn't mature enough to make their own decisions about such things. I agree with you, though. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a creep. " It's not! Any one under the age of consent is statutory r**e, even if it's 2 consenting kids of 15, both the parents can pursue against the other child for it. If it's someone under the age of consent & someone over it then the person over it is guilty of statutory r**e. End of! there is no black & White line nor is it any where near 12. That's why it's called "age of consent". The age of legal liability is 12 for other crimes or choosing if you want to live with one parent or the other. But not sex. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Whoa ......... ! Who had sex ? There were NO children present ever from what I know. Young women , yes, children no." Anyone under the age of consent is classed as a child in law, even if they are 1 day under, so a 17yr old in the US is a child, Not a young woman. Their age of consent is 18 or 21 depending on which State they are in. In the UK it's 16, except in northern Ireland where it is 17. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Whoa ......... ! Who had sex ? There were NO children present ever from what I know. Young women , yes, children no. Anyone under the age of consent is classed as a child in law, even if they are 1 day under, so a 17yr old in the US is a child, Not a young woman. Their age of consent is 18 or 21 depending on which State they are in. In the UK it's 16, except in northern Ireland where it is 17. " The age of consent in the states ranges from 16 to 18 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Whoa ......... ! Who had sex ? There were NO children present ever from what I know. Young women , yes, children no. Anyone under the age of consent is classed as a child in law, even if they are 1 day under, so a 17yr old in the US is a child, Not a young woman. Their age of consent is 18 or 21 depending on which State they are in. In the UK it's 16, except in northern Ireland where it is 17. The age of consent in the states ranges from 16 to 18 "depending on how far they are from Washington | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Whoa ......... ! Who had sex ? There were NO children present ever from what I know. Young women , yes, children no. Anyone under the age of consent is classed as a child in law, even if they are 1 day under, so a 17yr old in the US is a child, Not a young woman. Their age of consent is 18 or 21 depending on which State they are in. In the UK it's 16, except in northern Ireland where it is 17. The age of consent in the states ranges from 16 to 18 depending on how far they are from Washington "Maybe.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Whoa ......... ! Who had sex ? There were NO children present ever from what I know. Young women , yes, children no. Anyone under the age of consent is classed as a child in law, even if they are 1 day under, so a 17yr old in the US is a child, Not a young woman. Their age of consent is 18 or 21 depending on which State they are in. In the UK it's 16, except in northern Ireland where it is 17. The age of consent in the states ranges from 16 to 18 depending on how far they are from Washington
Maybe..
"baby | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sex or sexual activities with anyone underage is statutory r**e regardless of if they agreed to it. I think statutory r*pe in the UK is sex with a child under the age of 12 years - the law presumes that someone under that age isn't mature enough to make their own decisions about such things. I agree with you, though. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a creep. It's not! Any one under the age of consent is statutory r**e, even if it's 2 consenting kids of 15, both the parents can pursue against the other child for it. If it's someone under the age of consent & someone over it then the person over it is guilty of statutory r**e. End of! there is no black & White line nor is it any where near 12. That's why it's called "age of consent". The age of legal liability is 12 for other crimes or choosing if you want to live with one parent or the other. But not sex. " You’re wrong about that I’m afraid. Statutory r@pe is where the female is 13 and under. Between 13 and 16 it is called USI. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Whoa ......... ! Who had sex ? There were NO children present ever from what I know. Young women , yes, children no. Anyone under the age of consent is classed as a child in law, even if they are 1 day under, so a 17yr old in the US is a child, Not a young woman. Their age of consent is 18 or 21 depending on which State they are in. In the UK it's 16, except in northern Ireland where it is 17. The age of consent in the states ranges from 16 to 18 depending on how far they are from Washington
Maybe..
baby ""So I dare you to let me be your, your one and only I promise I'm worthy to hold in your arms So come on and give me the chance To prove up I'm the one who can Walk them miles until the air starts" - Adele | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did prince Andrew not make a comment about the age of consent being 16 (in the UK) & the offenses were in the US where the age is 18 in many places I believe. It sounded to me like he we trying to justify actions via ignorance. Therefore since he is in a position of power & influence, he should be extra careful about these things especially regarding sex where this is a very big black brush to be tarred with. Sex or sexual activities with anyone underage is statutory r**e regardless of if they agreed to it. I teach my son these things for this very reason." Im not defending andrew at all but I certainly didnt know the age of consent in various US states is different from here,not that I would be chasing under 20's now but maybe at 40,at a party, after a drink or two, I would have been tempted, he would have been better to have come clean | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
" Whoa ......... ! Who had sex ? There were NO children present ever from what I know. Young women , yes, children no. Anyone under the age of consent is classed as a child in law, even if they are 1 day under, so a 17yr old in the US is a child, Not a young woman. Their age of consent is 18 or 21 depending on which State they are in. In the UK it's 16, except in northern Ireland where it is 17. The age of consent in the states ranges from 16 to 18 depending on how far they are from Washington
Maybe..
baby
"So I dare you to let me be your, your one and only
I promise I'm worthy to hold in your arms
So come on and give me the chance
To prove up I'm the one who can
Walk them miles until the air starts"
- Adele"Maybe baby...Buddy Holly..1957.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept?" I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor." Thank you for addressing the original post | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He sold a property which was valued at 7.5 million and had no sold for years until an unknown buyer paid him about 12 million for it and still it lay empty. " The property was a wedding present to Andrew from the Queen. It was sold at 3 million pounds above the asking price to the son of the unelected, self-appointed president of Kazakhstan. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ?who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. it would all be conjecture would it not certainly if i knew i wouldn't have associated with him and Prince Andrew is an intelligent man so surely you would think the same of him "You're grasping at straws here lol he didn't know about the well publicised conviction of his celebrity friend?! Hmmmmmm | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So he didn't know why his friend served 13 months in prison ?who knows, you don't and i don't so maybe just maybe he didn't. it would all be conjecture would it not certainly if i knew i wouldn't have associated with him and Prince Andrew is an intelligent man so surely you would think the same of him
You're grasping at straws here lol he didn't know about the well publicised conviction of his celebrity friend?! Hmmmmmm"Yes of course he would have known and should have cut the ties then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He sold a property which was valued at 7.5 million and had no sold for years until an unknown buyer paid him about 12 million for it and still it lay empty. The property was a wedding present to Andrew from the Queen. It was sold at 3 million pounds above the asking price to the son of the unelected, self-appointed president of Kazakhstan. " But why would they pay 3 million above the asking price when it had been on the market for years with no interest in it. It was clearly a cloak and dagger payment. The guy who bought it didn’t even set foot in the place and it’s still laying empty now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It was clearly a cloak and dagger payment. The guy who bought it didn’t even set foot in the place and it’s still laying empty now." Clearly a way of gifting Andrew a vast quantity of money. Puzzling why Fergie needed £15k from Epstein to pay off a debt when they are multimillionaires with a ski lodge worth 13 million. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It was clearly a cloak and dagger payment. The guy who bought it didn’t even set foot in the place and it’s still laying empty now. Clearly a way of gifting Andrew a vast quantity of money. Puzzling why Fergie needed £15k from Epstein to pay off a debt when they are multimillionaires with a ski lodge worth 13 million. " Fergie has always been in debt. I thought the ski lodge was a recent acquisition. The question is where did these two "paupers" get the money from to purchase it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor." Brought to trial for what?
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor. Brought to trial for what?
", Being royalty? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Off with their heads!" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I still don't understand why Virginia Roberts waited for 17 years to make these allegations." Some showed her a few Benjamins? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor. Brought to trial for what?
,
Being royalty?"Mental isn't it....... I'll wait and see what crime the OP feels has been committed.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I still don't understand why Virginia Roberts waited for 17 years to make these allegations. Some showed her a few Benjamins? " What is that..money? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept?" Isn’t it the norm today ? Witch hunting , hang everyone then ask questions after . Seems the world is full of negativity people jumping on the band wagon , jumping on the blame train , believing everything on social media & tabloids . No wonder majority of people are screwed up . Just my opinion I might add | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor. Brought to trial for what?
,
Being royalty?
Mental isn't it.......
I'll wait and see what crime the OP feels has been committed."I think the op was designed to provoke this discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? Isn’t it the norm today ? Witch hunting , hang everyone then ask questions after . Seems the world is full of negativity people jumping on the band wagon , jumping on the blame train , believing everything on social media & tabloids . No wonder majority of people are screwed up . Just my opinion I might add " It's always been the norm. If he'd given an interview in which he'd shed a tear for the victims, said he'd been really stupid and rent his garments and torn his hair I suspect public opinion might have been different. But he didn't. He's guilty of appearing to think he was better than us and people don't like that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? Isn’t it the norm today ? Witch hunting , hang everyone then ask questions after . Seems the world is full of negativity people jumping on the band wagon , jumping on the blame train , believing everything on social media & tabloids . No wonder majority of people are screwed up . Just my opinion I might add It's always been the norm. If he'd given an interview in which he'd shed a tear for the victims, said he'd been really stupid and rent his garments and torn his hair I suspect public opinion might have been different. But he didn't. He's guilty of appearing to think he was better than us and people don't like that " And this is the point I made earlier, it's not the rumours or association that has had the negative impact it's the unbelievably bad interview that showed zero remorse, zero compassion and saw him laugh and lie his way through it. The arrogance of that and the complete lack of self awareness is what has seen his incredibly quick fall from grace | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? Isn’t it the norm today ? Witch hunting , hang everyone then ask questions after . Seems the world is full of negativity people jumping on the band wagon , jumping on the blame train , believing everything on social media & tabloids . No wonder majority of people are screwed up . Just my opinion I might add It's always been the norm. If he'd given an interview in which he'd shed a tear for the victims, said he'd been really stupid and rent his garments and torn his hair I suspect public opinion might have been different. But he didn't. He's guilty of appearing to think he was better than us and people don't like that And this is the point I made earlier, it's not the rumours or association that has had the negative impact it's the unbelievably bad interview that showed zero remorse, zero compassion and saw him laugh and lie his way through it. The arrogance of that and the complete lack of self awareness is what has seen his incredibly quick fall from grace" And he thought it was ok to fly to Bahrain for a few days! The man has no moral compass! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? Isn’t it the norm today ? Witch hunting , hang everyone then ask questions after . Seems the world is full of negativity people jumping on the band wagon , jumping on the blame train , believing everything on social media & tabloids . No wonder majority of people are screwed up . Just my opinion I might add It's always been the norm. If he'd given an interview in which he'd shed a tear for the victims, said he'd been really stupid and rent his garments and torn his hair I suspect public opinion might have been different. But he didn't. He's guilty of appearing to think he was better than us and people don't like that And this is the point I made earlier, it's not the rumours or association that has had the negative impact it's the unbelievably bad interview that showed zero remorse, zero compassion and saw him laugh and lie his way through it. The arrogance of that and the complete lack of self awareness is what has seen his incredibly quick fall from grace And he thought it was ok to fly to Bahrain for a few days! The man has no moral compass! " None of this is a criminal offence though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? Isn’t it the norm today ? Witch hunting , hang everyone then ask questions after . Seems the world is full of negativity people jumping on the band wagon , jumping on the blame train , believing everything on social media & tabloids . No wonder majority of people are screwed up . Just my opinion I might add It's always been the norm. If he'd given an interview in which he'd shed a tear for the victims, said he'd been really stupid and rent his garments and torn his hair I suspect public opinion might have been different. But he didn't. He's guilty of appearing to think he was better than us and people don't like that And this is the point I made earlier, it's not the rumours or association that has had the negative impact it's the unbelievably bad interview that showed zero remorse, zero compassion and saw him laugh and lie his way through it. The arrogance of that and the complete lack of self awareness is what has seen his incredibly quick fall from grace And he thought it was ok to fly to Bahrain for a few days! The man has no moral compass! None of this is a criminal offence though. " No but those people distancing themselves arent calling for him to be arrested are they. They are just realising he is toxic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? Isn’t it the norm today ? Witch hunting , hang everyone then ask questions after . Seems the world is full of negativity people jumping on the band wagon , jumping on the blame train , believing everything on social media & tabloids . No wonder majority of people are screwed up . Just my opinion I might add It's always been the norm. If he'd given an interview in which he'd shed a tear for the victims, said he'd been really stupid and rent his garments and torn his hair I suspect public opinion might have been different. But he didn't. He's guilty of appearing to think he was better than us and people don't like that And this is the point I made earlier, it's not the rumours or association that has had the negative impact it's the unbelievably bad interview that showed zero remorse, zero compassion and saw him laugh and lie his way through it. The arrogance of that and the complete lack of self awareness is what has seen his incredibly quick fall from grace And he thought it was ok to fly to Bahrain for a few days! The man has no moral compass! None of this is a criminal offence though. No but those people distancing themselves arent calling for him to be arrested are they. They are just realising he is toxic" Yes, I see your point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? Isn’t it the norm today ? Witch hunting , hang everyone then ask questions after . Seems the world is full of negativity people jumping on the band wagon , jumping on the blame train , believing everything on social media & tabloids . No wonder majority of people are screwed up . Just my opinion I might add It's always been the norm. If he'd given an interview in which he'd shed a tear for the victims, said he'd been really stupid and rent his garments and torn his hair I suspect public opinion might have been different. But he didn't. He's guilty of appearing to think he was better than us and people don't like that And this is the point I made earlier, it's not the rumours or association that has had the negative impact it's the unbelievably bad interview that showed zero remorse, zero compassion and saw him laugh and lie his way through it. The arrogance of that and the complete lack of self awareness is what has seen his incredibly quick fall from grace And he thought it was ok to fly to Bahrain for a few days! The man has no moral compass! " Nothing he's done is a criminal offence though. If 98% of the posters on this thread would kindly recluse themselves from jury duty..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sex or sexual activities with anyone underage is statutory r**e regardless of if they agreed to it. I think statutory r*pe in the UK is sex with a child under the age of 12 years - the law presumes that someone under that age isn't mature enough to make their own decisions about such things. I agree with you, though. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a creep. It's not! Any one under the age of consent is statutory r**e, even if it's 2 consenting kids of 15, both the parents can pursue against the other child for it. If it's someone under the age of consent & someone over it then the person over it is guilty of statutory r**e. End of! there is no black & White line nor is it any where near 12. That's why it's called "age of consent". The age of legal liability is 12 for other crimes or choosing if you want to live with one parent or the other. But not sex. You’re wrong about that I’m afraid. Statutory r@pe is where the female is 13 and under. Between 13 and 16 it is called USI. " Okay some states are as low as 16 as it is here. Usi stands for? And no your certainly wrong, regardless of the name, it's illegal for an adult to have sexual contact/intercourse with someone under the age of consent, and that can apply to 2 underage kids, although 2 undershirts is often not prosecuted it can be if the parents pursue it. A young woman is over 18, since woman means adult. Stop calling 17's & under young women they're not allowed to drink alcohol so why would any adult think that they should have sex with them. You'd do well to read this: http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.upworthy.com/amp/sexual-assault-rape-children It's up to adults to make sure they are within the law in any country, not the child so best to ask for id, if they can't provide it, don't do it. Simple. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sex or sexual activities with anyone underage is statutory r**e regardless of if they agreed to it. I think statutory r*pe in the UK is sex with a child under the age of 12 years - the law presumes that someone under that age isn't mature enough to make their own decisions about such things. I agree with you, though. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a creep. It's not! Any one under the age of consent is statutory r**e, even if it's 2 consenting kids of 15, both the parents can pursue against the other child for it. If it's someone under the age of consent & someone over it then the person over it is guilty of statutory r**e. End of! there is no black & White line nor is it any where near 12. That's why it's called "age of consent". The age of legal liability is 12 for other crimes or choosing if you want to live with one parent or the other. But not sex. You’re wrong about that I’m afraid. Statutory r@pe is where the female is 13 and under. Between 13 and 16 it is called USI. Okay some states are as low as 16 as it is here. Usi stands for? And no your certainly wrong, regardless of the name, it's illegal for an adult to have sexual contact/intercourse with someone under the age of consent, and that can apply to 2 underage kids, although 2 undershirts is often not prosecuted it can be if the parents pursue it. A young woman is over 18, since woman means adult. Stop calling 17's & under young women they're not allowed to drink alcohol so why would any adult think that they should have sex with them. You'd do well to read this: http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.upworthy.com/amp/sexual-assault-rape-children It's up to adults to make sure they are within the law in any country, not the child so best to ask for id, if they can't provide it, don't do it. Simple. " Statutory r@pe and under @ge sex are two different things. The latter applies to 14-16 year olds the former is 13 and under. USI stands for under @ge sexual intercourse and in most cases no prosecution takes place as long as it’s consensual and there are no other factors, such as grooming involved. Doesn’t make it right but that the law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sex or sexual activities with anyone underage is statutory r**e regardless of if they agreed to it. I think statutory r*pe in the UK is sex with a child under the age of 12 years - the law presumes that someone under that age isn't mature enough to make their own decisions about such things. I agree with you, though. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a creep. It's not! Any one under the age of consent is statutory r**e, even if it's 2 consenting kids of 15, both the parents can pursue against the other child for it. If it's someone under the age of consent & someone over it then the person over it is guilty of statutory r**e. End of! there is no black & White line nor is it any where near 12. That's why it's called "age of consent". The age of legal liability is 12 for other crimes or choosing if you want to live with one parent or the other. But not sex. You’re wrong about that I’m afraid. Statutory r@pe is where the female is 13 and under. Between 13 and 16 it is called USI. Okay some states are as low as 16 as it is here. Usi stands for? And no your certainly wrong, regardless of the name, it's illegal for an adult to have sexual contact/intercourse with someone under the age of consent, and that can apply to 2 underage kids, although 2 undershirts is often not prosecuted it can be if the parents pursue it. A young woman is over 18, since woman means adult. Stop calling 17's & under young women they're not allowed to drink alcohol so why would any adult think that they should have sex with them. You'd do well to read this: http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.upworthy.com/amp/sexual-assault-rape-children It's up to adults to make sure they are within the law in any country, not the child so best to ask for id, if they can't provide it, don't do it. Simple. Statutory r@pe and under @ge sex are two different things. The latter applies to 14-16 year olds the former is 13 and under. USI stands for under @ge sexual intercourse and in most cases no prosecution takes place as long as it’s consensual and there are no other factors, such as grooming involved. Doesn’t make it right but that the law. " Not when one is an adult! You would be prosecuted for it regardless of if grooming was involved or not! & to be honest any adult pursuing someone under age is grooming them. Your sounding as if it's something you think is okay to do. When it's definitely not & is illegal. You'll not get out of it in law. There no grey area there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have actually discovered what he's guilty of yet? I mean an actual criminal offence of course. My hands been on this lever all day and I'm getting cramp.... " Funny , just let go & say “oops” and ask questions after  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sex or sexual activities with anyone underage is statutory r**e regardless of if they agreed to it. I think statutory r*pe in the UK is sex with a child under the age of 12 years - the law presumes that someone under that age isn't mature enough to make their own decisions about such things. I agree with you, though. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a creep. It's not! Any one under the age of consent is statutory r**e, even if it's 2 consenting kids of 15, both the parents can pursue against the other child for it. If it's someone under the age of consent & someone over it then the person over it is guilty of statutory r**e. End of! there is no black & White line nor is it any where near 12. That's why it's called "age of consent". The age of legal liability is 12 for other crimes or choosing if you want to live with one parent or the other. But not sex. You’re wrong about that I’m afraid. Statutory r@pe is where the female is 13 and under. Between 13 and 16 it is called USI. Okay some states are as low as 16 as it is here. Usi stands for? And no your certainly wrong, regardless of the name, it's illegal for an adult to have sexual contact/intercourse with someone under the age of consent, and that can apply to 2 underage kids, although 2 undershirts is often not prosecuted it can be if the parents pursue it. A young woman is over 18, since woman means adult. Stop calling 17's & under young women they're not allowed to drink alcohol so why would any adult think that they should have sex with them. You'd do well to read this: http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.upworthy.com/amp/sexual-assault-rape-children It's up to adults to make sure they are within the law in any country, not the child so best to ask for id, if they can't provide it, don't do it. Simple. Statutory r@pe and under @ge sex are two different things. The latter applies to 14-16 year olds the former is 13 and under. USI stands for under @ge sexual intercourse and in most cases no prosecution takes place as long as it’s consensual and there are no other factors, such as grooming involved. Doesn’t make it right but that the law. Not when one is an adult! You would be prosecuted for it regardless of if grooming was involved or not! & to be honest any adult pursuing someone under age is grooming them. Your sounding as if it's something you think is okay to do. When it's definitely not & is illegal. You'll not get out of it in law. There no grey area there. " Oh behave yourself! I’m pointing out the differences between the two offences which is quite clear in my posts. And no, just because one side is of adult age doesn’t mean an automatic prosecution. You don’t know much about the law or how it’s enforced so stop making out that you do and stop trying make others look like they are condoning abuse of children because they are not and I certainly am not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor. Brought to trial for what?
"Read the original question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor. Brought to trial for what?
,
Being royalty?"For having sex with a minor. The age of consent is 18 in America. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor. Brought to trial for what?
,
Being royalty?
For having sex with a minor. The age of consent is 18 in America."It does depend on the state, 16 to 18. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept?" Just being pedantic here and not expressing any comment reference the Prince Andrew case but it's 'Presumed' innocent until proven guilty in UK law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor. Brought to trial for what?
Read the original question. "I'm asking for an answer to this comment; "I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title." Read the post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems lots of organisations are distancing themselves from Prince Andrew including charities and orchestras etc. Should this happen or should they use the innocent until proven guilty concept? I doubt he'll ever be brought to trial, even if he gives up his royal title. It's his own fault. He should have distanced himself as soon as the news broke all those years ago. If he had these organisations wouldn't be distancing themselves from him. They have a professional reputation to keep as well and they cannot be seen to be associating with a personality that could have questions to answer about possible sexual contact with a minor. Brought to trial for what?
,
Being royalty?
For having sex with a minor. The age of consent is 18 in America."Depends what state they were in. Fuck all like getting your facts right is there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An interview by Virginia Roberts is due to be aired next month, she recorded it 3 weeks before Prince Andrews interview.." The only possible explanation I could think for anyone agreeing to do an interview like that was because he knew there was some serious shit coming down the track and he wanted to get on the front foot before it hit. I wonder if this is it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An interview by Virginia Roberts is due to be aired next month, she recorded it 3 weeks before Prince Andrews interview.. The only possible explanation I could think for anyone agreeing to do an interview like that was because he knew there was some serious shit coming down the track and he wanted to get on the front foot before it hit. I wonder if this is it? " maybe... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bottom line is his trade is being a celebrity, therefore he is only valuable as long as that status is popular. Guilt or innocence is not a required element in the calculation. " Have to agree.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no sympathy for him. However there is nothing that I've seen that suggests he's guilty of anything more than being entitled and arrogant with a serious lack of judgement and empathy. " Totally this in my opinion ! but I am not a royalist by any stretch of anyones imagination. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
