The grand old duke of york, he had 10,000.........

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The grand old duke of york, he had 10,000.........

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 12 of 18 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Mapletree Croydon 14 Jan 22 8.25am
Originally posted by Palace Old Geezer I too Hrolf, find it hard to understand what he did that was illegal. He was weak and stupid to be lured into Epstein's crazy world. But, my understanding is that it's simply down to the US minimum age laws, accepting that different States vary. Like you can buy a gun when you're 18 and drive a car at 16, but it's illegal to have sex if you're under 18. This woman who's accusing Andrew certainly had a difficult early life, but like others involved with Epstein she was participating in his wierd world for a long time before cutting adrift. I mean, she wasn't a child and she must have known what she was doing. You'd think she could have said 'no, this is not for me' and cleared off sooner if she didn't want to get involved. Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them. Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked. [Link]

Mapletree

Croydon 14 Jan 22 8.25am

Originally posted by Palace Old Geezer

I too Hrolf, find it hard to understand what he did that was illegal. He was weak and stupid to be lured into Epstein's crazy world. But, my understanding is that it's simply down to the US minimum age laws, accepting that different States vary. Like you can buy a gun when you're 18 and drive a car at 16, but it's illegal to have sex if you're under 18.

This woman who's accusing Andrew certainly had a difficult early life, but like others involved with Epstein she was participating in his wierd world for a long time before cutting adrift. I mean, she wasn't a child and she must have known what she was doing. You'd think she could have said 'no, this is not for me' and cleared off sooner if she didn't want to get involved.

Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.

Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked.

[Link]

BlueJay UK 14 Jan 22 9.16am
Originally posted by Palace Old Geezer I too Hrolf, find it hard to understand what he did that was illegal. He was weak and stupid to be lured into Epstein's crazy world. But, my understanding is that it's simply down to the US minimum age laws, accepting that different States vary. Like you can buy a gun when you're 18 and drive a car at 16, but it's illegal to have sex if you're under 18. This woman who's accusing Andrew certainly had a difficult early life, but like others involved with Epstein she was participating in his weird world for a long time before cutting adrift. I mean, she wasn't a child and she must have known what she was doing. You'd think she could have said 'no, this is not for me' and cleared off sooner if she didn't want to get involved. Several in Epstein's orbit were under age though, and whether a year this way or that it's of course easy for for us to say 'why didn't they just not get involved' as if to disproportionately cast blame on them. The whole point of grooming is surely to create an atmosphere that is far more manipulative and controlling than it may appear on the surface. The wider context of the fact that he was a prolific pedo for decades is surely pertinent to what these girls went through. The idea that we can extract this one girl from it as some sexed up tart who was playing 4D Chess as a 'long con', would seem to be a very narrow view of the wider realities and power dynamics. But in terms of Andrews involvement, yes I'd say we should judge it based on the extent of his personal involvement and whatever they legally may mean. He's something of a 'fall guy' for those who have had more unnerving and hand in glove involvement in Epstein's world. Edited by BlueJay (14 Jan 2022 9.18am)

BlueJay

UK 14 Jan 22 9.16am

Originally posted by Palace Old Geezer

This woman who's accusing Andrew certainly had a difficult early life, but like others involved with Epstein she was participating in his weird world for a long time before cutting adrift. I mean, she wasn't a child and she must have known what she was doing. You'd think she could have said 'no, this is not for me' and cleared off sooner if she didn't want to get involved.

Several in Epstein's orbit were under age though, and whether a year this way or that it's of course easy for for us to say 'why didn't they just not get involved' as if to disproportionately cast blame on them. The whole point of grooming is surely to create an atmosphere that is far more manipulative and controlling than it may appear on the surface. The wider context of the fact that he was a prolific pedo for decades is surely pertinent to what these girls went through. The idea that we can extract this one girl from it as some sexed up tart who was playing 4D Chess as a 'long con', would seem to be a very narrow view of the wider realities and power dynamics.

But in terms of Andrews involvement, yes I'd say we should judge it based on the extent of his personal involvement and whatever they legally may mean. He's something of a 'fall guy' for those who have had more unnerving and hand in glove involvement in Epstein's world.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Jan 2022 9.18am)

Badger11 Beckenham 14 Jan 22 9.19am
I read an article by a lawyer as to why Virgina Roberts wasn't called by the prosecution in the Maxwell trial. It seems she is a victim / offender apparently there are plenty of witnesses that she groomed young girls and wasn't an innocent participant. That doesn't mean that she wasn't a victim but it does mean that the jury might have viewed her unsympathetically so she was never called. I guess you could call that victim blaming. Anyway if this ever goes to trial (I expect Andy will pay her off) this will be the strategy of his defence e.g. she groomed him and others. One more point

Badger11

Beckenham 14 Jan 22 9.19am

I read an article by a lawyer as to why Virgina Roberts wasn't called by the prosecution in the Maxwell trial.

It seems she is a victim / offender apparently there are plenty of witnesses that she groomed young girls and wasn't an innocent participant.

That doesn't mean that she wasn't a victim but it does mean that the jury might have viewed her unsympathetically so she was never called. I guess you could call that victim blaming.

Anyway if this ever goes to trial (I expect Andy will pay her off) this will be the strategy of his defence e.g. she groomed him and others.

One more point

BlueJay UK 14 Jan 22 9.40am
Originally posted by Badger11 I read an article by a lawyer as to why Virgina Roberts wasn't called by the prosecution in the Maxwell trial. It seems she is a victim / offender apparently there are plenty of witnesses that she groomed young girls and wasn't an innocent participant. That doesn't mean that she wasn't a victim but it does mean that the jury might have viewed her unsympathetically so she was never called. I guess you could call that victim blaming. Anyway if this ever goes to trial (I expect Andy will pay her off) this will be the strategy of his defence e.g. she groomed him and others. Most likely. I think Andrew would do almost anything to avoid going to trial though. A big financial settlement with a vague apology of some kind attached if my best guess!

BlueJay

UK 14 Jan 22 9.40am

Originally posted by Badger11

I read an article by a lawyer as to why Virgina Roberts wasn't called by the prosecution in the Maxwell trial.

It seems she is a victim / offender apparently there are plenty of witnesses that she groomed young girls and wasn't an innocent participant.

That doesn't mean that she wasn't a victim but it does mean that the jury might have viewed her unsympathetically so she was never called. I guess you could call that victim blaming.

Anyway if this ever goes to trial (I expect Andy will pay her off) this will be the strategy of his defence e.g. she groomed him and others.

Most likely. I think Andrew would do almost anything to avoid going to trial though. A big financial settlement with a vague apology of some kind attached if my best guess!

steeleye20 Croydon 14 Jan 22 9.41am
I was thinking why didn't Andrew just clear off? Me I'd have quietly disappeared to a new life in the sun. Now screwed by his own mother, the present incumbent but not rightful Queen.

steeleye20

Croydon 14 Jan 22 9.41am

I was thinking why didn't Andrew just clear off?

Me I'd have quietly disappeared to a new life in the sun.

Now screwed by his own mother, the present incumbent but not rightful Queen.

BlueJay UK 14 Jan 22 9.49am
She's certainly cut him loose it would appear. Anything to create distance and protect the institution it seems.

BlueJay

UK 14 Jan 22 9.49am

She's certainly cut him loose it would appear. Anything to create distance and protect the institution it seems.

steeleye20 Croydon 14 Jan 22 10.00am
They are like the Hapsburgs in those old WW1 documentaries.

steeleye20

Croydon 14 Jan 22 10.00am

They are like the Hapsburgs in those old WW1 documentaries.

Teddy Eagle 14 Jan 22 10.06am
Originally posted by steeleye20 I was thinking why didn't Andrew just clear off? Me I'd have quietly disappeared to a new life in the sun. Now screwed by his own mother, the present incumbent but not rightful Queen. Presumably because out of innate arrogance, hubris, or whatever it is, he thought he was untouchable. Leaving aside his now former position it’s just such a sleazy situation - he’s a bit younger than me but I genuinely can’t imagine any of my mates claiming he had access to a string of teenaged girls and we could all join in; most of my friends have grandchildren around that age and would find the suggestion quite abhorrent.

Teddy Eagle

14 Jan 22 10.06am

Originally posted by steeleye20

I was thinking why didn't Andrew just clear off?

Me I'd have quietly disappeared to a new life in the sun.

Now screwed by his own mother, the present incumbent but not rightful Queen.

Presumably because out of innate arrogance, hubris, or whatever it is, he thought he was untouchable.
Leaving aside his now former position it’s just such a sleazy situation - he’s a bit younger than me but I genuinely can’t imagine any of my mates claiming he had access to a string of teenaged girls and we could all join in; most of my friends have grandchildren around that age and would find the suggestion quite abhorrent.

BlueJay UK 14 Jan 22 10.12am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Presumably because out of innate arrogance, hubris, or whatever it is, he thought he was untouchable. Leaving aside his now former position it’s just such a sleazy situation - he’s a bit younger than me but I genuinely can’t imagine any of my mates claiming he had access to a string of teenaged girls and we could all join in; most of my friends have grandchildren around that age and would find the suggestion quite abhorrent. The interview he gave with unbelievable and made everything so much worse. People talk a lot about 'privilege' nowadays, but royals are so many magnitudes of privilege beyond us all that he literally thought he could reel off various complete absurdities and we'd all just lap it up as fact. It shows how entirely unquestioned in both his words and behaviour he's been throughout his whole life. He's have been better off saying nothing. Edited by BlueJay (14 Jan 2022 10.13am)

BlueJay

UK 14 Jan 22 10.12am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

The interview he gave with unbelievable and made everything so much worse. People talk a lot about 'privilege' nowadays, but royals are so many magnitudes of privilege beyond us all that he literally thought he could reel off various complete absurdities and we'd all just lap it up as fact. It shows how entirely unquestioned in both his words and behaviour he's been throughout his whole life. He's have been better off saying nothing.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Jan 2022 10.13am)

Badger11 Beckenham 14 Jan 22 10.19am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Presumably because out of innate arrogance, hubris, or whatever it is, he thought he was untouchable. Leaving aside his now former position it’s just such a sleazy situation - he’s a bit younger than me but I genuinely can’t imagine any of my mates claiming he had access to a string of teenaged girls and we could all join in; most of my friends have grandchildren around that age and would find the suggestion quite abhorrent. I guess you don't have friends who are taxi drivers or work in takeaways and live in the north of England. One more point

Badger11

Beckenham 14 Jan 22 10.19am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Presumably because out of innate arrogance, hubris, or whatever it is, he thought he was untouchable.
Leaving aside his now former position it’s just such a sleazy situation - he’s a bit younger than me but I genuinely can’t imagine any of my mates claiming he had access to a string of teenaged girls and we could all join in; most of my friends have grandchildren around that age and would find the suggestion quite abhorrent.

I guess you don't have friends who are taxi drivers or work in takeaways and live in the north of England.

One more point

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Jan 22 11.01am
Originally posted by Henry of Peckham Allegedly, he 'met up' with the girl in London, NY and Florida. I believe the age of consent in the those US states is 18. It varies from state to state in the US. That's what I assumed. So by our British standards, he didn't sleep with an underage girl. What I'm not clear on is why a girl who met up with him three times in three different locations is now complaining about it. I suspect it could have something to do with money.

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Jan 22 11.01am

Originally posted by Henry of Peckham

Allegedly, he 'met up' with the girl in London, NY and Florida. I believe the age of consent in the those US states is 18. It varies from state to state in the US.

That's what I assumed.

So by our British standards, he didn't sleep with an underage girl.

What I'm not clear on is why a girl who met up with him three times in three different locations is now complaining about it.

I suspect it could have something to do with money.

YT Oxford 14 Jan 22 11.12am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger That's what I assumed. So by our British standards, he didn't sleep with an underage girl. What I'm not clear on is why a girl who met up with him three times in three different locations is now complaining about it. I suspect it could have something to do with money. You reckon?!! Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Oxford 14 Jan 22 11.12am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That's what I assumed.

So by our British standards, he didn't sleep with an underage girl.

What I'm not clear on is why a girl who met up with him three times in three different locations is now complaining about it.

I suspect it could have something to do with money.

You reckon?!!

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

YT Oxford 14 Jan 22 11.16am
Originally posted by Badger11 I guess you don't have friends who are taxi drivers or work in takeaways and live in the north of England. I find this comment offensive. Oxford is NOT in the north!! [Link] Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Oxford 14 Jan 22 11.16am

Originally posted by Badger11

I guess you don't have friends who are taxi drivers or work in takeaways and live in the north of England.

I find this comment offensive. Oxford is NOT in the north!!

[Link]

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Henry of Peckham Eton Mess 14 Jan 22 11.51am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger That's what I assumed. So by our British standards, he didn't sleep with an underage girl. What I'm not clear on is why a girl who met up with him three times in three different locations is now complaining about it. I suspect it could have something to do with money. Doubtless, she's a very highly principled woman who will settle out of court for a small (undisclosed) fortune! One might wonder what his old uni mate Ghislaine says to save her own arse. Could this be just one of a number of civil cases Randy Andy faces in the future? Edited by Henry of Peckham (14 Jan 2022 12.00pm) Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Henry of Peckham

Eton Mess 14 Jan 22 11.51am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That's what I assumed.

So by our British standards, he didn't sleep with an underage girl.

What I'm not clear on is why a girl who met up with him three times in three different locations is now complaining about it.

I suspect it could have something to do with money.

Doubtless, she's a very highly principled woman who will settle out of court for a small (undisclosed) fortune!

One might wonder what his old uni mate Ghislaine says to save her own arse. Could this be just one of a number of civil cases Randy Andy faces in the future?

Edited by Henry of Peckham (14 Jan 2022 12.00pm)

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Badger11 Beckenham 14 Jan 22 12.04pm
Originally posted by YT I find this comment offensive. Oxford is NOT in the north!! [Link] Actually my comment was a too much probably should with draw that. One more point

Badger11

Beckenham 14 Jan 22 12.04pm

Originally posted by YT

I find this comment offensive. Oxford is NOT in the north!!

[Link]

Actually my comment was a too much probably should with draw that.

One more point

Palace Old Geezer Midhurst 14 Jan 22 12.45pm
Will Andrew continue to have 24hr police protection I wonder? Protecting the Royal Family is estimated to cost around £125m. That's a lot of Bobbies on the beat. Dad and I watched games standing on the muddy slope of the Holmesdale Road end. He cheered and I rattled.

Palace Old Geezer

Midhurst 14 Jan 22 12.45pm

Will Andrew continue to have 24hr police protection I wonder? Protecting the Royal Family is estimated to cost around £125m. That's a lot of Bobbies on the beat.

Dad and I watched games standing on the muddy slope of the Holmesdale Road end. He cheered and I rattled.

BlueJay UK 14 Jan 22 12.48pm
Originally posted by Palace Old Geezer Will Andrew continue to have 24hr police protection I wonder? Is that a new brand of morning after pill?

BlueJay

UK 14 Jan 22 12.48pm

Originally posted by Palace Old Geezer

Will Andrew continue to have 24hr police protection I wonder?

Is that a new brand of morning after pill?

Badger11 Beckenham 14 Jan 22 12.59pm
Originally posted by Palace Old Geezer Will Andrew continue to have 24hr police protection I wonder? Protecting the Royal Family is estimated to cost around £125m. That's a lot of Bobbies on the beat. If he isn't doing official duties then no. One more point

Badger11

Beckenham 14 Jan 22 12.59pm

Originally posted by Palace Old Geezer

Will Andrew continue to have 24hr police protection I wonder? Protecting the Royal Family is estimated to cost around £125m. That's a lot of Bobbies on the beat.

If he isn't doing official duties then no.

One more point

dreamwaverider London 14 Jan 22 2.21pm
My take is that Andrew almost certainly engaged with the girl. His ludicrous interview last year (or before) was a big mistake. He has burnt his privileged position for life and therefore would be best advised to settle. He hasn't got a bottomless pit of cash to defend himself with and the Royals have cast him out. However, I could see her treading on very thin ice. She clearly was involved in recruiting underaged girls and it could be argued was grooming Andrew. I would have thought a really good US lawyer could convince a jury of this. Especially if the sexes were reversed. All hypothetical I know, bu I do think the world is heading in the wrong direction with this and many other topical items. Think I prefer to stick to the Palace. Crystal Palace that is!!

dreamwaverider

London 14 Jan 22 2.21pm

My take is that Andrew almost certainly engaged with the girl. His ludicrous interview last year (or before) was a big mistake. He has burnt his privileged position for life and therefore would be best advised to settle. He hasn't got a bottomless pit of cash to defend himself with and the Royals have cast him out.
However, I could see her treading on very thin ice. She clearly was involved in recruiting underaged girls and it could be argued was grooming Andrew. I would have thought a really good US lawyer could convince a jury of this. Especially if the sexes were reversed.
All hypothetical I know, bu I do think the world is heading in the wrong direction with this and many other topical items.

Think I prefer to stick to the Palace.

Crystal Palace that is!!

The Dolphin 14 Jan 22 2.29pm
I agree with you Dream..... - did he - almost certainly - did he think he was committing an offence - probably not. Whatever else the man might be I really do not think that he is that kind of individual - just arrogant, misguided and thick! His big mistakes were being involved with Epstein and Maxwell, not seeing this young Woman for what she was and then granting the interview and behaving the way he did having done so.

The Dolphin

14 Jan 22 2.29pm

I agree with you Dream..... - did he - almost certainly - did he think he was committing an offence - probably not.
Whatever else the man might be I really do not think that he is that kind of individual - just arrogant, misguided and thick!
His big mistakes were being involved with Epstein and Maxwell, not seeing this young Woman for what she was and then granting the interview and behaving the way he did having done so.

Page 12 of 18 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The grand old duke of york, he had 10,000.........

Site Map