Prince Andrew, Duke of York KG GCVO CD ADC(P)

[jackspratt]

What I think about how old she looks is irrelevant.

I wasn't there, and wasn't part of Epstein's inner circle.

She was 17.

.... snide retort ...

That's pretty rich, coming from a guy who struggles to make a post without including an insult, and finishes the above post with:

Be honest now, difficult as that may be.

Grow up, Alex.

[AlexO]

Failed to answer a relevant point again Pratty. When did you or 99% of the male population last ask a girl her age before talking to her or buying her a drink?
Remember how far back this alleged incident supposedly happened, hardy think he, Andrew was in the alleged inner circle then so your unfounded accusation could be totally inaccurate again. Perhaps he asked and she lied about her age, would hardly be the first time that happened. For me she looked about 19-20 in that photo.
PS
Don't struggle to make a post without an insult, those are kept almost exclusively for certain people only.

[Khun Paul]

OMG here we have the holier than thou JS, attempting to preach about the great wide world of Men and females as if he has NEVER EVER done the wrong thing.
Age of consent in the UK is 16, and has been for the last to my personal knowledge 7 decades .The gist of this story was that this young lady was lured into being a female who was used by Epstein and his GF Ghislane as a tool to entice males into inappropriate behaviour which may or may not have been recorded as a way to enrich said Epstein and Ghislane. Now the SEX part is really immaterial what Prince Andrew did or did not do is irrelevant , had he partook in enjoying the said female in sexual activities, it was because of age NOT illegal however the circumstances surrounding her employment probably was. Did he know of those circumstances no I do not think so. Was he stupid in his actions since and to date ..YES !!
So to the so-called key-board warriors with little life experiences and even less common-sense. The arguments put forward are at best scurrilous and insulting, but as we all know many just post hoping for an argument or at best an exchange of differing viewpoints which will include veiled insults.

ABOUT time you so called MEN grew up. The world is NOT a nice place , never has been and certainly will not change for the likes of us. Prince Andrew NEVER convicted , was hung oput to dry by the small mindsed Media and the even more small minded Public.

As for the rest of the Royal Family, it is so easy for many to sit behind a screen , pontificate and insult, demean and say the most outrageous things, knowing full well family will hardly ever react in any way.
The new actions of Prince Harry and his wife notwithstanding, the Royal Family rarely let their inner feelings known.

So why dont those who either do not like, think they are a waste of time or suffer delusions ,keep quiet and let the rest of us enjoy them and ever so recently bathe in their likeability and give thanks for at least the last 70 years , while looking ahead with positivity okay

[Udon Map]

Prince Andrew NEVER convicted, was hung out to dry by the small minded Media and the even more small minded Public.

It's true, of course, that he was never convicted of any crime. But I think that the question that most people are talking about isn't whether he's been convicted of anything, rather it's whether or not the rumors are true and he did what he's alleged to have done.

[tamada]

Nice to see KP opening a new can of glossy platinum jubilee paint on this one. Maybe Alex helped him chose the color?

Since they both subscribe to the notion that most men here, including themselves, have knowingly shagged underage women, gotten away with it and nobody paid any mind to it, maybe they should set an example to us all and just lop off their offending, atrophied naughty bits.

[Khun Paul]

Nice to see KP opening a new can of glossy platinum jubilee paint on this one. Maybe Alex helped him chose the color?

Since they both subscribe to the notion that most men here, including themselves, have knowingly shagged underage women, gotten away with it and nobody paid any mind to it, maybe they should set an example to us all and just lop off their offending, atrophied naughty bits.

At 17 she was NOT underage , which partof that do you Tam a resonably intelligent man NOT understand. I have stated it isdd NOT the SEX bit but the surrounding problems which makes people question. Maybe that is too much for a small minded brain to get around

[GT93]

I think jack is calling it correctly and obviously so. Andrew Windsor's conduct was disgraceful and the Queen and Prince Charles made the correct decision in making Windsor step aside from his royal duties. I understand that a large majority of Brits agree.

[AlexO]

Have not and never will accuse people of "knowingly shagged/ing underage women" with the exception of those who have been convicted of such a crime. This coming from someone who recently boasted about hanging around inside the girls changing rooms while at at school???
My point was "When did you or 99% of the male population last ask a girl her age" way different to "knowingly shagged underage women" Take Udon Maps post, confirms Andrew has 'never' been convicted of a crime so its just people giving their unfounded opinion that he shagged a 17 year old who from the famous photo seemed only too pleased to have another celebrity notch on her groupie knicker elastic and looks far older than 17. The alleged incident did not happen on USA soil so to call the Prince a *** according to USA law is just stupid in my view. Why not apply UK, or other European Nations laws on age of consent, these are far less draconian than USA laws. Paying an out of Court sum of money is not an admission of guilt, perhaps its just a way of a member of the Royal Family not wishing to be part of what would have become a media circus if he chose to do so. An outcome of which the Yank lawyer for the alleged groupie was probably only very aware of when she took the case.
Cast your memory back to the Australian SAS NCO, who the Pratt and a few others who post frequently wanted the soldier to be punished in the most severe manner because a number of newspapers accused him of war crimes. Guess what the soldier has not been convicted of a crime and is in the process of suing 3 newspapers for slander. However are people with no knowledge of the events apart from what is published as a sensational article still giving their unfounded opinions as to his guilt or just conveniently forgotten how vociferous they were in condemning the soldier.

[tamada]

I think jack is calling it correctly and obviously so. Andrew Windsor's conduct was disgraceful and the Queen and Prince Charles made the correct decision in making Windsor step aside from his royal duties. I understand that a large majority of Brits agree.

Gobsmacked as I am, I totally agree with you.

So, that's this thread done and dusted then?

Good.

Next?

[tamada]

Have not and never will accuse people of "knowingly shagged/ing underage women" with the exception of those who have been convicted of such a crime. This coming from someone who recently boasted about hanging around inside the girls changing rooms while at at school???
My point was "When did you or 99% of the male population last ask a girl her age" way different to "knowingly shagged underage women" Take Udon Maps post, confirms Andrew has 'never' been convicted of a crime so its just people giving their unfounded opinion that he shagged a 17 year old who from the famous photo seemed only too pleased to have another celebrity notch on her groupie knicker elastic and looks far older than 17. The alleged incident did not happen on USA soil so to call the Prince a *** according to USA law is just stupid in my view. Why not apply UK, or other European Nations laws on age of consent, these are far less draconian than USA laws. Paying an out of Court sum of money is not an admission of guilt, perhaps its just a way of a member of the Royal Family not wishing to be part of what would have become a media circus if he chose to do so. An outcome of which the Yank lawyer for the alleged groupie was probably only very aware of when she took the case.
Cast your memory back to the Australian SAS NCO, who the Pratt and a few others who post frequently wanted the soldier to be punished in the most severe manner because a number of newspapers accused him of war crimes. Guess what the soldier has not been convicted of a crime and is in the process of suing 3 newspapers for slander. However are people with no knowledge of the events apart from what is published as a sensational article still giving their unfounded opinions as to his guilt or just conveniently forgotten how vociferous they were in condemning the soldier.

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear.

It's Alzheimers, obviously.

[AlexO]

Tam
Sometimes you try, but fail miserably to be a smart ass. Addicted to having the last word, no medicine for that.

[jackspratt]

by AlexO » June 11, 2022, 9:48 am
Cast your memory back to the Australian SAS NCO, who the Pratt .... wanted the soldier to be punished in the most severe manner because a number of newspapers accused him of war crimes.

But I didn't say that, did I Alex.

So more bullschit from your fevered, red-mist affected mind.

Here's the entire thread, if you would like to review what I DID say. viewtopic.php?f=37&t=52327&hilit=sas&si ... 462496da65

You can get back with your apology at your convenience.

On the question of Roberts-Smith lawsuit (for libel, BTW) - he must be wishing that he had never bought it on. His reputation has been absolutely shredded in evidence, mostly by his former SAS team mates.

[AlexO]

A huge stain on the reputation of the Australian Defence Force, and a slap in the face of those who served, and continue to serve, with honour.
The digger mythology that's long sustained Australia's self-image has been shaken by a murderous few with maximum firepower and discretion but minimum oversight.

Consequently, a nation that has cherished and so proudly celebrated its soldier heritage must now confront the fact that some of its military elite may be cold-blooded killers.

Nineteen from the Special Air Service Regiment and 2nd Commando Regiment have stained the distinguished service of their colleagues and eroded the moral authority of the Australian Defence Force.

Some decorated "heroes" now stand accused of being war criminals. It may take courts up to 10 years to decide their fate. Awards for valour, gallantry and bravery will be torn up.

And that was not your first post on the matter.

[Khun Paul]

Prince Andrew NEVER convicted, was hung out to dry by the small minded Media and the even more small minded Public.

It's true, of course, that he was never convicted of any crime. But I think that the question that most people are talking about isn't whether he's been convicted of anything, rather it's whether or not the rumors are true and he did what he's alleged to have done.

There you go thinking again, not being British you will never understand . not to worry

[jackspratt]

You are delusional, Alex.

With the exception of your first para, those are clearly shown as being quotes from the ABC, and nowhere do I call for:

......soldier to be punished in the most severe manner because a number of newspapers accused him of war crimes.

What was my first post on the matter?

Apology still awaited. Take your time, and dig a little deeper.

[tamada]

Have not and never will accuse people of "knowingly shagged/ing underage women" with the exception of those who have been convicted of such a crime. This coming from someone who recently boasted about hanging around inside the girls changing rooms while at at school???
My point was "When did you or 99% of the male population last ask a girl her age" way different to "knowingly shagged underage women" ...

Here's a wee aide-mémoire from page 14 of this very same thread for you, you nasty anachronistic wee bugger.

...
Tam
Are you trying to tell us you never had carnal knowledge of a 16 or 17 year old back in Scotland? (where it is legal) or did you have to come to Thailand to experience younger ladies? Same as 95% of the expat population over here. Did you come to Thailand in search of someone your own age or older? ...

Do you have proof of my conviction then?

BTW, it was the fifth year girls LOCKER room, not changing room.

It may be hard but try and get your decrepit mind out of the gutter.

[GT93]

Have not and never will accuse people of "knowingly shagged/ing underage women" with the exception of those who have been convicted of such a crime ...

Cast your memory back to the Australian SAS NCO, who the Pratt and a few others who post frequently wanted the soldier to be punished in the most severe manner because a number of newspapers accused him of war crimes. Guess what the soldier has not been convicted of a crime and is in the process of suing 3 newspapers for slander. However are people with no knowledge of the events apart from what is published as a sensational article still giving their unfounded opinions as to his guilt or just conveniently forgotten how vociferous they were in condemning the soldier.

Surely the first sentence isn't how you'd behave? If I was sufficiently concerned about say a neighbour or school teacher "shagging" girls below the legal age or even students above the legal age, I'd mention it to someone. It's appalling to look the other way.

The early evidence as reported about the Aussie SAS soldier didn't look good. If it was true, I think he needed to be investigated. If guilty (after being charged and trialed), he should have the book thrown at him. Notice the "ifs".

I haven't been following the Covid affected defamation action that closely, but the evidence to me has looked very bad for him. And as jack noted, the evidence has been coming from other SAS soldiers. You seem to be siding against the military. That's a bit surprising.

[tamada]

Have not and never will accuse people of "knowingly shagged/ing underage women" with the exception of those who have been convicted of such a crime ...

Cast your memory back to the Australian SAS NCO, who the Pratt and a few others who post frequently wanted the soldier to be punished in the most severe manner because a number of newspapers accused him of war crimes. Guess what the soldier has not been convicted of a crime and is in the process of suing 3 newspapers for slander. However are people with no knowledge of the events apart from what is published as a sensational article still giving their unfounded opinions as to his guilt or just conveniently forgotten how vociferous they were in condemning the soldier.

Surely the first sentence isn't how you'd behave? If I was sufficiently concerned about say a neighbour or school teacher "shagging" girls below the legal age or even students above the legal age, I'd mention it to someone. It's appalling to look the other way.

The early evidence as reported about the Aussie SAS soldier didn't look good. If it was true, I think he needed to be investigated. If guilty (after being charged and trialed), he should have the book thrown at him. Notice the "ifs".

I haven't been following the Covid affected defamation action that closely, but the evidence to me has looked very bad for him. And as jack noted, the evidence has been coming from other SAS soldiers. You seem to be siding against the military. That's a bit surprising.

And you seem to be following Alex down another rabbit hole.

[AlexO]

Still above ground Tam. Sorry to disprove your wee outburst.

[pepesgrill]

that ben roberts smith legal wrangling is distressing. but also very different from andy stuff

i guess his defamation case against " the age", "the sydney morning herald"," canberra times"

has gotten mired in legal judo ( mostly because the defence is losing) they smeared a good fella

andy , the moment he stepped on fantasy isle was
done for. his minders seriously fumbled that one