Jump to content

News Forum - Queen of England revokes military, royal titles from Prince Andrew, as US civil lawsuit proceeds in New York


Thaiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Raugh said:
20 hours ago, Rain said:

Never mind that the royals have deep and nasty skeletons in their collective closets. 

Well they are British after all.

I'll have you know our British skeletons are the best in the world.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Bluesofa said:

I'll have you know our British skeletons are the best in the world.

Even the vegan ones are ok.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bluesofa said:

I'll have you know our British skeletons are the best in the world.

Agreed Bulesofa. More royal than most others too.

What's the naughty lad going to do with all his medals? Ebay?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, snapdragon said:

Agreed Bulesofa. More royal than most others too.

What's the naughty lad going to do with all his medals? Ebay?

If they listed them alphabetically on eBay, would it be under A for Andrew, R for Royal, or P for....Pissed off.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bluesofa said:

If they listed them alphabetically on eBay, would it be under A for Andrew, R for Royal, or P for....Pissed off.

He had them pinned onto his red uniform the other day. Had so many it made him walk funny; stooped over.

It might cost the tax-payer 10 million. But the lady says she don't want no dosh. Just her day in court.

Why not roll out the 'lie detector'? Would soon get to the bottom of that 'can't sweat' thing.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bluesofa said:

I'll have you know our British skeletons are the best in the world.

Of course they are.....🙄🤨

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK couple of things here. First off is the "Queen of England" topic title. 

Second of all I'm struggling to see which laws he has broken. The fact is he was known as "Randy Andy". Has been since the 80's. Now he might have the morals of an ally cat but technically thats not a crime.

As far as I can see he was not forcing himself on these girls. They were returning time after time because they enjoyed the financial aspect of the agreement and it was Epstein who was paying them not him.

So short of the fact he couldnt pass a knothole in a fence what exactly has he done wrong?

Where he has gone wrong is trying to protect Epstein and Maxwell. He should just have told the truth and been done with it. 

From what I can see the girls were not underage and they kept coming back for more because they were being paid.

Now personally I think Andrew is a sleazy git. Always has been always will be.

But has he broken the law?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

OK couple of things here. First off is the "Queen of England" topic title. 

Second of all I'm struggling to see which laws he has broken. The fact is he was known as "Randy Andy". Has been since the 80's. Now he might have the morals of an ally cat but technically thats not a crime.

As far as I can see he was not forcing himself on these girls. They were returning time after time because they enjoyed the financial aspect of the agreement and it was Epstein who was paying them not him.

So short of the fact he couldnt pass a knothole in a fence what exactly has he done wrong?

Where he has gone wrong is trying to protect Epstein and Maxwell. He should just have told the truth and been done with it. 

From what I can see the girls were not underage and they kept coming back for more because they were being paid.

Now personally I thing Andrew is a sleazy git. Always has been always will be.

But has he broken the law?

Their real/true crimes [as an historic collective] are ignored, unrecognizable and accepted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

Their real/true crimes [as an historic collective] are ignored, unrecognizable and accepted. 

Well you cant hold Andrew responsible for something Henry the 8th did.

Personally I'd like to dig up Edward the 1st and hit him with hammers but its not exactly the fault of the current monarchy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

OK couple of things here. First off is the "Queen of England" topic title. 

Second of all I'm struggling to see which laws he has broken. The fact is he was known as "Randy Andy". Has been since the 80's. Now he might have the morals of an ally cat but technically thats not a crime.

As far as I can see he was not forcing himself on these girls. They were returning time after time because they enjoyed the financial aspect of the agreement and it was Epstein who was paying them not him.

So short of the fact he couldnt pass a knothole in a fence what exactly has he done wrong?

Where he has gone wrong is trying to protect Epstein and Maxwell. He should just have told the truth and been done with it. 

From what I can see the girls were not underage and they kept coming back for more because they were being paid.

Now personally I think Andrew is a sleazy git. Always has been always will be.

But has he broken the law?

I was under the impression that sex with anyone 'underage' was illegal, even if they 'came on to him'?

I would assume it was part of his royal protection officers' job to ensure he didn't 'engage' with anyone fitting that criteria? Perhaps I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bluesofa said:

I was under the impression that sex with anyone 'underage' was illegal, even if they 'came on to him'?

I would assume it was part of his royal protection officers' job to ensure he didn't 'engage' with anyone fitting that criteria? Perhaps I'm wrong.

But in the places the "crimes" appear to have been committed they were not underage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

But in the places the "crimes" appear to have been committed they were not underage.

In that case I stand sit corrected. That's news to me. So why does whats-her-name want to go to court then?
Have I missed something obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Well you cant hold Andrew responsible for something Henry the 8th did.

Personally I'd like to dig up Edward the 1st and hit him with hammers but its not exactly the fault of the current monarchy.  

Oh dear. We've conveniently missed the whole picture, haven't we?

Expected. 

Mai phen rai.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bluesofa said:

In that case I stand sit corrected. That's news to me. So why does whats-her-name want to go to court then?
Have I missed something obvious?

Money. Notoriety and fame.

But mostly money.

Now claims she was an innocent little girl who was corrupted and has faced a lifetime of shame, humiliation and grief.

Personally I think Andrews lawyers should go on the offensive and start a counter claim that she was a ho and gave Andrew crabs.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Oh dear. We've conveniently missed the whole picture, haven't we?

Expected. 

Mai phen rai.

And what whole picture would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they're already started a claim, saying she has "false memories" & a Psychologist should interview her.

 

.

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Personally I think Andrews lawyers should go on the offensive and start a counter claim that she was a ho and gave Andrew crabs.

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/world/prince-andrew-claims-virginia-giuffre-may-suffer-from-false-memories/#:~:text=The Duke of York has,witnesses%2C court documents have revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Faraday said:

Now I may be old fashioned and not exactly a teenager any more Faraday but back in the day we called "false memories" by a different title. 

We called it "A load of shite".

I cant help but think the younger generation might do well to try and accept what we have gone through and learn the lessons we already have.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bluesofa said:

So why does whats-her-name want to go to court then?
Have I missed something obvious?

As far as I know the key word here is "Rape"

Edited by Raugh
remove underline
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 12:11 AM, Raugh said:

Guilty until proven innocent strikes again.

Exactly, why can't she wait until he's convicted? 

Her actions say that being accused is as bad as being convicted (i.e. the judicial process is redundant or cosmetic). 

This undermines Democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 3:48 PM, Transam said:

I wonder how many of us were fooling around with 17 year olds when we were younger...

Stand up and be counted......😝

Jennifer  Connolly at FOURTEEN, be  honest!

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vince said:

Exactly, why can't she wait until he's convicted? 

Her actions say that being accused is as bad as being convicted (i.e. the judicial process is redundant or cosmetic). 

This undermines Democracy. 

There  is  no democracy anymore its trial by interweb

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

So short of the fact he couldnt pass a knothole in a fence

🤣🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RampantRabbit said:

There  is  no democracy anymore its trial by interweb

Indeed. I think people ignore the implications because they agree with the current charges (i.e. #metoo getting back at rich powerful abusers, etc).

But this sets the stage for public accusation against almost anyone. 

Trial by Internet, for any real or perceived or invented crime, committed at any time, with any evidence or none at all.

I think before the internet that was called "mob rule" or "mob justice". 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vince said:

Indeed. I think people ignore the implications because they agree with the current charges (i.e. #metoo getting back at rich powerful abusers, etc).

But this sets the stage for public accusation against almost anyone. 

Trial by Internet, for any real or perceived or invented crime, committed at any time, with any evidence or none at all.

I think before the internet that was called "mob rule" or "mob justice". 

ditto the pc  woke cacnel winker  brigade

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use