Off Topic Prince Andrew

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Treble said:
If he admitted she was underage, whether he was aware or not, I think he would've set himself up for charges.
Click to expand...

Thats why I said deny he knew she was underage, she could have been 18 or 19 from her photo and she certainly did not look under duress, It was denying he met her that ****ed him

in these situations do not lie but dont say anything to imply any guilt
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solid Air 2
Treble said:
The thing is (and I may be wrong so happy to be corrected) that agreement is specifically for Epstein and all associates involved in any trafficking or underage sex allegations.

So by claiming he qualifies under the terms of that agreement, he's accepting he was a part of it. It's a mental defence as it will just drive even more pressure from the media and the FBI.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what she's alleging, though? It's using her own claim against her case.
If she denies that the deal applies, then she has to deny one of the basic facts of her claim.
 
duggie2000 said:
Thats why I said deny he knew she was underage, she could have been 18 or 19 from her photo and she certainly did not look under duress, It was denying he met her that ****ed him

in these situations do not lie but dont say anything to imply any guilt
Click to expand...

But isn't that a typical defence "I didn't know she was under age guv!" which usually cuts no ice with the cops or the courts.

I think it would've been enough to get him charged. Even if he got off in court, the risk of being charged and having to face a trial at all is what he and the royals would want to avoid.
 
Treble said:
But isn't that a typical defence "I didn't know she was under age guv!" which usually cuts no ice with the cops or the courts.

I think it would've been enough to get him charged. Even if he got off in court, the risk of being charged and having to face a trial at all is what he and the royals would want to avoid.
Click to expand...
She wasn't actually underage though, unless he knew she was being trafficked, IIRC.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Isn't that what she's alleging, though? It's using her own claim against her case.
If she denies that the deal applies, then she has to deny one of the basic facts of her claim.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from. But it depends on her reason for why it doesn't apply. If it's because he wasn't one of the associates it would weaken her case and she'd have to give a good reason why the current case is different. On the other hand if her lawyers are saying it doesn't apply because Epstein is dead and she no longer deems that agreement as relevant then they could argue this case still stands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
Solid_Air 2 said:
Never understood why he didn't just say "yeah i shagged her " but she appeared over 18 plus i met her in a club where she legally would have been over 18 to enter " .
Click to expand...

Maybe because it brings the royals into disrepute. I mean, it's not like it's ever happened before in its 1000+ year history.
 
Am I right that this business woman that assisted in the Newcastle saudi buy-out, once turned a proposal down from Prince Andrew, ffs, you couldn't make this shhite up sometimes.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
She wasn't actually underage though, unless he knew she was being trafficked, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Exactly she was not underage in the UK, where I think the picture taken

Lets be honest here if your 40, divorced and looking good for your age, at a party where you have had a few drinks and are introduced to a girl who looks 18 or 19 and who makes a pass at you

Are you going to think, get in there son or say no thank you my mother is the Head of The Church of England and I have an image to protect

Be honest now
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
PleaseNotPoll said:
Isn't that what she's alleging, though? It's using her own claim against her case.
If she denies that the deal applies, then she has to deny one of the basic facts of her claim.
Click to expand...
It depends on the basis of the agreement and whether it related to her accepting that nothing happened, or whether it was just an agreement where she was paid a sum in return for silence. Whatever happens with it, this ain’t going to court imo, as she wants cash, it’s just about whether she’ll get paid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
duggie2000 said:
Exactly she was not underage in the UK, where I think the picture taken

Lets be honest here if your 40, divorced and looking good for your age, at a party where you have had a few drinks and are introduced to a girl who looks 18 or 19 and who makes a pass at you

Are you going to think, get in there son or say no thank you my mother is the Head of The Church of England and I have an image to protect

Be honest now
Click to expand...
He knew fine well what Epstein was & what his parties were all about imo. The fact that he went to stay with him after he’d been released from a sentence for noncing says it all. He liked Epstein and his ‘products’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Libby and Treble
Solid_Air 2 said:
He has been bringing the the Royals into disrepute for at least 20 years with his desperate freeloading off rich but dodgy folk .
Click to expand...

Yeh I was saying it tongue in cheek lol. Your point is right though, and it shows they can be bare faced about it and not give a fck. Same goes here as well.
 
Tobes said:
He knew fine well what Epstein was & what his parties were all about imo. The fact that he went to stay with him after he’d been released from a sentence for noncing says it all. He liked Epstein and his ‘products’.
Click to expand...

I know that, but that was not my point

We are all taking the moral high ground, but, if that situation had been genuine without all the damming background, what would we have done
 
duggie2000 said:
I know that, but that was not my point

We are all taking the moral high ground, but, if that situation had been genuine without all the damming background, what would we have done
Click to expand...
Oh right, I can only speak for myself, but at 40, a teenage pro wouldn’t have been my bag, but men of that ilk are used to being served up pros at the ‘right’ sort of party, same as it ever was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Libby, duggie2000 and Solid Air 2
Solid_Air 2 said:
not sure i get your point with this .
Click to expand...

I don't see any difference between what you said about freeloading and what I said earlier about not bringing the royals into disrepute for admitting he shagged some 18 yo girl he met at a nightclub. It's his and many of the royals' general attitude. Do what you want but don't acknowledge any wrongdoing.
 
Tobes said:
Oh right, I can only speak for myself, but at 40, a teenage pro wouldn’t have been my bag, but men of that ilk are used to being served up pros at the ‘right’ sort of party, same as it ever was.
Click to expand...

Therefore being in that circle unless he knew for sure she was underage and trafficked he is innocent of those charges, but not of being a low life
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back