Carl the Llama Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Well "any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue" from which we can assume this impropriety took place in international waters or somewhere where said minors were not considered underage.
Thommo Posted 3 January 2015 Author Posted 3 January 2015 Will the general public see him straight away as innocent because he is Prince Andrew?
Mike Oxlong Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 No idea if it's true but when I get my knighthood I won't be kneeling down in front of him.
Thommo Posted 3 January 2015 Author Posted 3 January 2015 you might have to kneel down to get ure knighthood!!
Mike Oxlong Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 you might have to kneel down to get ure knighthood!! No Deal.
Jon the Hat Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Well "any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue" from which we can assume this impropriety took place in international waters or somewhere where said minors were not considered underage. 17 is not underage in the UK now is it?
Webbo Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Will the general public see him straight away as innocent because he is Prince Andrew? Whereas you've decided he's guilty because he's Prince Andrew. Let's let the courts decide.
MC Prussian Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Err yes they are but what has he done? There's claims he's supposed to have had sexual relations with a (then) underaged girl in between 1999 and 2002: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30664060
Vacamion Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 I saw on my Twitter feed "It's a Royal Knockout" clips showing Andy, Stuart Hall and Cliff (who has also been found guilty of nothing, by the way), with associated inferences. Many conspiracy theorist types are just desperate for there to have been some sort of conspiracy at the highest level of government and society. If you ask them to let the courts decide they give it "but the legal system is in on it, too".
Rincewind Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 The judge will be given a knighthood or be a distance relative. Can anyone see him being found guilty? Guilty or not. Does it make any difference or matter to the ordinary people in this country/?
Fox92 Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Would be interesting to see what'd happen if he was found guilty. Â It'd probably somehow get brushed aside.
Mike Oxlong Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 And I thought he was known as The Duke of Pork for being a bit chubby.
Filbert Walker Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 An old chap who taught me to fish in the 1970's, he was a ex soldier WW2, said of the Royals " if it moved they either shot it or humped it..." Â enough said....
Buce Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 It'll be swept under the carpet regardless of the truth.
Rincewind Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 of course. you cannot have a royal involved in a scandal.Who would the old ladies look up to?
Ross-Kemp Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 The judge will be given a knighthood or be a distance relative. Can anyone see him being found guilty? Guilty or not. Does it make any difference or matter to the ordinary people in this country/? I wonder if you'd say that if it was a homeless person.Your bashing of the Royals, Bankers, Tories and the rich is becoming tiresome. We get it, you don't like successful people with money, stop being jealous and get off your ****ing high horse.
Webbo Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 If I could just point out that this is in relation to court papers filed in America. The judge won't be getting a knighthood and if they were covering it up we wouldn't have heard anything about it.
Buce Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 I wonder if you'd say that if it was a homeless person. Your bashing of the Royals, Bankers, Tories and the rich is becoming tiresome. Though not as tiresome as those who think the rich and powerful are beyond reproach.
Webbo Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Though not as tiresome as those who think the rich and powerful are beyond reproach. I don't think anyone has said that. When people say he's Royal so he must be guilty or if he's found not guilty it'll be a cover up then what's the point of even discussing it, you've already made up your mind. You can't condemn somebody just on the size of their bank balance. Â I don't know if he did it or not, it wouldn't flabbergast me if he had but I'm quite happy to let the court decide.
Buce Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 I don't think anyone has said that. When people say he's Royal so he must be guilty or if he's found not guilty it'll be a cover up then what's the point of even discussing it, you've already made up your mind. You can't condemn somebody just on the size of their bank balance. I don't know if he did it or not, it wouldn't flabbergast me if he had but I'm quite happy to let the court decide. I don't share your faith, Webbo: guilty or not, it will be seen as 'not in the national interest'; strings will be pulled, money will change hands, and we'll hear nothing more about it.
Webbo Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 I don't share your faith, Webbo: guilty or not, it will be seen as 'not in the national interest'; strings will be pulled, money will change hands, and we'll hear nothing more about it. It's in America, home of the most vicious, attention seeking, money grabbing lawyers in the world. If he's going to found guilty anywhere it'll be there. I doubt the US govt could cover it up if they wanted to.
Buce Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 It's in America, home of the most vicious, attention seeking, money grabbing lawyers in the world. If he's going to found guilty anywhere it'll be there. I doubt the US govt could cover it up if they wanted to. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but my money says he'll never even see the inside of a courtroom.
Nick Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 I thought his name was mentioned in the paperwork in some context but that Andrew himself has not actually been accused of anything?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.