Buce 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? The plaintiff says she was forced to have sex with him (among others) when a minor. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30664060
Rincewind 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. We get it, you don't like successful people with money, stop being jealous and get off your ****ing high horse. You don't think the Royals or people at the top have contacts and influence?Get in the real world.I am not jealous just realistic.I have said before on many occasions that I have nothing against those that work hard to achieve success but you cannot deny that there are those who have used their connections to with those in power to get where they are.Do you really think they give a shit about the average working man?
Webbo Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 You don't think the Royals or people at the top have contacts and influence?Get in the real world.I am not jealous just realistic.I have said before on many occasions that I have nothing against those that work hard to achieve success but you cannot deny that there are those who have used their connections to with those in power to get where they are.Do you really think they give a shit about the average working man? So you know the opinions of people who have never publicly stated any opinions and you've never met ?
MooseBreath Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 He's rich therefore automatically not only guilty but also corrupt. What a cheerful outlook.
Rincewind Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 He's rich therefore automatically not only guilty but also corrupt. What a cheerful outlook. Could you afford the lawyers that he can? And no I do not think he is automatically guilty and corrupt because he is rich in the same way as being on low wages and claiming benefits makes a person a scrounger. Or a homeless person a druggie and alcoholic.
MooseBreath Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Could you afford the lawyers that he can? And no I do not think he is automatically guilty and corrupt because he is rich in the same way as being on low wages and claiming benefits makes a person a scrounger. Or a homeless person a druggie and alcoholic. Great so you're reserving judgement? Maybe you'll edit all of your previous posts in this thread to reflect that stance then?
Rincewind Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Anyway he is not the first royal to be up to no good. They have been at it for centuries. Henry VIII shagged then beheaded them and no one batted an eyelid.
Buce Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Great so you're reserving judgement? Maybe you'll edit all of your previous posts in this thread to reflect that stance then? Where has he said otherwise? All I see is him expressing the opinion that even if guilty HRH's social position, wealth and connections will protect him. I share that opinion.
Mike Oxlong Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 Where has he said otherwise? All I see is him expressing the opinion that even if guilty HRH's social position, wealth and connections will protect him. I share that opinion. So once the allegation is made he's in a no win situation then. He's either guilty in which case he's a cvnt or guilt is not made out in which case that's only because of his wealth, connections/status and the power of the establishment.
Buce Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 So once the allegation is made he's in a no win situation then. He's either guilty in which case he's a cvnt or guilt is not made out in which case that's only because of his wealth, connections/status and the power of the establishment. I don't know if he's guilty or not, but if he is, he'll be protected; do you honestly believe the establishment would allow a prominent member of the Royal family to be found guilty of something like this? Are you really that niave?
Webbo Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 I don't know if he's guilty or not, but if he is, he'll be protected; do you honestly believe the establishment would allow a prominent member of the Royal family to be found guilty of something like this? Are you really that niave? What will it take to convince you he's innocent?
Mike Oxlong Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 I don't know if he's guilty or not, but if he is, he'll be protected; do you honestly believe the establishment would allow a prominent member of the Royal family to be found guilty of something like this? Are you really that niave? Thanks. You just keep proving my point. As I said, he's in a no win situation once the allegation is made. Are you really so thick that you just don't get it?
Rincewind Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 He stands a better chance of being proven innocent than you would if arrested for a similar offence.That is all I am saying not that he is guilty.
Buce Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 What will it take to convince you he's innocent? The same thing that would convince me of his guilt - evidence. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
Webbo Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 The same thing that would convince me of his guilt - evidence. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done You won't claim that the evidence has been doctored by the establishment?
Buce Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 You won't claim that the evidence has been doctored by the establishment?That would depend on the nature of the evidence.One thing he is guilty of, given his position, is an extraordinary lack of judgement regarding the company he keeps; the man who it is alleged provided the girl, is a convicted sex-offender, being found guilty of attempting to procure sex with a 14 year old girl. Lie down with dogs, and you catch fleas.
MooseBreath Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 He stands a better chance of being proven innocent than you would if arrested for a similar offence.That is all I am saying not that he is guilty. I think you've been watching a few too many movies. Just like you or I, if he's demonstrably guilty he'll be found guilty. If not he'll be found innocent. Simple as that really. If you think a well paid lawyer is going to somehow fabricate evidence in his defence then you're living in cuckoo land.
Webbo Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 That would depend on the nature of the evidence. One thing he is guilty of, given his position, is an extraordinary lack of judgement regarding the company he keeps; the man who it is alleged provided the girl, is a convicted sex-offender, being found guilty of attempting to procure sex with a 14 year old girl. Lie down with dogs, and you catch fleas. Out of all the Royals he seems the least pleasant, arrogant and a bit of a willy puller. That doesn't necessarily make him a sex offender.
Mike Oxlong Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 I think you've been watching a few too many movies. Just like you or I, if he's demonstrably guilty he'll be found guilty. If not he'll be found innocent. Simple as that really. If you think a well paid lawyer is going to somehow fabricate evidence in his defence then you're living in cuckoo land. But the quality of the advocate, whether exceptional or a duffer, can certainly affect what is "demonstrable".
Rincewind Posted 3 January 2015 Posted 3 January 2015 But the quality of the advocate, whether exceptional or a duffer, can certainly affect what is "demonstrable". True he won't have a trainee.A Perry Mason type who asks the right questions. Like some on here say he will be paid more because he is better than the rest. You get what you pay for.
Spiritwalker 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. We get it, you don't like successful people with money, stop being jealous and get off your ****ing high horse. Being a Royal does not make you a successful person. Any idiot can achieve it, you just have to be bornto the right parents. Anyone who thinks that those with power and influence face the same justice system as the rest of us is quite frankly naive.
MooseBreath Posted 4 January 2015 Posted 4 January 2015 Anyone who thinks that those with power and influence face the same justice system as the rest of us is quite frankly naive. Any recent examples of that? If all these rich folk are getting away with crimes because they've got one of these magician lawyers then examples should be in abundance. I can't think of any though. Enlighten me. If anything I'd say the high profile nature of a case like this opens it up to more scrutiny than usual. Ignoring the usual gamut of whack job conspiracy theorists and envy ridden proles there will also be a huge number of experts observing what goes on very closely. I don't see our legal system and media choosing to accept blatant corruption in a case involving child rape just because he's a royal. We're not a third world country.
chuck'em Posted 4 January 2015 Posted 4 January 2015 True he won't have a trainee.A Perry Mason type who asks the right questions. Like some on here say he will be paid more because he is better than the rest. You get what you pay for. Maybe we should get a Columbo type to investigate it. Surely then we will know the truth.
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 4 January 2015 Posted 4 January 2015 He's a Royal, whether he's guilty or not is irrelevant.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.