No, he is a spoiled greedy idiot, but that in itself doesn't prove he is guilty of the sexual misdemeanours ascribed to him. However, it does mean that he enjoys little public sympathy and that is dangerous both for him and for the monarchy.
Prince Andrew (Allegations of Famous People Engaged in Bad Sex Part 57)
Well the Fail never knows whether it wants to fawn or pointlessly attack.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
You have it backwards. No decent person would accept money from a convicted pedophile. But Gerald Edelman, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Marvin Minsky, Lawrence Krauss, Lee Smolin and Gregory Benford were all willing beneficiaries, so they must all be scumbags - and probably pedophiles too!
So what's new about our Andy? Britain's Royal Family have been involved in sex scandals since at least Henry VIII, although our 'Enery was reputed to have had more wives than mistresses. The previous ones probably did it, but it isn't recorded.
Witness Andy's Great Uncle Edward VIII, whose escapades cost him his job. His penchant was for married ladies(?), whose husbands knew when they were on to a good thing. Like to put a name to it? Most of the others were reputedly not backward in that department. Rumour has it that Andy's grandmama wasn't keen and left it to her Ladies(?) in Waiting.
Our Andy isn't doing anything that his predecessors didn't. They just kept it quiet. And he isn't doing anything that large sections of the population wouldn't do if they got the chance. BTW, what was his brother up to?
By the way, what about those young ladies(?) who fall in love with an elderly gent's bank balance? And then encourage him to expire. According to “The Norm Chronicles” “It's been recently estimated that 1 in every 45 heart attacks is triggered by sexual activity. … Nelson Rockefeller, Errol Flynn … and at least two Popes are said to have succumbed this way”. Hotels are reputed to have emergency procedures for getting deceased male guests out into their cars before their wives find out who they were with. Although the said young ladies will probably dance around the coffin anyway.
Witness Andy's Great Uncle Edward VIII, whose escapades cost him his job. His penchant was for married ladies(?), whose husbands knew when they were on to a good thing. Like to put a name to it? Most of the others were reputedly not backward in that department. Rumour has it that Andy's grandmama wasn't keen and left it to her Ladies(?) in Waiting.
Our Andy isn't doing anything that his predecessors didn't. They just kept it quiet. And he isn't doing anything that large sections of the population wouldn't do if they got the chance. BTW, what was his brother up to?
By the way, what about those young ladies(?) who fall in love with an elderly gent's bank balance? And then encourage him to expire. According to “The Norm Chronicles” “It's been recently estimated that 1 in every 45 heart attacks is triggered by sexual activity. … Nelson Rockefeller, Errol Flynn … and at least two Popes are said to have succumbed this way”. Hotels are reputed to have emergency procedures for getting deceased male guests out into their cars before their wives find out who they were with. Although the said young ladies will probably dance around the coffin anyway.
Last edited:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,117
Edward the VII was the one for scandal. He was a regular vistor at the top paris brothels, He even had a special 3 person 'love seat' built so he could take on two prostitutes at once.
His mother Queen Victoria said of him "I never can, or shall, look at him without a shudder."
His mother Queen Victoria said of him "I never can, or shall, look at him without a shudder."
Howie Felterbush
Bow Tie Daddy
Finally, a useful piece of furniture associated with a member of royalty.
Usually they're just ugly little uncomfortable chairs in the hall or something.
I assume it's supposed to feed the feelings of contempt and anger of the frustrated and poor bastards that make up the daily mails target audience. Essentially it's "This sleazy bastard is screwing hot underage prostitutes while surrounded with opulence and wealth just because he's a royal! Isn't that awful?!"
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Millions of readers, unfortunately.
FromBelgiumWithLove
Unregistered
Assuming English law, no, I don't think so. Her downside would be perjury. And I find the very idea of anybody suing lawyers just for doing their job deeply, deeply offensive!
From the Guardian, Jan. 5:
But the situation of Prince Andrew is allegedly completely different from that of his illustrious ancestor.
Although he did the multiple girls on his chair thing, there is no indication that he knew they were paid. I imagine Edward VII would have taken care of this detail personally, or at least have ensured that the women in question were duly compensated.
The Dersh might have thought of the damage notion when falsely accusing Amanda Knox of being a sex killer (whatever that is) and being unsuitable to date his son.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Class envy is strong with the Mail, either side of the lower/middle-middle class target audience. Poor people shockingly have, "the latest smart/mobile phones," while the rich fritter money on fripperies.
Last edited:
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Really? I think the majority of the public are probably utterly neutral on him, given that his profile is much lower than other royals. The odd media-created "scandal" doesn't automatically breed widespread contempt.
Crikey, what kind of monster does that make me. Last year not only did I have a skiing holiday in a chalet where the staff pandered to my every whim, where there was a private changing/ski storage room with BOOT WARMERS, where every room (not just the master suite) had ensuite facilities and where there was a private hot tub with mountain views BUT while skiing I crocked my knee with the result that the poor overstretched NHS has had to pay for the consequences of my hedonism
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
Well, if she has made statements outside the four walls of the court then she has exposed herself to an action. Time permitting, I'll look this up, but my recollection is that you can say what you like in court, so long as it's the truth, the whole truth and noting but.
He could also sue her for a declaration that he had never shagged her, maybe. Not sure about that one. Hmmm, in fact, probably not.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
The trick may be in the highlighted part: that way, you're not actually accusing someone of being a criminal, and thus evading (civil) defamation charges.The Dersh might have thought of the damage notion when falsely accusing Amanda Knox of being a sex killer (whatever that is) and being unsuitable to date his son.
I hadn't heard of that, but I can think of a couple of other things about Dershowitz:
1) he is a torture proponent.
2) he is a plagiarist - or whatever you want to call it - and uses discredited sources. For his book "A Case for Israel", he had copied wholesale various citations from a thoroughly debunked book (Joan Peters' "From Time Immemorial"), one of which was a quote from Mark Twain which contained ellipsis which spanned some 300 pages in Twain's original book.
3) the way he subsequently tried to influence Norman Finkelstein's university - whatever you may think of Finkelstein - to not give him tenure, and his publisher not to publish his book is unsavory. And that for a so-called proponent of freedom of expression.
I think the guy's moral compass is severely broken. Moreover, he's a highly skilled lawyer so he knows when he can get away with a lie. So his denial of the allegations doesn't weigh very much for me. And his claim that it would cost him $100 million in lost income is, in a word, preposterous.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Crikey, what kind of monster does that make me. Last year not only did I have a skiing holiday in a chalet where the staff pandered to my every whim, where there was a private changing/ski storage room with BOOT WARMERS, where every room (not just the master suite) had ensuite facilities and where there was a private hot tub with mountain views BUT while skiing I crocked my knee with the result that the poor overstretched NHS has had to pay for the consequences of my hedonism
Decandence personified.
I don't remember saying "widespread contempt". I said
which is perfectly consistent with your much lower profile observation.
Did it cost you £20,000 per week? If it did, it should have had a swimming pool, as Andrew's chalet had, not a tub. Fergie in a tub? The mind boggles!Crikey, what kind of monster does that make me. Last year not only did I have a skiing holiday in a chalet where the staff pandered to my every whim, where there was a private changing/ski storage room with BOOT WARMERS, where every room (not just the master suite) had ensuite facilities and where there was a private hot tub with mountain views BUT while skiing I crocked my knee with the result that the poor overstretched NHS has had to pay for the consequences of my hedonism
What do you mean "the poor overstretched NHS has had to pay for the consequences of my hedonism". No it hasn't had to do that. If you're all that decadent, you could go private, and give the over stretched NHS a break.
After all, the Royal Family doesn't hang about waiting for government hand outs, well does it?
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
You do realize the Royal Family hands far more income to the UK government than it receives in grants. Since 2013 the Royal family only retains about 15% of the total income it gets from the Crown estates, and has (since the late 90's ) pay tax on their income as well