Prince Andrew

[TQR 12,067]

Andrew’s Spitting Image puppet.

 

 

It’s extremely lifelike as it can’t sweat either.

[maryportfuncity 9,992]

5 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Andrew’s Spitting Image puppet.

 

 

It’s extremely lifelike as it can’t sweat either.

 

 

Don't bet on that - sweating might be exactly where they'll go with that one. The Roy Hattersley puppet used pump water out of its mouth in a cruel mockery of his speech impediment and the Rupert Murdoch puppet used to spout blazing farts from its rear end in an accurate depiction of Rupert's own capabilities

[DCI Frank Burnside 2,671]

Hmmmmmm 

 

 

 

 

[MadMac 98]

2 hours ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

Hmmmmmm 

 

 

 

 

 

[CoffinLodger 1,247]

On 06/08/2020 at 15:59, The Quim Reaper said:

Andrew’s Spitting Image puppet.

 

 

It’s extremely lifelike as it can’t sweat either.

Let's just be thankful it doesn't have a teenage female puppet attached to it's foam penis ...

 

PS For legal reasons I should probably add the word 'allegedly'

[maryportfuncity 9,992]

So, Ghislaine fought to keep her 2016 testimony private but it's gone public today, and in it she claims to know nowt about Epstein's illegal sexual tastes.

 

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54647570

[ladyfiona 2,032]

Full transcript here if someone has time to kill and want to read nearly 500 pages of court stuff.

[TQR 12,067]

The Queen is underwriting Andrew’s legal fees. Sorry, to put that another way, the Queen has decided that UK taxpayer should pay The Grand Old Nonce of York’s legal fees.
 

Disgusting.

 

Anyway, tune in next week for another episode of Why The Shimmering Fuck Do We Still Have The Monarchy? where my guest will probably be creepy Uncle Andy again.

[Ulitzer95 10,975]

55 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

The Queen is underwriting Andrew’s legal fees. Sorry, to put that another way, the Queen has decided that UK taxpayer should pay The Grand Old Nonce of York’s legal fees.
 

Disgusting.

 

Anyway, tune in next week for another episode of Why The Shimmering Fuck Do We Still Have The Monarchy? where my guest will probably be creepy Uncle Andy again.

Whilst I don't feel comfortable with it either, can we just take a deep breath and remind ourselves that 1) he's not being accused of anything first hand, 2) he's innocent of having colluded with/known about anything until it is proven otherwise, 3) the primary accuser has already been caught out for major inconsistencies in her stories, including on the dates and how old she was when she met Andrew (likely 17 – NOT a child). 

I agree he should go to the U.S. to assist the FBI, and I think it's now becoming unavoidable – he will have to go, but this case has been exaggerated and sensationalised in the media beyond all reason because of who he is. By comparison, we've just had the conclusions to several reports of abuse within local authorities/care homes across the country, with damning findings related to consistent abuse of small children over decades, and some of the perpetrators are still alive and out there. Barely any media coverage.

[Bibliogryphon 8,625]

1 hour ago, The Quim Reaper said:

The Queen is underwriting Andrew’s legal fees. Sorry, to put that another way, the Queen has decided that UK taxpayer should pay The Grand Old Nonce of York’s legal fees.
 

Disgusting.

 

Anyway, tune in next week for another episode of Why The Shimmering Fuck Do We Still Have The Monarchy? where my guest will probably be creepy Uncle Andy again.

Whilst I am in no way defending Prince Andrew when you say The British Tax Payer will be paying this it is not as though any extra money will be going on it. The Queen will find it out of the vast sums she has including the civil list.

[TQR 12,067]

43 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Whilst I don't feel comfortable with it either, can we just take a deep breath and remind ourselves that 1) he's not being accused of anything first hand, 2) he's innocent of having colluded with/known about anything until it is proven otherwise, 3) the primary accuser has already been caught out for major inconsistencies in her stories, including on the dates and how old she was when she met Andrew (likely 17 – NOT a child). 

I agree he should go to the U.S. to assist the FBI, and I think it's now becoming unavoidable – he will have to go, but this case has been exaggerated and sensationalised in the media beyond all reason because of who he is. By comparison, we've just had the conclusions to several reports of abuse within local authorities/care homes across the country, with damning findings related to consistent abuse of small children over decades, and some of the perpetrators are still alive and out there. Barely any media coverage.

This girl was still below the age of consent where she was, and legally she was a child until she was 18. But that aside, she alleges that she trafficked to the UK so Andrew could have sex with her. Serious allegation, and Andrew is refusing to cooperate, apparently because he’s “scared jurors won’t believe him”. That smacks of dodgy. And what’s also really troubling is the lengths to which people will defend him, despite knowing even less of his side of the story than the victim, all because he’s a royal.

 

The whole thing stinks. And by the whole thing, I don’t just mean this case in isolation.

 

I absolutely agree about the bold bit though, the lack of coverage about this is also deeply troubling. Doesn’t let Andrew off the hook, mind, but it’s another very serious series of crimes that are pretty much getting ignored. 

[TQR 12,067]

2 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

The Queen will find it out of the vast sums she has

Which she got from where exactly?

[Toast 14,806]

42 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Which she got from where exactly?

 

Do some research on the Crown Estates and the Civil List.

[Toast 14,806]

1 hour ago, The Quim Reaper said:

This girl was still below the age of consent where she was, and legally she was a child until she was 18.

 

There's a big difference between being a "child" as in a legal minor, and a child in terms of physical development.  I feel very strongly that when sexual matters are involved, this line should not be blurred. 

 

A child in sexual terms is one who has not reached puberty, and sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children is unspeakably vile.  To be attracted to and/or have sex with a physically mature teenager, on the other hand, is natural.  We are programmed by nature to reproduce, and when we are old enough to do so we become physically capable and attractive to the opposite sex.  Some people mature earlier than others, and the "age of consent" is an imperfect concept that varies around the world. 

 

Stop labelling people who are attracted to desirable, physically mature teenagers as "nonces" or "paedophiles".  Save those terms for the repellent perverts who get their jollies from abusing babies and young children.

[The Watcher 294]

35 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

There's a big difference between being a "child" as in a legal minor, and a child in terms of physical development.  I feel very strongly that when sexual matters are involved, this line should not be blurred. 

 

A child in sexual terms is one who has not reached puberty, and sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children is unspeakably vile.  To be attracted to and/or have sex with a physically mature teenager, on the other hand, is natural.  We are programmed by nature to reproduce, and when we are old enough to do so we become physically capable and attractive to the opposite sex.  Some people mature earlier than others, and the "age of consent" is an imperfect concept that varies around the world. 

 

Stop labelling people who are attracted to desirable, physically mature teenagers as "nonces" or "paedophiles".  Save those terms for the repellent perverts who get their jollies from abusing babies and young children.

She may have been barely 17 but probably could have passed for 13 or 14 which could be why she was being shipped & shopped around. While your point is valid, if she had been 18 (not much older than his daughters were at the time) his Randy Andy act might have been less abhorrent - although Fergie won't hear a word aginst him & says he discusses football with his babygrandchild.

[maryportfuncity 9,992]

16 minutes ago, The Watcher said:

She may have been barely 17 but probably could have passed for 13 or 14 which could be why she was being shipped & shopped around. While your point is valid, if she had been 18 (not much older than his daughters were at the time) his Randy Andy act might have been less abhorrent - although Fergie won't hear a word aginst him & says he discusses football with his babygrandchild.

 

 

What?!

 

Is that genuine football discussion or grooming? 

 

 

[TQR 12,067]

1 hour ago, Toast said:

 

There's a big difference between being a "child" as in a legal minor, and a child in terms of physical development.  I feel very strongly that when sexual matters are involved, this line should not be blurred. 

 

A child in sexual terms is one who has not reached puberty, and sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children is unspeakably vile.  To be attracted to and/or have sex with a physically mature teenager, on the other hand, is natural.  We are programmed by nature to reproduce, and when we are old enough to do so we become physically capable and attractive to the opposite sex.  Some people mature earlier than others, and the "age of consent" is an imperfect concept that varies around the world. 

 

Stop labelling people who are attracted to desirable, physically mature teenagers as "nonces" or "paedophiles".  Save those terms for the repellent perverts who get their jollies from abusing babies and young children.

Okay, so stop ignoring that a sex crime has still happened; sex trafficking. It’s deeply unsettling, this culture of giving the royals free passes.

[TQR 12,067]

1 hour ago, Toast said:

 

Do some research on the Crown Estates and the Civil List.

Oh I know about them. It’s more money the cunts didn’t earn.

[Toast 14,806]

8 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Okay, so stop ignoring that a sex crime has still happened; sex trafficking. It’s deeply unsettling, this culture of giving the royals free passes.

 

I don't subscribe to any so-called culture of giving anybody a free pass for any crime or behaviour that offends me.

[Toast 14,806]

12 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Oh I know about them. It’s more money the cunts didn’t earn.

 

Then stop talking like an ignorant uninformed turd.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,204]

1 hour ago, Toast said:

 

There's a big difference between being a "child" as in a legal minor, and a child in terms of physical development.  I feel very strongly that when sexual matters are involved, this line should not be blurred. 

 

A child in sexual terms is one who has not reached puberty, and sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children is unspeakably vile.  To be attracted to and/or have sex with a physically mature teenager, on the other hand, is natural.  We are programmed by nature to reproduce, and when we are old enough to do so we become physically capable and attractive to the opposite sex.  Some people mature earlier than others, and the "age of consent" is an imperfect concept that varies around the world. 

 

Stop labelling people who are attracted to desirable, physically mature teenagers as "nonces" or "paedophiles".  Save those terms for the repellent perverts who get their jollies from abusing babies and young children.

I don't know if you've heard of a lady called Lady Colin Campbell  but she has made these exact some arguments and points on her YouTube  channel .

Like yourself she is a stickler on people using the correct and most accurate  words both scientifically and more generally  factually, linguistically, legally etc.

She deplores sloppy words and sloppy thinking so goodness knows how much of her she'd pull out if visited this forum!!

[Toast 14,806]

3 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

I don't know if you've heard of a lady called Lady Colin Campbell  but she has made these exact some arguments and points on her YouTube  channel .

Like yourself she is a stickler on people using the correct and most accurate  words both scientifically and more generally  factually, linguistically, legally etc.

She deplores sloppy words and sloppy thinking so goodness knows how much of her she'd pull out if visited this forum!!

 

Yes, I'm aware of this person.

 

It does trouble me to see perfectly natural instincts branded as perversions simply because of a slight variation in local laws.  It is lazy, ignorant thinking. 

This isn't simply about Prince Andrew,  we see it all the time.   We regularly have similar discussions about inoffensive song lyrics.  People seem to be obsessed with underage sex.   

[TQR 12,067]

2 hours ago, Toast said:

 

Then stop talking like an ignorant uninformed turd.

Oh I’m so sorry, I must’ve missed something, please clarify where I’ve gone wrong; what money did they actually earn and how?

 

Actually, don’t answer. I’m too ignorant and uninformed to hear anything defending the royal family that have brushed serious allegations of both racism and sex trafficking completely to one side because, well, reasons.

 

*Internal monologue* “Ooh it’s not racism and it’s the girls fault and she was probably lying anyway, god save the Queen”

 

Disgusting creatures.

[Toast 14,806]

25 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Oh I’m so sorry, I must’ve missed something, please clarify where I’ve gone wrong; what money did they actually earn and how?

 

Nobody mentioned earnings apart from you.  Away with your straw men.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,204]

33 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Oh I’m so sorry, I must’ve missed something, please clarify where I’ve gone wrong; what money did they actually earn and how?

 

Actually, don’t answer. I’m too ignorant and uninformed to hear anything defending the royal family that have brushed serious allegations of both racism and sex trafficking completely to one side because, well, reasons.

 

*Internal monologue* “Ooh it’s not racism and it’s the girls fault and she was probably lying anyway, god save the Queen”

 

Disgusting creatures.

I think in fairness they did not name  a particular  member of the royal family who made the alleged racist comments.  I would be reluctant to regard an allegation as serious if they won't name a culprit. But if they HAVE named the alleged culprit privately  then they could also have dealt with the issue privately and we know nothing about  it. 

So can you fairly say it has been brushed under the carpet? I would say no.