'in Defence Of Prince Andrew'

[Khandro]

In today's Telegraph the estimable Charles Moore begins an article with the above caption & starts ;

'When the whole world condemns someone, it is a journalist’s duty to look at the other side. I therefore want to make the case for the Duke of York in his Newsnight interview. If you start from the position of a juror, rather than of our judge-and-jury media, you believe that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. On that basis, Prince Andrew did all right.'

Has anyone read it?

[Khandro]

emmie, one of my daughters is a graphic designer who wins prizes for her Photoshop work, in short order she could make a convincing photo of you in bed with Mao Zedong !

[naomi24]

That'll be a yes then.

[ummmm]

Khandro - doesn't that depend on who leaked the photos? Who actually took them?

[emmie]

they cant all be photo shopped

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=photos+of+prince+andrew&id=BD9BB43EDF6F76C7518A436F88F111ABEA7E8253&;form=IQFRBA&first=1&;cw=1133&ch=632

[emmie]

the one where he is walking with Epstein he admitted to, this is a man with little or no judgement. He has made himself look a total fool

[tamborine]

Kandro links always help. Prince Philip was connected with Profumo of 60s. Epstein wasnt convicted when Andrew visited. 17y not a minor, more of a gold digger that she found in Andrew. As Andrews wife Sarah also visited Epstein simultaneously she would sated Andrews lust imo

[ummmm]

Emmie...those photos mean nothing. Most of them are just him.

[jackthehat]

I think your opinion of this whole issue rather depends on your (previous) opinion of PA and the Royal Family.

Personally, I tend to believe that he is guilty of great foolishness BUT Epstein was obviously a master-manipulator and photographs only capture the exact moment the shutter was activated; they don't show what happened prior or post that operation.

[ummmm]

Tambo....read more about it.

[Barsel]

More photos here attending a Hookers and Pimps party. Perhaps if the Queen saw these she might give him a clip around the ear.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7695307/Prince-Andrew-partied-Heidi-Klum-Ghislaine-Maxwell-New-York-Exclusive-photos.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

[Khandro]

Apart from giving an ill-judged interview, can someone tell me what he has done wrong So he's a playboy, so he's a bit stupid, so he goes to parties at which there all all sorts & types of people. Has anyone on here been to a glam New York party btw? (I have).
The person leaving the apartment looked like an attractive young woman - what's wrong with that ..... jealous?

[ummmm]

It's the background. If she was groomed.

As a one off having sex with someone over the age of consent...Nothing wrong with that.

Being friends with a convicted sex offender...well...

[Barsel]

Khandro A little thing seems to have escaped your mind, Prince Andrew is a member of the Royal Family you are not! These photos will make their way around the world and will be seen by other Royal families and dignitaries. This will bring immense shame on the Queen and other family members.Photos of you partying wouldn't even make it to your local rag.

[ummmm]

Yep - well said Barsel.

[naomi24]

It’s not the first time by far that Prince Andrew’s shenanigans have been controversial. I’ve no idea whether or not he’s broken any laws, and see nothing wrong in him attending parties, or, as a single man, sleeping with consenting women, but he’s an arrogant fool who doesn’t understand that someone in his position can’t do as he likes without consequence. He should have learnt by now.

[zebo]

He's being judged in the court of public opinion, no evidence needs to be presented, he's guilty because this is how it goes. As I've commented before regarding the photo, many of us have had pictures taken during a party or get together, we can't necessarily name that person in later years.
He's an idiot for doing the interview, his persona is always arrogant, and he knows that nothing he can say will make any difference where well paying kiss-and-tell is concerned.

[Ellipsis]

Epstein was a guy that Andrew supposedly met about ten times in total. Epstein was convicted in 2006 of child sex offences, and was released in 2010. Five months after Epstein's release, Andrew went to stay with him for four days! The reason? According to Andrew, to tell him in person that their friendship was over.

Just how great was this friendship, when they had met ten times, that it needed four days and a personal meeting to end it?

And if it was that great a friendship, had they been in contact at all during Epstein's four years in prison and the five months following his release?

It seems to me that the reason Andrew wanted to meet in person, in Epstein's apartment, was that he wanted to minimise the chances of whatever they had to say to each other being overheard. There was absolutely no reason for Andrew to speak to Epstein at all following Epstein's imprisonment - the reason for not speaking to him should have been absolutely obvious - unless their relationship went a lot deeper than we are led to believe.

[Canary42]

/// There was absolutely no reason for Andrew to speak to Epstein at all following Epstein's imprisonment [...] unless their relationship went a lot deeper than we are led to believe. ///

Exactly. As I said before, the big flaw in his argument was on the one hand the "friendship wasn't very deep" and on the other "the honourable thing was to tell him face to face" which suggests a very close friendship.

[maggiebee]

I don't see any defence of PA. He is a parasite who thinks he is above the law.

[aelmpvw]

if i had known someone who was subsequently jailed for sex offences he wouldn't have heard from me again, perhaps i'm devoid of honour?