'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?

[NellieMay]

Just a stupid arrogant man who has obviously not taken on board what being a royal is all about. No different from the old prince of Wales, who was a womaniser,Princess Margaret and her antics and,dare I say it, Princess Dianna, who people seem to think was a angel. The Royals have always had black sheep in the family, but the media in past times wasn't like it is now.

He should never hsve agreed to thst interview. There was no need to

He is not a criminal, he doesn't need defending.

[NellieMay]

And my a's turn into s's due to arthritic fingers on close keys!

[youngmafbog]

AS was said above, through his arrogance I truly suspect he thought, and still thinks, he is untouchable. Mix this with his lust for freebies (and thats probably why he stayed there four days) and you get this situation.

As for whether he committed any crime, for me that still has to be proved. In a Court of law (he doenst have to attend) not via the media who currently acting like a lynch mob.

[Cloverjo]

On what grounds would he be taken to court?
Virginia Roberts said she was forced to have sex with Andrew. But not that HE raped her. Epstein did the forcing.

[david small]

None of my business. I couldn’t care less about the parasites.

[emmie]

i only care" because he is a member of the Royal Family, and i have great respect for the Queen, she must be having nightmares over his indiscretions -
if he was/is a party animal he shouldn't have been so overt with it nor associated after the fact with a known sex offender. Bad choices, bad PR, a total fool

[davebro]

" Princess Dianna, who people seem to think was a angel"

I don't think she was an angel but as Charles couldn't have the woman he loved they were cajoled into a marriage of convenience to provide heirs for the dynasty. What was she supposed to do when she was not loved & became surplus to breeding requirements?

[hereIam]

Well said dave. Actually, I thought she was an Angel.

[emmie]

Diana came across as genuine and nice until she met Charles. Marriage doomed from the start when he wouldn't stop seeing Camilla.

[Ellipsis]

I'm not saying Andrew was guilty of any crime ... but I do expect him (if I'm paying for him) to do a bit better than spend four days with a convicted child sex offender, in his house, for no good reason. As there's no good reason, I'm left wondering "What was the reason?" That's before I even start to consider Virginia Roberts, her claims and that photo.

[NellieMay]

I think she was a foolish young girl who turned into a very crafty, conniving woman, who had a series of lovers and she courted the press Her interview on TV was so contrived, but badly acted. To me she was far from angelic. However, that's only my opinion, and not appropriate on this thread, so i apologise for including her.

[hereIam]

But Nellie why shouldn't she have had lovers - what was she supposed to do, stay celibate for the rest of her life after Charles so didn't want her ?? Not conniving at all, just trying to make the most of her life, and that's only my opinion too of course.

[emmie]

anyway i reckon Andrew has a lot of explaining to do to his family, his mother must be disgusted with his behaviour.

[NellieMay]

It wasnt the fact she had lovers HereIam, just her continous courting of the press. To me she enjoyed living in the fast lane and all the press attention. I could never understand why people found her so special.

[davebro]

maybe people found her special because she was member of the royal family and mother of a future king?

[NellieMay]

Can't help feeling very sorry for the Queen who has always acted graciously.

[emmie]

thousands disagreed with you, going on the floral displays, she was immensely popular. She was no angel, but the outgoing of grief at her death i believe was genuine.

[NellieMay]

Well yes Dave, but as a person to me she had never done anything to make her special or consider her angelic.

[retrocop]

//Well yes Dave, but as a person to me she had never done anything to make her special or consider her angelic. //

If you had met her and spoken to her you may think differently of her.

[Khandro]

continues further;

'He was also wise not to speculate on Ms Roberts’s motives. In the interview, he appeared slightly crass, but never nasty. He was not under any duty to express shame about the fate of Epstein’s victims, because his behaviour – if his account is true – never affected any of them.

Overall, he quite convincingly portrayed what it is like to be a well-meaning but not very able minor royal swimming in the shark-infested waters of international fame. His performance was not, to use the phrase everyone now parrots about all interviews with people they don’t like, “a car-crash”.

A fly caught in a web
Nevertheless, the Duke should never have given the interview, and particularly not in Buckingham Palace, which made it look like a matter of state. In his mind, I suspect, it was something seen in isolation – a way of stating his case which could clear the air. He and his advisers seem to have made no allowance for how the BBC – and the media in general – work.'