'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?

[ToraToraTora]

whatever the truth of the matter in question he's guilty of monumental stupidity. The story was dying on it's feet and by doing the interview he not only revived it, it'll now be doing a marathon!

[naomi24]

What a pity ‘the estimable Charles Moore’ doesn’t apply his journalistic skills to others similarly potentially misjudged.

[davebro]

Is he after a gong?

[Khandro]

n. //What a pity ‘the estimable Charles Moore’ doesn’t apply his journalistic skills to others similarly potentially misjudged.//
Oh - does, he certainly does! & if you were wider read you'd know it.

Here's the next two paragraphs;

'Given his state of knowledge at the time, he was not automatically wrong to be friendly with Jeffrey Epstein. It is the misfortune of being a famous person that lots of other famous people want to be your “friend”. Although you should be wary, you cannot always know dark facts about them.

Many famous people were Epstein’s “friends”: that, it turns out, was the way he operated. Prince Andrew seems to have taken Epstein on trust because he (the Prince) was a long-standing friend of Epstein’s friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who vouched for him. I wonder why the interviewer, Emily Maitlis, did not pursue the subject of Ms Maxwell.'

What he doesn't say, (& I have said all along), is that Andrew isn't
married & is free to see & bed whomever he likes - within the law, unlike a lot of the shenanigans which many hypocritical public figures do (like his brother for example)

[emmie]

no, but i think the variety of photo's of Andrew over the years bears witness to him being a party animal, and one who kept friends with a known sex offender.

[Ellipsis]

Until Andrew comes up with a reasonable explanation for the 4 day stay in Epstein's Manhattan apartment in 2010, anything else he says is a waste of time. That stay - and perhaps the photo - lies at the heart of the whole case against him, and his defence is pathetic.

I mean, you only have to read this ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7693567/Prince-Andrew-dismisses-Jeffrey-Epstein-infamous-House-Depravity-convenient-place-stay.html

[emmie]

that comment, "a convenient place to stay" will i suspect haunt him forever, he is a bloody fool

[naomi24]

Khandro, // if you were wider read you'd know it.//

Well, you fall short on comprehension, that’s for sure, but since you claim to be rather more widely read you will know what he’s had to say in defence of Donald Trump’s many alleged sins and misdemeanors then. Do tell.

[ummmm]

He was stupid. Surely he was advised not to hang out with known sex offenders.

I don't know what that makes him. Stupid, selfish, narcissist...

He's like a drug addict who loses their morals when they need a hit.

[Khandro]

continues;

'The Duke explained why he went to stay with Epstein to tell him – after the latter’s criminal conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution – that he could no longer have contact with him.

He admitted this had been a misjudgement; but it sounded believable that he had thought that merely telephoning the man would have been “a chicken way of doing it”. If a person has committed a crime, even a foul one, anyone with a Christian upbringing is taught that they must try to forgive and treat that person fairly.

As for Prince Andrew’s denials of meeting Virginia Roberts, drinking and dancing with her, and sleeping with her, they seemed firm and backed by some evidence. The fact that a photograph exists which seems to show him with his arm round her waist does not – in the wicked world of photo-shopping – prove anything. Given the risks involved, it is surely hard to believe that Prince Andrew was lying on this point: if it is proved that he did, that is the end of him.'

[ummmm]

He thought he was untouchable.

[emmie]

after the fallout over this, one leading company has dropped him from its sponsorship..

[emmie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50467019

[Barsel]

P. Andrew's explanation for there being a lot of people around in Epstein's mansion - he thought they were just members of staff! Who was he waving goodbye to at the door, the cleaner? It's a shame he wasn't asked this in the interview. I hope others will come forward who were there when he was there and say what they know.

[Khandro]

emmie //after the fallout over this, one leading company has dropped him from its sponsorship..//

That says more about the "leading company" than him.
btw. That virtue-signalling company's sponsorship had already finished at the end of October.

[naomi24]

Khandro, is my question too difficult?

[emmie]

barsel there are such damning photo's of PA that i am amazed that more women haven't come forward.

[davebro]

Maybe they've been paid to keep quiet?

[emmie]

perhaps ^^

[Barsel]

emmie If more people don't come forward it might be because they are too scared too. Epstein is dead from an apparent suicide, and Ms Maxwell has gone missing, seemingly off the face of the earth. A lot of people would be afraid to say anything.