# Randy Andy



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Guilty? Not guilty?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

In some circles there have been grave doubts about the Duke of York for a long time. However, at the moment the Florida court seems to be allowing his name to be slandered without any possibility - assuming he is innocent, at least until proven guilty - of challenging what is being said. A UK court would probably have barred publication of such allegations.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> In some circles there have been grave doubts about him for a long time. However, at the moment the Florida court seems to be allowing his name to be slandered without any possibility - assuming he is innocent, at least until proven guilty - of challenging what is being said. A UK court would probably have barred publication of such allegations.


Indeed. It seems to be a strange way of going about things, allowing an anonymous accuser to make assertions without them being challengeable, as it were.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

On the other hand, he seems to be a bit of a foolish fellow, judging by the calibre of some of his friends and acquaintances, and his subsequent actions.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> On the other hand, he seems to be a bit of a foolish fellow, judging by the calibre of some of his friends and acquaintances, and his subsequent actions.


He has consorted with low-level pond-life for a very long time.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I was told an interesting story about during my sea-going career. 
Andrew had visited a ship, in Pompey as far as I remember, although it could have been Plymouth or Portland, anyway, I digress. He was sitting having a drink in the wardroom when the Senior Duty Officer came in. Andrew called out "Hi, I'm Prince Andrew, but you can call me Andrew." The response was "I'm Lieutenant Commander X, but you can stand up and call me sir!".


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I am minded that the manner in which the allegations have become fully public (various rumours have circulated for some time) is not exactly sporting. However his history of questionable associations and poor judgement make it somewhat tempting to believe the worst......


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Nor would he be the only royal to have had a taste for forbidden fruit. Drawn like a moth to the flame...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Normally I'd ask to see a photo of the alleged victim.

But after Arnold spooged his middle aged frumpy maid, even that evidence isn't helpful!!


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Just a *lovely* way of doing things. The accused is identified by name, address, age, place of employment, sometimes names of family members, and with any history that is in any way derogatory ("He was arrested for mopery in 1987"). The "victim" remains anonymous, so anyone who might know her and be able to aid the defense refute any allegations remains ignorant and unable to help.

And the press, Bulwark of Freedom, is surprisingly reticent to give the same exposure to exonerations that they give to accusations. A Royal, or other powerful individual, can force the issue, but the average citizen has a cloud hanging over him for a long time, even if absolutely, totally, unquestionably innocent.

As to Andrew: don't know him, wasn't there, can't say.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I believe Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz were also named in the story. I think Bill's name just came up on a list with all of his email addresses and contact numbers included.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

phyrpowr said:


> Just a *lovely* way of doing things. The accused is identified by name, address, age, place of employment, sometimes names of family members, and with any history that is in any way derogatory ("He was arrested for mopery in 1987"). The "victim" remains anonymous, so anyone who might know her and be able to aid the defense refute any allegations remains ignorant and unable to help.
> 
> And the press, Bulwark of Freedom, is surprisingly reticent to give the same exposure to exonerations that they give to accusations. A Royal, or other powerful individual, can force the issue, but the average citizen has a cloud hanging over him for a long time, even if absolutely, totally, unquestionably innocent.
> 
> As to Andrew: don't know him, wasn't there, can't say.


The 'victim' is not anonymous (Virginia Roberts) indeed there are photos of her and the prince which would suggest that a relationship of at least some level of intimacy existed between them. The unsavoury back-story is a matter of public record with prosecutions secured (albeit suspiciously light punishments for the nature of the crimes).


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Shaver said:


> The 'victim' is not anonymous (Virginia Roberts) indeed there are photos of her and the prince which would suggest that a relationship of at least some level of intimacy existed between them. The unsavoury back-story is a matter of public record with prosecutions secured (albeit suspiciously light punishments for the nature of the crimes).


In the small amount I read, she wasn't named. If it did go to court she is in the public record, but these things don't happen until rather late in the game. What I described is what occurs (in the US) at the allegation stage. That was the level that I mistakenly assumed this was..


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> The 'victim' is not anonymous (Virginia Roberts) indeed there are photos of her and the prince which would suggest that a relationship of at least some level of intimacy existed between them.


With this new evidence, I'd like to say I'd have hit it and I'm not even a Prince!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

phyrpowr said:


> In the small amount I read, she wasn't named. If it did go to court she is in the public record, but these things don't happen until rather late in the game. What I described is what occurs (in the US) at the allegation stage. That was the level that I mistakenly assumed this was..


The Prince appears to be getting Cosby'd.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The Prince appears to be getting Cosby'd.


Careful, now. I think there are a lot of women, we'll never know for sure just how many, who got Cosby'd. He hasn't mounted a particularly convincing defense, and the matter is now in court, where names have been named. That's the way it should be--arriving at the truth is important, and courts, while imperfect, are the best venue. Although some of the accusers might be making things up, others might be telling the truth, and if he did it just once, that makes him a rapist, even if he isn't prosecuted.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> ...and if he did it just once, that makes him a rapist, even if he isn't prosecuted.


You mean alleged rapist.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Careful, now. I think there are a lot of women, we'll never know for sure just how many, who got Cosby'd. *He hasn't mounted a particularly convincing defense*, and the matter is now in court, where names have been named. That's the way it should be--arriving at the truth is important, and courts, while imperfect, are the best venue. Although some of the accusers might be making things up, others might be telling the truth, and if he did it just once, that makes him a rapist, even if he isn't prosecuted.


I didn't realize mounting a convincing defense was the burden of the accused.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I didn't realize mounting a convincing defense was the burden of the accused.


Only when being tried by the media!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I allege that everyone on this site has had realtions with a 16 year old girl. It must be true... no?.... and in any case 16 is legal in most countries outside of the "land of the free". 

One of my first girlfriends was 18 when I was 15... Should I sue her for rape? I assume there is no such thing as the Statutes of limitations on such things right? I was obviously raped...Wasn't I? (enjoyment or not). Help me. I'm such a victim...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I didn't realize mounting a convincing defense was the burden of the accused.


Never said that. I did, however, say that the matter is in the courts, with named parties, and that courts are the best way we have to determine the truth.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Only when being tried by the media!!


I don't think he's being tried by the media. He's a public figure. Stuff like this, whether he likes it or not, sometimes comes with the territory. What, do you think the media shouldn't report what multiple women who don't know each other have said while putting their names behind their accusations and filing lawsuits? If the media did that, it would be, I think, a very irresponsible media.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I don't think he's being tried by the media. He's a public figure. Stuff like this, whether he likes it or not, sometimes comes with the territory. What, do you think the media shouldn't report what multiple women who don't know each other have said while putting their names behind their accusations and filing lawsuits? If the media did that, it would be, I think, a very irresponsible media.


Actually it was simply deemed unfit to print, as in "all the news that's fit to print."

Rag news and yellow journalism, if that's what you want, is/should be relegated to tabloids!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Help me.. I was raped 27 years ago. Perhaps the media can help me find other victims of the same woman??? Let's get the snowball Rolling... We were both drinking booze. Perhaps she slipped me a Mickey? I hope she's rich and famous enough to give me(and the others of course) a few million out of court...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Never said that. I did, however, say that the matter is in the courts, with named parties, and that courts are the best way we have to determine the truth.


I thought the matter of Cosby was moot for the courts as the allegations brought forth are all well past any statute of limitations. I don't think theirs anything criminal in the works right now. There may be some civil litigation pending, however.

If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I thought the matter of Cosby was moot for the courts as the allegations brought forth are all well past any statute of limitations. I don't think theirs anything criminal in the works right now. There may be some civil litigation pending, however.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.


Yes, there is civil litigation. There have been at least two lawsuits, one from an accuser who has sued him for defamation, the other from an accuser who says she's suffered permanent psychological damage. I think you're right about the statute of limitations regarding criminal stuff.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> I allege that everyone on this site has had realtions with a 16 year old girl. It must be true... no?.... and in any case 16 is legal in most countries outside of the "land of the free".
> 
> One of my first girlfriends was 18 when I was 15... Should I sue her for rape? I assume there is no such thing as the Statutes of limitations on such things right? I was obviously raped...Wasn't I? (enjoyment or not). Help me. I'm such a victim...


The problem being in this instance that the female in question was, allegedly, trafficked. The prince's friend has been convicted of the supply of chattel for sexual purposes.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> The problem being in this instance that the female in question was, allegedly, trafficked. The prince's friend has been convicted of the supply of chattel for sexual purposes.


Trafficked or high price whore? Many years ago she thought it a great idea to fly off here & there to go have sex with high powered people for money. I have no problem with that but why complain now? I guess the clients dried up after she turned 25?

Where were the parents during all this? Would most people not question why their 16-17 year old daughter is being flown here& there? Did they have no chance at all to speak together in between all the flights?

Again. Outside of the land of the free, most civilized countries recognize 16 as being the age of consent. Florida may claim Andrew as a pedo for sleeping with a 17 y.o. but no one in the U.K. could do so

"Roberts claims she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew at the request of billionaire paedophile*Jeffrey Epstein"... I'm a bit confused ....was it a request or was she forced? 2 different things altogether aren't they?

At 17 would you really feel victimized if you were flown around the world 1st class, put into high end hotels, taken on fancy shopping trips, & then be asked to have sex with Kate?


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

There is no such thing as bad publicity :redface:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ave-Virginia-Roberts-writing-tell-memoir.html


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

What kind of Neanderthal are you?

Try getting raped yourself by someone who holds the cards and see how this sounds then. Granted, some women make stuff up, but your comments are sexist and disgusting. These are serious accusations that should be dealt with in a serious fashion, not belittled.



justonemore said:


> Help me.. I was raped 27 years ago. Perhaps the media can help me find other victims of the same woman??? Let's get the snowball Rolling... We were both drinking booze. Perhaps she slipped me a Mickey? I hope she's rich and famous enough to give me(and the others of course) a few million out of court...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> What kind of Neanderthal are you?
> 
> Try getting raped yourself by someone who holds the cards and see how this sounds then. Granted, some women make stuff up, but your comments are sexist and disgusting. These are serious accusations that should be dealt with in a serious fashion, not belittled.


Same type of situation (sweet innocent "underage" person being taken advantage of by an older wiser, more powerful person), so why can't my claims be taken seriously as well? Isn't it sexist on your part to state my claims are nothing compared to these women? Perhaps I should write a "tell all" book but I guess that as I wasn't being paid by royalty/celebs it's not as interesting?

The time to deal with these "serious accusations" in a "serious fashion" was 10,20,30 years ago (when they happened) versus now when there is nothing at all in the way of evidence versus "he said, she said". The bias in favour of "sweet innocent women" in American courts is well documented & there will be nothing near "justice" in these cases versus a fat payout negotiated out of court.

Of course that whole Rolling Stone thing was justice too...Right? Plenty of people where blackballed but the apologies were a bit short when the whole thing came crashing down.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Well, here we are again.

Almost five years after this thread was commenced our 8th in line to the throne was gifted with an opportunity that most _alleged_ sex offenders will likely be denied - a primetime BBC interview in which they might present themselves, and their story, in the best possible aspect.

But hold! Oh dear.

If I might borrow a phrase from Yorkie's *ahem* testimony:

"At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one can have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do."


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

His “I can’t sweat”’defense is very original.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Well, I suppose he will need to find a bridge job till his OAP kicks in?

Lots of misery to go around in this sorry tale. No joy taken in seeing such suffering.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Without respect to any of "Yorkie's" actions and deeds, I find it remarkable that any public relations adviser on our planet would permit him to go ahead with the so called interview. Andrew did not come across as particularly salient. 

I believe I read that his PR advisor quit prior to the interview,...

You are too funny Shaver,.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Apologising to the Twitterati and their woke minions is the worst possible option, these creatures can never be appeased without blood sacrifice, once they have a chap on the back foot he is doomed. 

America has recently rid itself of a troubling billionaire by 'suicide' we have previously rid ourselves of a troubling royal in la Place de l'Alma. Whither Randy's demise? 

As an amusing aside, compare the studio set of Ellen DeGeneres with the temple on Little Saint James island. Notice anything?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The eyeballs have it:






Out in the openness of night
She bathes before my sucking sight
Fingers of fire so soft and slow
Make her amber body glow

He takes what he wants
With smiling lies
He takes what he wants
And someone dies......

A king is noble, strong and right
With appetites to match his might
With gore and glory in his bed
His penis rules a rancid head


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Shaver said:


> Apologising to the Twitterati and their woke minions is the worst possible option, these creatures can never be appeased without blood sacrifice, once they have a chap on the back foot he is doomed.
> 
> America has recently rid itself of a troubling billionaire by 'suicide' we have previously rid ourselves of a troubling royal in la Place de l'Alma. Whither Randy's demise?
> 
> As an amusing aside, compare the studio set of Ellen DeGeneres with the temple on Little Saint James island. Notice anything?


Surveillance cameras not working, guards asleep at their posts, well being checks scheduled, but not conducted.... The circumstance(s) of the "troubling billionaire's" death are too circumstantially perfect. The proximate cause of death was in my estimation not suicide, but rather a "Deep State" directed killing. Ugly perhaps, but likely!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The guy hung himself. 

This is going to turn into the 21st century version of the grassy knoll. Our government can’t even keep its Highest and most sensitive state secrets from leaking. Surely if this was a directed killing, some evidence would have been leaked by now.

The guards were shopping online. They were incompetent, as functionaries within a bureaucracy are apt to be.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

I suspect that he was presented with an opportunity (an offer he couldn’t refuse) to kill himself by unknown agents, he accepted the offer based on the lack of viable alternatives + some expectation of benefit to other parties upon his demise, and he was “ignored” while he did the deed. 

No murder, but coercion to suicide.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> The guy hung himself.
> 
> This is going to turn into the 21st century version of the grassy knoll. Our government can't even keep its Highest and most sensitive state secrets from leaking. Surely if this was a directed killing, some evidence would have been leaked by now.
> 
> The guards were shopping online. They were incompetent, as functionaries within a bureaucracy are apt to be.


Well, camera systems do malfunction. Guards may in fact "shop online and/or fall asleep at their posts, well being checks may be overlooked, but all happening in conjunction with the others and involving such a high profile prisoner. The coincidence and malfeasance is extreme and virtually unbelievable in my book. Take a look at which bigshots have the most to gain from this unbelieveable turn of events and you will have your boogie man!


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

The tinfoil hats are out in force here.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

smmrfld said:


> The tinfoil hats are out in force here.


They are the first line of defense against the lizard people! LOL.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> They are the first line of defense against the lizard people! LOL.


Fair enough.


----------



## richard warren (Dec 10, 2015)

The real story here is the continuing delegitimization of normal male sexuality. It simply not pedophilia for a mature man to desire and to have sex with a pubescent female. (Yes, I know some very smart guy got fired from Harvard for saying that; it’s still true. His firing rather proves my point.) Age of consent laws vary and have little to do with either psychology or biological, but are determined by politics.

So, as far as I am concerned, whatever he did (short of having himself forced or coerced sex) and however big a jerk he may be, this Andrew guy is the victim of political persecution. What I don’t get is the state of mind that prompts some non-feminist men (feminist men I really don’t get) to participate in a war against themselves by piling on people like this fellow or other #metoo victims.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

For men in the public arena, to choose to hang out, repeatedly, with a person of Epstein’s proven questionable character, might be construed by a person of charitable mind as a lapse of good judgement.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

richard warren said:


> The real story here is the continuing delegitimization of normal male sexuality. It simply not pedophilia for a mature man to desire and to have sex with a pubescent female. (Yes, I know some very smart guy got fired from Harvard for saying that; it's still true. His firing rather proves my point.) Age of consent laws vary and have little to do with either psychology or biological, but are determined by politics.
> 
> So, as far as I am concerned, whatever he did (short of having himself forced or coerced sex) and however big a jerk he may be, this Andrew guy is the victim of political persecution. What I don't get is the state of mind that prompts some non-feminist men (feminist men I really don't get) to participate in a war against themselves by piling on people like this fellow or other #metoo victims.


Girls in their early to late teens are still developing emotionally, intellectually and physically. Men who are interested in/pursue girls of this age - despite the "biological capabilities" of such girls - are disgraceful and a danger to civilized society. My experience of having known such men is that they were a) losers of the worst sort, and b) incapable of meeting/dating/bedding women who are in their twenties or older.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

richard warren said:


> What I don't get is the state of mind that prompts some non-feminist men (feminist men I really don't get) to participate in a war against themselves by piling on people like this fellow or other #metoo victims.


Wow...this has to rank right up near the top of the vile post rankings.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

In my experience, learning to circumscribe ones desires and to keep ones passions in due bounds is the mark of a gentleman and an intellectual person. It leads to stable relationships, higher self esteem, and a more prosperous life well lived. 

Enslaving oneself to the more base aspects of human nature, as appears to be the case with men cut from the Epstein/ Weinstein bolt of cloth, rarely plays out well in the long run socially, financially, or spiritually. 

As always, your mileage may vary....

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I can’t believe what I’m reading.


----------

