Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, so I didn't even know this guy existed until a week ago. I'll admit the British Royal Family has never interested me that much.

I'm curious what all of our British posters have to say about this scandal though.

Can I say something? I am not surprised.

I mean I am an Aussie. And some of my 'girlfriends' are more less in love with the royal family they are quite heartbroken about it.

Well, given all the information this thread has provided about the situation at hand, I'm presuming they discovered he was secretly a super-intelligent rooster, only wearing the skin of a man.

In that case I say leave him alone. If a rooster can pull that off, he deserves the royal life.

For those not in the know, there have been allegations made that he had held an under-age sex slave for some time.

 djones520 wrote:
For those not in the know, there have been allegations made that he had held an under-age sex slave for some time.

Those are some serious allegations. If substantiated one would hope they throw some variety of book at him.

Actually, there are no formal legal allegations against him, as far as I'm aware. His name just came up in civil proceedings that he was not directly connected to.

On the story itself? Colour me skeptical. It doesn't really bother me though. 'The Spare' is usually a bit of a wrong'un.

I had to Google Prince Andrew and confirmed he's the one that use to have been married to Sarah Furgeson

For a moment I cringed thinking it was Harry.

Allegations not made against him directly, but as part of a case relating to Epstein and the US government. I believe the "victim" ("" because the validity of the claims is obviously unverified) also levied allegations against a law professor, whose response can be summed up as "What a load of :censored:, I'd like to see you state that under oath!".

 Jihadin wrote:
I had to Google Prince Andrew and confirmed he's the one that use to have been married to Sarah Furgeson

For a moment I cringed thinking it was Harry.

He's the one that makes all that pottery, right?

He was implicated in a sex scandal, the Palace denies it all, which is unusual- they usually don't comment at all.

Hope it doesn't turn out to be true. I was reading an article a while ago that pointed out that the Monarchy is the only major institution in britain that lots of people still have faith in.

He's not the ginger one is he? I find it difficult to tell them all apart, and hell if he's not the Queen, her man or the ginger one you could show me them and I wouldn't know them from Adam (though the entitled swagger could be perhaps a giveaway). Point being that these people aught not to matter, but I suppose they do for some reason and that means we aught to be appalled about scandal of the week with them (is the Nazi thing still going?). Meh, apparently he's the Duke of York (whatever that means) so its not like this crap will go anywhere unless his family cuts ties with him and let the plebs have their way. That is if this crap's even true. Targeting a royal's a sure way for publicity, but they tend to have more of an ability to screw up your life than your average professor. =P

 Chongara wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I had to Google Prince Andrew and confirmed he's the one that use to have been married to Sarah Furgeson

For a moment I cringed thinking it was Harry.

He's the one that makes all that pottery, right?

Harry the one that compared killing Taliban is like a video game. Which is not at all far fetch
CROW system
Drones
FLIR sights

Taliban was not happy

 Jihadin wrote:
I had to Google Prince Andrew and confirmed he's the one that use to have been married to Sarah Furgeson

For a moment I cringed thinking it was Harry.

Ha! Yeah, right... Hazza could build a god-damn house out of pussy, he gets so much! As if he needs a sex slave...

The problem I have with this is that apparently when Conan does it, it's okay.

(Seriously though, I'm also pretty ignorant of the Royals. My girlfriend hates Harry because she thinks he's crass idiot, but I think he's sort of alright for highlighting the crappy conditions the troops were fighting under. William is much more of a boring blank slate to me and Kate much the same. The queen seems alright, as it goes. She seems to be generally in favour of people being nice to each other, and all that. Charles is a bit of a mouthy lunatic, be interesting if he becomes king!)

Excuse me, do you have Prince Albert in a can?
Yes, well you'd better let him out...

 Albatross wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I had to Google Prince Andrew and confirmed he's the one that use to have been married to Sarah Furgeson

For a moment I cringed thinking it was Harry.

Ha! Yeah, right... Hazza could build a god-damn house out of pussy, he gets so much! As if he needs a sex slave...

That R&R he did in Vegas. Rumors alone said he was running on....

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Meh, apparently he's the Duke of York (whatever that means)

I thought that Isaac Hayes was the Duke of York...

Andrew was the one who flew missile decoy helicopters for the Navy in the Falklands War.

I'm not sure he would be dumb enough to do something like sleep with an underage girl, but being photographed with his hand on her waist doesn't really help his case at least in the eyes of the British tabloid press.

 Flashman wrote:
Andrew was the one who flew missile decoy helicopters for the Navy in the Falklands War.

I'm not sure he would be dumb enough to do something like sleep with an underage girl, but being photographed with his hand on her waist doesn't really help his case at least in the eyes of the British tabloid press.

Her body-language doesn't scream 'sex-slave' to me.




Which is, admittedly, a weird sentence to type.

Did Prince Andrew ever get a "happy ending" from a masseuse? It couldn't be 100% ruled out. There is a bit of a leap from that to child sex abuse.

Cases which come up against notable people decades later are always a bit suspect, but looking at Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile the pattern of abuse is clearly apparent. If the similar pattern came up against Prince Andrew he would be in trouble.

I am not buying this.

Prince Andrew was a friend to Epstein, as were a number of high profile people. They had their fingers burned by the association.

This kiss and tell source has hinted at a number of names she wishes to accuse, including US politicians. Bill Clinton has been mentioned in separation with regards to Epstein.

None of the accused parties have denied knowing Epstein, but they have all denied sleeping with a 15 year old 'sex slave'.

I am taking this story with an enormous pinch off salt. Prince Andrew is known in the press for getting his end up, but he is no fool, I doubt he would chase an underage girl, especially one 'held against her will'. He certainly wouldn't drag her back to see the Queen as the claimants father said.

Its clear that Prince Andrew and the claimant met, but met doesnt mean rape.
And if she was a 'slave' I really cant see him introducing her to the Queen

This is damaging, and is running inn the foreign press, hence the Palaces change of strategy and not ignoring the accusation.

It is entirely possible that the claimant, no longer associate with Epstein, and now settled into full adulthood is finding that a 9-5 or being a housewife, is less lucrative than the high life.
As the claimant has 'more to tel' and more names to add, including a Us politican its evident to me that she is presenting a story for maximum publicity rather than unloading the whole truth for the sake of justice.
She just isn't credible frankly, and possibly believes that starting her ring of accusations with a major royal is a soft target. I don't know who else she has lined up for a smear, but the Palace is used to countering accusations, and is anything other than a soft target.

The Palace has denied everything, fortunately for them everyone the Monarch meets is individually logged, with sole exception of public walkabouts, where the location is logged, not the identities.
The claimant hasn't mentioned meeting the Queen, but her father has, if no log is found, and the Palace says one doesn't exist then there is plausible deniability right there.

Albatross wrote:Her body-language doesn't scream 'sex-slave' to me.




Which is, admittedly, a weird sentence to type.

As i understood the article, she was getting paid for what she was doing. She was sent overseas by her 'owner' to service prince andrew at one point. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/01/05/00/27/aust-mum-says-she-was-andrew-s-sex-slave
I'm not too familiar on the line between underage prostitution and child abuse though, but i'm guessing sex slave probably fits in a legal sense.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Did Prince Andrew ever get a "happy ending" from a masseuse? It couldn't be 100% ruled out. There is a bit of a leap from that to child sex abuse.

Cases which come up against notable people decades later are always a bit suspect, but looking at Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile the pattern of abuse is clearly apparent. If the similar pattern came up against Prince Andrew he would be in trouble.

If the happy ending came from an underage masseuse, that would be child sex abuse though.

Orlanth wrote:I am not buying this.

This kiss and tell source has hinted at a number of names she wishes to accuse, including US politicians. Bill Clinton has been mentioned in separation with regards to Epstein.

At this point i'm not sure if bill would even bother trying to deny he's a horny goat. If you really want to know the truth, best to ask hillary imo - she seems to know what (and who) he's doing at any given moment.



edit: fixed quotes
edit2: put the proper link in (first one didn't mention the money)

With Epstein's case... the only thing that weird to me is that he only got like 16 month in prison.

There were allegedly 30 acts documented and each carries potentially 20 yrs per act.

I'm still trying to update myself with all the info... but that's... just doesn't add up to me.

Wealthy influential celebrities using young naive girls for sex? What is this madness! I'm sure Andrew just enjoyed Epstein's company for a polite cup of tea on the lawn, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with his naked swimming pool parties.

I think we should always consider people innocent until proven guilty -- but if someone had the answer in a box right now, I wouldn't like to bet a lot of money on him being innocent.

 whembly wrote:
There were allegedly 30 acts documented and each carries potentially 20 yrs per act.

I'm still trying to update myself with all the info... but that's... just doesn't add up to me.

Check your maths, I think you forgot to subtract a billion dollars.

What has been terrible about this case is the reporting of it. I of course like everyone else don't know if she's telling the truth.

When anyone else is accused, the news reports the accusation straight, and the evidence goes to the CPS to decide whether prosecutions follow, or not. It's justice, or the best we can do.

In this case, his friends, supporters, and ex-employees of the Family are allowed on TV to say how sure they are he is innocent, and he will fight for his innocence, like we should all automatically back him.

And that is of course because she is very unlikely to be believed, given who he is, and any press entity that rocks the boat won't see a Royal exclusive for 1000 years.

Seems there's a few other big names added
Bill Clinton name was attach to this
Another in the Academic field. I know the name if I saw it

Also some suggested the guy 13-18(?) month sentence was a "favor" by the Bush Admin

Sounds like a making of a C budget movie

Yes, well you have your untouchables too.

I'm not a republican particularly. I don't think our current system is much good, but the costs of putting it right would be just silly, and no one can doubt the Queen has admirably fulfilled her duty from WWII onwards. Anne as well does lots of good work.

Just gets right up my nose, the fawning tone adopted by our 'independent' press whenever any of the Family are held in question.

 Darkjim wrote:
Yes, well you have your untouchables too.

I'm not a republican particularly. I don't think our current system is much good, but the costs of putting it right would be just silly, and no one can doubt the Queen has admirably fulfilled her duty from WWII onwards. Anne as well does lots of good work.

Just gets right up my nose, the fawning tone adopted by our 'independent' press whenever any of the Family are held in question.

Really? I've seen plenty of scathing articles, with headlines like "The picture that speaks a thousand damning words" and comments like "leaving what remains of the Duke's reputation in tatters."

Yes they'll happily have a pop about personality, but they should not allow supporters with no more idea of the truth than anyone else (except the individuals involved) to proclaim his innocence before any case is heard.

The press wouldn't have allowed friends of Clifford, or Harris or anyone else to appear on TV commenting on the facts, before the court hearings, it's entirely prejudicial.

The alleged victim is proclaiming his guilt. Why shouldn't supporters proclaim his innocence?

The USA doesn't have laws on prejudice.