opusManx Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 The (con)Artist Formerly Known as Prince ironically still retains the title of Vice- Admiral (for the time being). Karma is relentless but perhaps not without humour. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 1 hour ago, opusManx said: The (con)Artist Formerly Known as Prince ironically still retains the title of Vice- Admiral (for the time being). Karma is relentless but perhaps not without humour. Presume you are talking about Prince Andrew and his settlement. Well he didn’t really have a choice. You talk about karma but nobody apart from the two individuals involved know whether he “forced” her to have sex with him. He has not admitted any guilt but has agreed to pay money to a charity to prevent the circus keep going ( and maybe spare his mothers blushes in her platinum (?) year) This “incident” happened ( if it did -we will never know) so one has to ask why the lady in question has waited until now to raise it. I really would like to know why the delay. I may be cynical but I suspect we will be soon be treated to her memoirs out in time for the Christmas market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 1 hour ago, opusManx said: Formerly Known as Prince And still is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 1 hour ago, opusManx said: The (con)Artist Formerly Known as Prince ironically still retains the title of Vice- Admiral (for the time being). Karma is relentless but perhaps not without humour. 7 across? These bloody cryptic crossword clues really baffle sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opusManx Posted February 15, 2022 Author Share Posted February 15, 2022 7 minutes ago, ManxTaxPayer said: And still is. Wasnt meant to be taken literally. A sidelong reference to the increasingly nominal nature of his titles. I guess I could have just used the referenced musician's symbol after he ditched his "title" 🤭 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opusManx Posted February 15, 2022 Author Share Posted February 15, 2022 18 minutes ago, x-in-man said: 7 across? These bloody cryptic crossword clues really baffle sometimes. Sorry...it's in the double-entendre in the word "Vice". Aah...well...as the French say, "ce n'est pas grave". Apologies...I couldnt resist the schadenfreude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 29 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: Presume you are talking about Prince Andrew and his settlement. Well he didn’t really have a choice. You talk about karma but nobody apart from the two individuals involved know whether he “forced” her to have sex with him. He has not admitted any guilt but has agreed to pay money to a charity to prevent the circus keep going ( and maybe spare his mothers blushes in her platinum (?) year) This “incident” happened ( if it did -we will never know) so one has to ask why the lady in question has waited until now to raise it. I really would like to know why the delay. I may be cynical but I suspect we will be soon be treated to her memoirs out in time for the Christmas market. She hasn't? That story has been around for 20+ years, with the photo. She'd already got paid from the other nonce. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 You all have to remember, the royal family brings in far more money through tourism than it pays out in sex abuse cases. 4 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opusManx Posted February 15, 2022 Author Share Posted February 15, 2022 (edited) 19 hours ago, Mr. Sausages said: You all have to remember, the royal family brings in far more money through tourism than it pays out in sex abuse cases. Clever and funny, despite the obviously not-funny aspect. I lean toward 🤭. But do we have the actual maths? Lol...I kid, I kid... Edited February 16, 2022 by opusManx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opusManx Posted February 16, 2022 Author Share Posted February 16, 2022 In reply to an earlier post, it doesnt matter whether we know she was forced, as she was legally a minor at the time. And as many have pointed out, there is no innocent explanation for the infamous photograph, given the power and age differential as well as Maxwell's prescence and Epstein being the one behind the camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 Randy Andy will be packed off now to the former colonies to play golf and drink sundowners on the verandah for the rest of his days. My money is on next Governor of the Isle of Man. Now where's that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 11 hours ago, Mr. Sausages said: You all have to remember, the royal family brings in far more money through tourism than it pays out in sex abuse cases. That made me lol. Good work Sausages 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 On 2/16/2022 at 2:06 AM, opusManx said: In reply to an earlier post, it doesnt matter whether we know she was forced, as she was legally a minor at the time. And as many have pointed out, there is no innocent explanation for the infamous photograph, given the power and age differential as well as Maxwell's prescence and Epstein being the one behind the camera. Albeit she was a minor at the time I wouldn’t agree that it doesn’t matter if she was raped (‘“ forced”) or if any sex was consensual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 On 2/16/2022 at 2:06 AM, opusManx said: ... she was legally a minor at the time... Not in the UK, obviously. Could any prosecution confidently convince a jury that Andrew knew the complainant was a trafficked person? Funny how the now-deceased nonce paid out $500k and the stupid prince finished on £12m. And a question still remains. Some of those females (yes) procured other victims for that guy Jeff, have they been given immunity in return for testifying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opusManx Posted February 20, 2022 Author Share Posted February 20, 2022 She was a minor at the time in the jurisdiction where the case was filed (U.S.) Not sure of the ages of the other girls you mention, but again, IF legally underage, I would presume their legal council would cite recognition of dimished responsibility due to their age. Have not read/heard any mention of culpability of the girls or any legal immunity (other than in this forum). Not knowing all the details of the incidents, I can draw no conclusions, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.