A: God but they’re a corrupt shower
B: Who?
A: The Royals – the Windsors. Particularly that Andrew one.
B: What’s he done now?
A: You mean who. The word is out that he had sex with this under-age girl who was ‘loaned’ to him by some uber-wealthy, uber-disgusting rich guy in the US.
B: He’s innocent.
A: Who is?
B: Andrew. He’s an innocent man.
A: You must be joking. You know as well as I do, Buckingham Palace is riddled with all sorts of sexual chicanery.
B: I’ve heard that said but I repeat: Prince Andrew is innocent.
A: How do you make that out?
B: Absence of evidence.
A: What are you talking about? Didn’t this woman say she was abused by him in London, on a privately-owned Caribbean island and God knows where else.
B: Says.
A: Eh?
B: Says she was abused. As yet we’ve heard no evidence that she’s speaking the truth.
A: I can’t believe my ears.
B: I’m sorry to hear that.
A: I thought you were anti-monarchy – saw the Windsors as a bunch of free-loaders on a massive scale.
B: So I do. But that doesn’t make Andrew guilty.
A: There’s no smoke without fire.
B: I hate that phrase. I’ve heard it used of the Birmingham Six, of Pat Finucane, of the Guildford Four – it’s just another way of saying “Regardless of verdicts in courts, I bet they’re still guilty”.
A: I wasn’t talking about them. I was talking about that self-satisfied lump of royal surliness, Prince Andrew.
B: You’re entitled to have whatever views you like of his charm or lack of it. But you’re not entitled to say he’s done something when all you have is an accusation.
A: You mean you don’t think he did it.
B: I mean nothing of the sort. I mean he’s innocent until proven guilty. That’s the law.
A: Don’t give me that.
B: I will give you that. What’s more, it’s when cases like these involve people we’re not particularly fond of that we have to be scrupulously fair. Because you know what the alternative is.
A: What?
B: Anybody could claim anything about a person they didn’t like and if they said it often enough, there are people who would believe it.
A: I believe it.
B: You believe what?
A: I believe Prince Andrew did what that woman said.
B: On what grounds?
A: He’s a nasty piece of work.
B: Any other grounds?
A: Don’t need any more.
B: I rest my case.
Well..that’s about it Jude, isn’t it? Take the most obvious recent cases and compare .Gerry Adams’ arrest and so forth. There’s a section that has him stamped “guilty” anyway.Mind you , the public is a funny beast, isn’t it/ OJ Simpson is still guilty as is the old Bladerunner. In their eyes Andrew has “form” so they’ve made their collective mind up already .People believe these public figures are also public property, so they feel that they know them because of the imagery projected by the media. Of course , none of us know a damn thing about any of their private lives. That said, there’s nothing like a juicy bit of gossip to get the media moving into overdrive . Last week it was whether or not princess Di’s son Harry was really Charles’ child at all. Do you think there is a new anti-royalist campaign starting again after the brouhaha of Kate and the new royal births?
It’d have to be William at the very least for this to have any effect on certain portions of British society’s myopic devotion to the ‘Royal’ ‘Family’. I mean, if they can get away with hoarding massive amounts of ill-gotten public land and money for no reason, what’s an underaged lover or two between friends? Sure they might occasionally be implicated in sexual abuse, but think of all the money they bring in in tourism. And it’s a tradition isn’t it? Lovely stuff.
The BBC’s coverage of this story is a perfect example of the corporation’s bias when it comes to reporting on the ‘Royals’. It’s hard to imagine another celebrity underage sex scandal being covered as forgivingly. Sure they can always throw out another photoshoot with ‘Prince’ George to take everyone’s minds of the unpleasantness.
I look forward to seeing Peter Robinson and Enda Kenny’s concerned, compassionate faces as they pose for photo-ops with the alleged victim.
It is simple really.
The same principles apply to both Andrew and Gerry Adams. Look at the evidence.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest Gerry has a case to answer regarding his brother’s crimes.There is evidence that he has questions at least to be answered over the Mairia Cahill case. The lack of full statements from the main participants is distinctly unhelpful.
I have not seen much in the way of evidence yet about Andrew, but if it is there I hope it is brought out.
Let’s here the full details from all involved in both cases.
“Gerry has a case to answer regarding his brother’s crimes”….Do you know how daft that sounds, gio?
Jude
The allegations were that he covered up the criminal behaviour of his brother. as you should remember.
gio – one, being responsible for one’s brother’s criminal behaviour strikes me as a bit lop-sided; two, it’s odd to compare a man who is being accused of having under-age sex with a ‘sex slave’, with a man whose brother was an abuser. Not really that neat a parallel, methinks. Except of course you’re hell-bent on nailing the brother of the guilty man, come hell or high water…
Jude
He is not responsible for his brothers crimes nor did I say he was. He is responsible for any part he played in covering up or enabling those crimes which is where he has a case to answer.
The comparison is simply that allegations have been made and reported, and people have made up their minds often based on their own prejudice.
I’m asking for full disclosure of facts from those involved.
I would have thought we might be in agreement on that?
totally. Tho’ I’m not holding my breath…
Yep “I am not my brother’s keeper” and all that….
paddy
Come on! If my brother commits a crime and I not only do nothing about it I turn a blind eye when he might be committing further crimes, you think that acceptable?
That is the accusation (one of them anyway) levelled at Gerry.
Just saying “I can’t remember” is not much of a defence.
What “evidence” is there that Gerry Adams has questions to answer, ref Mairia Cahill case?
He could be innocent or he could be guilty. Of course I have no idea. In the absence of a trial and in the absence of a conviction or acquital people will make their own minds up whether they believe it to be true or not. They will make their minds up from a position of ignorance.
The BBC website’s latest report today is fascinating. The headline is ”Prince Andrew sex claims woman ‘should not be believed’ ”
The short article is framed around the issue of the woman being a liar. Is she or is she not a liar?? Extensive quotes from the co-accused are written calling her a liar. So the debate is framed around whether she is a liar as opposed to whether she is a victim.
Contrast that with the recent coverage an alleged sexual abuse case closer to home.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30664060
If one’s inner Debrett didn’t know better about this matter perhaps one might even have been inclined to betray one’s Warbeckian heritage, albeit briefly.
And possibly allowed oneself to sink to the level of the hoi polloi and the rest of the common herd.
Zing ! go the common elastic strings against their cellulite thighs as they hear (they don’t tend to read) about Prince Andrew being a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
Which might even have prompted Perkie’s inner parole-peddling prole to come up with this sort of tosh:
One would, wouldn’t one?
H.R. Andy is to tarts what M.Gandhi
Was to oxcarts or stocks to N.Tandy
Brought up with corgies
One caught up with orgies
Margaritas ‘n Lolita on beaches sandy.
Thankfully, this hogwash got quashed before it could land in the hands of any prurient wearers of a soiled mackintosh.
No, the point here is that Andy is far more handy at applying the nautical pandybat. Or to give him his full title: Honorary Rear Admiral of the Royal Navy.
Because it took the beleagured Royal a while to develop his style (he was thus conferred on the solemn occasion of his Big 5 Oh) is no reason to be sceptical.
Ignore, chaps, that ‘Honorary’ prefix at one’s peril.
http://chrisspivey.org/the-grand-old-dukes-of-york/
A bit more on prince nonce here. If only they had stuff like this on gerry Adams they’d be shouting it from the rooftops…….Norma would be dancing
Paddy, you have a very suspicious mind – just because that wee toe rag Harry looks nothing like his da (nor his ma, for that matter) you doubt his parentage.
Okay, if you put a picture of Harry beside one of that ‘gentleman’ James Hewitt (at the same age), who bragged about having sex with Di, you could be forgiven for not being able to tell the difference.
And how could you believe anything ill about poor Andy Pandy?
Just because he started with the porn queen Koo Stark (though the rest of the royals didn’t seem to appreciate her title), then he moved to Fergie, who was a cast off from Irishman Paddy McMahon, and he’s now denying being engaged to some other bird who is 20 years or so his junior, how could you believe he wasn’t of the highest moral fibre?
I suppose if we could all pick up a bird 20 years our junior, morals would be the last thing on our minds!
Ah Sherdy …my wee mind isn’t one bit suspicious at all. I imagine that if you’ve been brought up in a rarefied world of flunkies and fawners bending to your every whim, it might be expected that you’d demand zipless free sex on tap too….well you might!
I mean if some bugger is practically brushing your teeth for you since birth, you might also expect other bodily needs to be fulfilled without too many questions.We are paying for it all in one way or another so it follows we might want to know how our money is spend. As for Prince Harry , apparently there is a play in production which refers to his birthline. with some little input by Mr Hewitt, erstwhile lover of Di before Dodi….
There is is some dispute as to whether or not Mr Hewitt reared his{ahem!} head in the exact time-frame required for the fertilisation of Lady Di’s eggs in relation to Harry and as you mention yourself, he doesn’t look much like either Ma or Pa either.The situation may require further study should anything happen to big brother and shift Harry up in line for the throne.The DNA kit might be brought out then…or maybe not. This kind of thing goes on all the time in dynasties.
Sherdy
‘If we could all up a bird 20 years our junior, morals would be the last think on our minds!’
As a father of two teenage daughters I can categorically state that the very notion of entertaining a young woman of their age would shame me completely. Although I would be flattered by the attention I would have the view that this is a complete no no and in fact it would disgust me to even contemplate such thoughts. When a 40 odd year old man can’t have a relationship with a woman around his own age and maturity then he needs to take a long look at himself.
This mentality that it is grand for men to seek women that are young enough to be their daughters should never be normalised in my humble opinion.
Woe betide any man who decides to manipulate any of my daughters naivety for their own gratification.
Wolfe, When you think of a ‘bird’ 20 years your junior, you think about your teenage daughters.
When I think of a ‘bird’ 20 years my junior, she’s in her fifties.
Its all relative, you know.
No Wolfe Tone,
Your wrong, if he is guilty slap it up him, he has brought disgrace round HRH The Queen.
People in such a position should know better.
There again a couple of centuries ago, I would have demanded your head be stuck on a pike for treason.
Norma
And what if HRH Elizabeth II is complicit in this carry on? Should hell slap it up her too? Does she have a view on the sinister characters her sons and husband hang about with? The joke doing the rounds for sometime now is that it is hard to distinguish between the honours list and the sex offender register.
Gio
If you honestly think the authorities will chase down and investigate allegations against this royal cabal than they do against ordinary members of the public you have to be deluded. Next you will be telling me that fraud geldof is going to help the poor.
Just recently one of those alleged impartial chairpersons, that was hand picked by Cameron to oversee the child abuse scandal in Westminster, but had to stand down when her impartiality was questioned, issued a blatantly partial statement urging the establishment not to let the victims have a say on who sits on the panel………and if I am not mistaken the queen gave her a gong a day or so after this statement. Amazing, she uses her influence to direct an inquiry but the victims must not have any influence. Go figure.
Wolfe, – Talking about the queen you mention what she might know of what her sons and husband get-got up to.
Would you be referring to Philip’s wartime exploits when based in Derry, and I don’t mean against the Germans.
Would we have any Derry bloggers who might have more intimate knowledge of his many nocturnal sorties into the city, when apparently he seldom returned to base until the following dawn?
I’m sure if Philip had been negotiating for the British government during our troubles there would have been more ‘loving’ outcomes!
I don’t know if the authorities will investigate or not.
I’m just saying we should wait for evidence rather than making assumptions because you want it to be true.
I totally agree, gio. In all cases.
Norma
‘Centuries ago,I would have demanded your head be stuck on a pike for treason’
That is the nicest thing you could have said to me. In fact I am honoured you said that. To be included with such illustrious people as those who refused to bend the knee centuries ago is high praise indeed. Bless you.
Still waiting on all the Unionists and Loyalists to come out and condemn Prince Andrew because of these allegations, just like they did with Gerry Adams, ref Mairia Cahill case………still waiting……..*tumble weeds rolls past*……any minute now……………………..
Jude your piece is absolutely spot on and goes to the heart of the great divide in politics here.
If we all applied the “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” we would all have a much fairer society. mind you we wouldn’t then have a monarch for those who feel themselves to be second class, to be doffing their hats at or indeed to be enjoying the privilege of looking down upon those whom they deem to be the underclass!
You can tell who you are dealing with when you see how closed their mind is to your sense of equality of treatment for all!
What is the point of privilege if it doesn`t allow you to do whatever and whoever you want? Andrew can literally get away with murder, if and it is a massive sized if, any court case ever materialised, if and it is an Africa sized if, a jury (of his peers???) ever found him guilty, his mother the good old Queen, Gawd bless `er would simply issue a pardon. That is why monarchy and a class ridden society are intrinsically unfair.
“We are not amused.”
Dickens would have a field day, if he were alive and well in London at the present time. 2015 is shaping up to be an annus horribilis for more than the Windsor family. Evidence from the Trussell Trust indicates that nearly one million people were given three days of emergency food for Christmas 2013 compared to 346,922 in 2012. Food banks barely existed when the current Tory government came to power in 2010, a fact which highlights the gulf between the rich and the poor. GP’s in London are commenting on the return of Ghosts of Christmas Past in the form of vitamin D deficiency, malnutrition and rickets. The root causes of the crisis may be found in the fact that food prices rose by nearly 50% in the decade to 2013, fuel costs rose by 153% and the average rent increased by 30% in the land of hope and glory.
FRIDAY: ‘This relates to long-standing and ongoing civil proceedings in the United States, to which the Duke of York is not a party. As such we would not comment on the detail. However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue.’
SATURDAY AFTERNOON: ‘A very serious allegation, of sex with a minor, was levelled at the duke in a legal document submitted to a US court. The earlier statement categorically rejected that claim; and as was indicated at the time, we do not intend to comment further.’
SATURDAY EVENING: In response to specific claims about Andrew’s alleged conduct: ‘It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.’
SUNDAY EVENING: Miss Roberts’ father claimed his daughter had been introduced to the Queen – again denied in a statement by the Palace before reiterating the sexual claims are ‘without foundation’.
Four denials and threats to sue. How odd.
hoboroad
Must be guilty as hell if the Palace is denying it. Jude is making denials and threatening to sue today. How odd also.
Ah don’t mind me, Pretz. I just sometimes get fed up with people slinging around baseless accusations as if they could pin whatever label they fancied on me….