Forum menu
It is. As opposed to what, an overage minor? An underage major?
Underage minor. That would imply to be someone who has reached neither the age of consent (16) nor the age of majority (18). Since anyone under the age of majority is classed as a minor then yes, it is possible to be an overage minor.
As said, interesting choice of words. He did.
Because having a doddery old girl who means well and doesn’t have to worry about pandering to the voters in charge (technically) is slightly less dangerous than some of the alternatives?
That would a valid line if she did anything other than just agree with the gov of the day.
Its not just the media or this womans lawyers that have made it into a story
prince andrew's friendship with and publicly stated support of a notorious paedophile, before and after his conviction has given it legs
Kimbers has it: Epstein was running an international racket, with girls as young as 12, hidden cameras n all.
Add to the mix that Prince Andrew is a Heavy Duty Arms Dealer and this is far more of a story than is being generally revealed...
Ive read a few times lately that andrew's dodgy assossciates might make him unsuitable as a [s]uk trade envoy[/s] arms dealer
wtf? this makes him the perfect person to do business with suadi princes,other amoral scumbags like the governments of bahrain, israel, sri lanka, sudan, egypt etc turns out he has the contacts to throw in a few sex slaves as sweeteners
Its just a shame that prince andrew, eppstein etc wont be a receiving a phone call from this guy at some point
[img] 
[/img]
Prince Andrew is a Heavy Duty Arms Dealer
As I understand it, He worked for a Government department that promotes UK business abroad.
The UK has an arms industry, which obviously sells stuff abroad, and he did his job by promoting it.
I'm not sure that makes him a "heavy duty arms dealer" does it ?
Perhaps you should do some research neal 😉
Feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.
theres plenty out there on andys dodgy dealings
http://www.channel4.com/news/prince-andrew-cheerleader-in-chief-for-the-arms-industry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12663378
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/30/prince-andrew-wikileaks-cables
Feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.
Your assumptions are wrong... 😀
#Team JHJ all day !
Always intrigued by the "monarchy is abhorrent" view. Someone else on here recently made a comment about "being a subject".
Historically our royals have done horrendous things and abused their powers, stuff that makes this story about Prince Andrew look really tame. But given her current mainly symbolic role, I'm fairly "royalist" in my views. I haven't been persuaded that they do more harm than good - Queenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.
But I certainly don't feel like I'm anyone's subject. It's just a part of our national quirkiness.
Just realised I'm babbling and this should probably be another thread.
Queenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.
Possibly, but she makes a good deal less coffee.
So if they do nothing why have one family born to inherited privilege? The idea is just wrong imo.
Wonder how many of the weapons that led to (and continue to fuel) the worlds current tragedies Prince Andrew/The Royal Family sold and/or profited from?
Sometimes it almost seems as if it's a game to deal with whoever has the dodgiest human rights:
Bahrain:
[img] 
[/img]
Saudi Arabia:
[img] 
[/img]
and candidate for 'hate week' Assad (who was nearly knighted)
[img] 
[/img]
We are as a country well dodgy just look at the Genocidal nutters we supported under the Thatcher government and the torturers we assisted under Blair.
The Royal family are just an imported figure head and have no real Historic right to rule we could always pick an arbitory date and trace a more authentic bunch personally I'd go for 1059.
@kimbers, I am not sure I would say Epstein was "notorious", there are others who've done far worse. Prince Andrew apologised for his contact and severed all ties with him. Y
Oh right, so because paedophilia and sexual slavery isn't quite as bad as genocide we should just give him a free ride. 😕
Also, I believe Andrew was pictured with Epstein immediately after his release from prison.
As I understand it, He worked for a Government department that promotes UK business abroad.The UK has an arms industry, which obviously sells stuff abroad, and he did his job by promoting it.
I'm not sure that makes him a "heavy duty arms dealer" does it ?
Yet again - rather than dealing with the actual issues you choose to pick up on an irrelevant and pedantic point. I really don't get it.
MoreCashThanDash - MemberQueenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.
[i]I[/i] pay more tax than Starbucks.
Paying tax on what? Land and property they've never had to work for. The Duchy of Cornwall, Cornwall being one of the poorest counties, soaks up money locally and then provides scholarships at Gordounston for the kids of the privileged. How people defend the monarchy leaves me dumbfounded. Are we not grown up enough to be citizens? These people are ripping the p out of everyone else and are so arrogant and blase about it they think they can use and abuse and get away with it. Going by some of the comments on here, I'm sure they will, and be applauded for it.
Yet again - rather than dealing with the actual issues you choose to pick up on an irrelevant and pedantic point. I really don't get it.
How is it irrelevant ?
It was brought up, as if to illustrate a point. And I questioned it.
Add to the mix that Prince Andrew is a Heavy Duty Arms Dealer and this is far more of a story than is being generally revealed...
The insinuation being, he must be guilty of everything else because JHJ says he's an arms dealer.
He had a job to promote UK business abroad, we are the 5th largest arms exporter in the world, and he promoted it.
It doesn't relate to the recent accusations, and is a pointless thing to bring up.
Despite what JHJ claims above.
If he's guilty then he deserves prosecution and whatever punishment fit the crime.
But bringing up pointless exaggerations as a way to "prove" he's guilty doesn't help anyone.
Back under your bridge neal 😉
Nothing in the least pointless or exaggerated in what I'm trying to explain:
like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeffrey Epstein was a member of both the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations.
Quick example, here is good old Zbigniew, doing what him and his chums do best (under CIAs [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone ]Operation Cyclone[/url]):
Could be argued that the Afghanistan war and indeed the recent ****stani School massacre were a result of the legacy of this... some even suggest it had a contributory factor in 9/11
Hope I'm not getting too exaggerated for you...
Back under your bridge neal
Is it trolling to disagree with you ?
I agree that if he's guilty he needs punishment, same as anyone else.
Trying to make out that he's guilty because you think he's an arms dealer doesn't help.
Prince Andrew representing British Industry including the arms trade isn't news. He should be congratulated for doing so. He served in the Falklands war so I would imagine he is quite a compelling sales person when it comes to arms deals. There is nothing remotely dodgy about that at all. I would say quite different things about Mark Thatcher in that regard FWIW.
There is nothing remotely dodgy about that at all
Really, nothing at all?
Another one for Jive's photos of Andrew with despots collection
[url= http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/prince-andrew-attacked-for-opening-door-to-arms-dealers/story-e6frg6so-1226037031887?nk=cf7fbf482e405c0a7e684aa9a1f1af1f ]Andrew brokers jets to Indonesia[/url] (whose leaders used the last arms we supplied against civilians)
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/feb/24/arms-gulf-prince-charles ]His brother too.[/url]
22K a week ski chalet? Wonder what extras were included..
@Chunki he was in Verbier, that's what Richard Branson rents his place there out for.
@grum, Ian Watkins got 35 years - I was making the comparison that someone who gets 18 months probably hasn't committed a "notorious" crime. A serious crime yes but not a "notorious one"
@aa - not there is nothing remotely dodgy in assisting in promoting British business including weapons.
nealglover - arms dealer, or someone who promotes the sale of arms - is there really a significant difference IYO?
@grum, Ian Watkins got 35 years - I was making the comparison that someone who gets 18 months probably hasn't committed a "notorious" crime. A serious crime yes but not a "notorious one"
Well I believe the whole case being heard at the moment is arguing he should have received a much, much longer sentence but didn't because of his wealth and connections to people like Prince Andrew. It's also pretty shabby whataboutery to compare it to the Ian Watkins case and say 'well at least it wasn't as bad as that'.
And how anyone can claim the British arms trade is something to be proud of is truly beyond me.
aa - not there is nothing remotely dodgy in assisting in promoting British business including weapons.
In your opinion, many others disagree
Have you ever thought why French ski resorts such as Courchevel have fallen from favour with the rich and famous in recent years?
If you read the local papers in Courchevel and Verbier it's blindingly obvious why. One has ads for cars, houses and lost dogs, the other for sex workers. [url= http://www.rz-online.ch/zeitung/thema-der-woche/2013-46/prostitution-im-wallis ]An amusing link for those who read German.[/url]
grum - Member
And how anyone can claim the British arms trade is something to be proud of is truly beyond me.
Because money?
[url= http://newsthump.com/2015/01/05/duke-of-york-strenuously-denies-he-had-ten-thousand-men/ ]another sexual scandal[/url]
Have you ever thought why French ski resorts such as Courchevel have fallen from favour with the rich and famous in recent years?
The property prices and level of building work there at present suggest it hasn't fallen out of favour with everyone. It may be that the increasing number of rich and rude Russians has persuaded many people that other places are more pleasant and better value options.
Don't get me started on the tossers who think they have a claim over Cornwall.
pfffft
True or False?
Prince Andrew and Duchess of York
AND
Prince Charles and Diana
[b]had Jimmy Savile as a marriage counsellor[/b]?
[img] 
[/img]
True
True
Unknown
do I win ?
Aye, what do you prefer, custard cream or bourbon?
[s]live rodents[/s] err, custard cream please
Steady on Richard Gere!!
Bloody 3d scanner is on the blink, and what's more, just realized that you didn't quite make the grade:
True
True
True
is the correct answer...
Nonetheless, kindly soul that I am, I'll have to give you some more tasty info to chew on...
[url= http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-12-29/bbc-pulls-controversial-royal-documentary-about-spin-after-death-of-princess-diana ]Here is an article regarding the cancelling of a documentary which was due to be shown last night, detailing how Prince Charles used spin doctors after the death of Diana[/url]
(Not sure if spin doctors wrote article?)
The funny thing is, the documentary which the Royals stopped airing on the BBC is about how they influence the media. Point proved?
Captions please for Eduk's and JHJ's photos:
nealglover - arms dealer, or someone who promotes the sale of arms - is there really a significant difference IYO?
There are differences yes. But wether prince Andrew is guilty of sexual offences doesn't rely on the definition of either of them.
And how anyone can claim the British arms trade is something to be proud of is truly beyond me.
I agree.
Did anyone do that ?
[img] 
[/img]
Queenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.
Possibly, but she makes a good deal less coffee.
Considering what crap, watery bilge Starbucks churns out, I consider that a Very Good Thing.
And if she did, I'm sure the quality would be top-notch.
jivehoneyjive - Member
True or False?Prince Andrew and Duchess of York
AND
Prince Charles and Diana
had Jimmy Savile as a marriage counsellor?
So? This has been gone over relentlessly because of your obsession with it. Here's a good expression for you: hindsight is 20:20 vision. Do you understand the significance in this context?
Do you understand the significance in this context?
Very much so, do you?
How was Savile allowed to get so close, [url= 
]given vetting procedures[/url]?
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.scribd.com/doc/246043736/35-reasons-why-the-Royal-Family-must-be-compelled-to-answer-police-questions-for-the-UK-s-Inquiry-into-Child-Sexual-Abuse ]And why is there so many similar instances where offenders close to the Royals slipped through the net[/url]
All very odd...
[img] 
[/img]
Very odd indeed:
[img] [/img]
Now, about those hidden cameras that Epstein had...
To be honest, you don't have to be 'establishment' to install hidden cameras.
Landlord in a local pub in Northamptonshire got done for that. No chance I'd want to see his clientele use the bogs, and they are not the crowd to fear a pub dump either.
In Epstein's case there was clearly a case to answer because (from the stuff I've seen anyway) while the incidents he was involved in appear to have been consentual some of the girls involved were below the age of consent and there are strong grounds that he must have been aware of that. I think it's the latter point (i.e. whether he must have been aware of it) that led the prosecution to do a plea bargain with him though because they weren't sure they'd be able to get a conviction based on the evidence they had (although it looks like the police and prosecution disagree on that).
In Prince Andrew's case even if the allegations are true then what he's being accused of is that he had sex with a 17 year old girl in 3 different locations, but that in all of which 17 would have been above the age of consent. Very sleazy yes, but criminal no.
In Prince Andrew's case even if the allegations are true then what he's being accused of is that he had sex with a 17 year old girl in 3 different locations, but that in all of which 17 would have been above the age of consent. Very sleazy yes, but criminal no.
Not quite true,if the girl was a prostitute then it is illegal if she is under 18.
The whole thing is incredibly sleazy.