CPFC BBS

CPFC BBS (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/index.php)
-   General Chit Chat (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Prince Andrew accused of sexual assault (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=279685)

cockneyrebel 11-08-2019 12:20 AM

Prince Andrew accused of sexual assault
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49305967

And partied with nonce case Epstein.

west country boy 11-08-2019 12:30 AM

Well, I for one would be very surprised if such a fine upstanding citizen was guilty of such a thing.

GorBlimey 11-08-2019 01:03 AM

Allegation = guilt.


Any witches out there that need to be dealt with as well while you're at it?

Les Butler 11-08-2019 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel (Post 14875928)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49305967

And partied with nonce case Epstein.

Read it in the paper must be true,kept on saying allegedly mind.

Could you imagine all the stuff you don't believe about Corbyn that you call "smears" and "lies" by the papers with who Corbyn associates with ?

Would that make him an anti semite and a Terrorist lover ?

Might be true might not be but when you smear others......

Joe85 11-08-2019 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Les Butler (Post 14875967)
Read it in the paper must be true,kept on saying allegedly mind.

Could you imagine all the stuff you don't believe about Corbyn that you call "smears" and "lies" by the papers with who Corbyn associates with ?

Would that make him an anti semite and a Terrorist lover ?

Might be true might not be but when you smear others......

Corbyn is a politician. Those are allegations are political in nature. Epstein was a massive ******* nonce and Andrew was his good friend, this is a criminal allegation.

How can you even begin to compare the two? Your weird Tory complex shining through again Les.

Les Butler 11-08-2019 01:31 AM

I'm just talking about judging others before they are judged,personally I think any cases like this should be only made public if charged and even then they might be found not guilty..

Has Andrew been charged ?

Do you become instantly a Tory if you don't like Corbyn ?

I would say more Liberal ...;)

I would say being an anti semite could be criminal,isn't that a hate crime ?

Les Butler 11-08-2019 01:35 AM

Just to add I have known people in my life who I called friends and was surprised to find out there was something dodgy....Sometimes you just don't know do you but we don't know if he has done anything criminal do we..?

Joe85 11-08-2019 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Les Butler (Post 14875973)
I'm just talking about judging others before they are judged,personally I think any cases like this should be only made public if charged and even then might be found not guilty..


Do you become instantly a Tory if you don't like Corbyn ?

I would say more Liberal ...;)

It’s a poor comparison in my opinion. And to be fair, you’ve gone for cr for pasting a link.

Limp wristed liberal. :p

Les Butler 11-08-2019 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe85 (Post 14875976)
It’s a poor comparison in my opinion. And to be fair, you’ve gone for cr for pasting a link.

Limp wristed liberal. :p

:D

Partly yes , I think he is a hypocrite when judging others, covenantly lambasting anything in the papers that he disagrees with as lies and smears.

yet

I don't Know if Andrew is guilty of anything,would it surprise me if he was guilty of groping a 17 year old when he was younger, no.

But I don't know.

stinky 11-08-2019 02:03 AM

PK was right all along.

Everyone mocked and laughed, despite deep down knowing he was right.

stinky 11-08-2019 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GorBlimey (Post 14875949)
Allegation = guilt.


Any witches out there that need to be dealt with as well while you're at it?

Rumours for years, close friend with Epstein and now actual allegations. Wake up. He's a very very bad nonce. Or a good one. Depends how you look at it.

ozzieEagle 11-08-2019 02:24 AM

All of this and a lot of it is obviously warranted, is very reminiscent of Mccarthyism.

It will be a better day all round when the headlines die down and the wheat gets sorted from the chaff.

It almost feels like the advances made for freedom of everything in the 60's are slowly being entwined and reeled in.

This is one of the worst if not the worst time for finger pointing in my 60 plus years, the hysteria needs to be taken out of it.

Lets take this Prince Andrew case, did he do it probably, was it wrong to touch a young vulnerable on the boob from a position of power, yes. Should he be crucified over it? Well if he did it today definitely but back then... definitely wrong, trouble is even more wrong in todays climate.

It's just a social cycle and we are heading back into more prudent times. We'll be back out of it again in a few generations.

ebyeeckeagle 11-08-2019 03:01 AM

Thank you ozzieagle.

Been a while since I've read such a pile of absolute shit.

GorBlimey 11-08-2019 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stinky (Post 14875993)
Rumours for years, close friend with Epstein and now actual allegations. Wake up. He's a very very bad nonce. Or a good one. Depends how you look at it.


Rumours mean you're guilty?


What the actual f*ck? :eek:

ozzieEagle 11-08-2019 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebyeeckeagle (Post 14875998)
Thank you ozzieagle.

Been a while since I've read such a pile of absolute shit.


So you put yourself up to being the the epitome of virtue and righteousness, your whole life eh?

Dead set generation gap happening here, and I dont know which side is the saddest.

100pct there was and is a lot wrong with what went on in the 60's and 70's and beyond. Tell you what though it's nothing on what went on before and that will always remain unspoken and sadly well hidden. At least the recent sins of the past are being dealt with now en-masse and exposed now probably for the first time in history.

Just a shame that those gave the world so much freedom of expression, the biggest generational change in known history in the 60's are the ones that pay the price for the dirty sins of the countless generations before.


Rape abuse and incest were very common in the 20's and 30's and a hell of a lot of women went through it. Mostly around family functions and get togethers and people that were within their circles. It was probably even worse 3 generations before... Just imagine how that would have been dealt with had social media been available in the 50's and 60's.

So cut the crap and realise that what you've been handed on a plate is total freedom and try not to abuse it. Here's a clue try and realise times and attitudes change.

Over to you Mr Squeaky Clean.

NickP 11-08-2019 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzieEagle (Post 14876045)
So you put yourself up to being the the epitome of virtue and righteousness, your whole life eh?

Dead set generation gap happening here, and I dont know which side is the saddest.

100pct there was and is a lot wrong with what went on in the 60's and 70's and beyond. Tell you what though it's nothing on what went on before and that will always remain unspoken and sadly well hidden. At least the recent sins of the past are being dealt with now en-masse and exposed now probably for the first time in history.

Just a shame that those gave the world so much freedom of expression, the biggest generational change in known history in the 60's are the ones that pay the price for the dirty sins of the countless generations before.


Rape abuse and incest were very common in the 20's and 30's and a hell of a lot of women went through it. Mostly around family functions and get togethers and people that were within their circles. It was probably even worse 3 generations before... Just imagine how that would have been dealt with had social media been available in the 50's and 60's.

So cut the crap and realise that what you've been handed on a plate is total freedom and try not to abuse it. Here's a clue try and realise times and attitudes change.

Over to you Mr Squeaky Clean.

Interesting.

People (mostly women in this case) who are alive today are complaining that they have been raped or sexually assaulted, sometimes when they were children.

Do you think a shrug and "they were different times" should be the response? Or should there be an investigation? And if evidence points to guilt, prosecutions?

I'm not certainly not "Mr Squeaky Clean" and some of the late 70s and 80s are a bit blurred in my memory, but don't recall grabbing the tits of any trafficked children.

cockneyrebel 11-08-2019 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Les Butler (Post 14875985)
:D

Partly yes , I think he is a hypocrite when judging others, covenantly lambasting anything in the papers that he disagrees with as lies and smears.

yet

I don't Know if Andrew is guilty of anything,would it surprise me if he was guilty of groping a 17 year old when he was younger, no.

But I don't know.

So you’ve gone off on one saying the link shouldn’t have been posted up (it is the BBC so probably worthy of discussion) and then go on to say it wouldn’t surprise you if he’s done it. Yeah ok Les.

Then you shoe horn corbyn in to it.

ozzieEagle 11-08-2019 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP (Post 14876079)
Interesting.

People (mostly women in this case) who are alive today are complaining that they have been raped or sexually assaulted, sometimes when they were children.

Do you think a shrug and "they were different times" should be the response? Or should there be an investigation? And if evidence points to guilt, prosecutions?

I'm not certainly not "Mr Squeaky Clean" and some of the late 70s and 80s are a bit blurred in my memory, but don't recall grabbing the tits of any trafficked children.

Johanna Sjoeberg was 21 at the time in 1997 according to my reading?

I definitely don't think a "shrug and a different time" should be the response. I do think that the issue should be treated as though it happened back at that time, rather than this knee jerk reaction we are getting on the back of this new found tidal wave of feinted disingenuous horror and revulsion.

cockneyrebel 11-08-2019 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzieEagle (Post 14876121)
Johanna Sjoeberg was 21 at the time in 1997 according to my reading?

I definitely don't think a "shrug and a different time" should be the response. I do think that the issue should be treated as though it happened back at that time, rather than this knee jerk reaction we are getting on the back of this new found tidal wave of feinted disingenuous horror and revulsion.

Firstly what has 1997 got to do with with the 60s and 70s? Secondly I’m fairly sure sexual assault was illegal then.

Also you’re wrong about her being 21. From the guardian:

Quote:

The document also contains a photo which, Guiffre’s attorneys say, shows Andrew “with his hand around Ms Giuffre’s bare waist while she was a minor child, while posing with [Maxwell], inside [Maxwell’s] house in London”.
It’s also the case that he continued to associate with Epstein after he was a convicted child abuser.

Wolfnipplechips 11-08-2019 09:24 AM

Poor old Les, slating a poster for posting a link to the BBC.

Anybody else posts that link and old Les will give it the “good for debate” line, bit when it’s a poster he has had a couple of spats with it's somehow an issue.

Weird.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.