Quote: chipolata @ 18th November 2019, 4:28 PMit's sweet that you're now such a fan of knowing all the facts.
I'm always sweet, Chip.
You know that. 
I read the news today oh boy! Page 2,125
Meanwhile, scientists in California have come up with a new and more accurate way to express your dog's age in human years.
1 = 31
2 = 42
3 = 47
4 = 53
5 = 57
6 = 60
7 = 62
8 = 64
9 = 66
10 = 68
15 = 74
20 = 79
30 = 85
If your dog reaches the age of 30, you should contact the Guinness Book of Records as the world's oldest ever dog was born, lived, and died at the age of 29 on a farm in Victoria, Australia.
Rood I'm sorry but Prince Andrew was lying through his teeth and the facts are simple.
When a man raised with butlers and footmen is acting covertly as they take charge of opening and closing the front door of a convicted paedophiles New York mansion, anyone who thinks he is innocent is at best a fool.
The fact Prince Andrew thought it a good idea to balls this one out is astounding. I appreciate just before an election is good time to bury bad news, but this one is in a shallow grave with the foot sticking out. Let's hope Trump gets impeached and Andy gets charged, otherwise the importance of the truth will be lost forever.
The BBC has usually got it's tongue firmly up the royal arse.He probably thought they were there to help cover it up.
What if he is convicted?What's the punishment?House arrest in one of their palaces?
Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 18th November 2019, 8:00 PMRood I'm sorry but Prince Andrew was lying through his teeth and the facts are simple.
When a man raised with butlers and footmen is acting covertly as they take charge of opening and closing the front door of a convicted paedophiles New York mansion, anyone who thinks he is innocent is at best a fool.
Let me assure you I can understand why you feel that way, Teddy - and I'm not saying you're wrong.
To me, it seemed very much as though he was a man desperate to clear himself of the allegations (both explicit and implicit) and he may indeed have been untruthful in his attempt to do so.
I don't think he's innocent by any means but, on the other hand, I can't pronounce him guilty because, as I've said several times before, nobody has produced a shred of evidence that he was involved in crime or even in immorality.
If it turns out that he was a 50-50 partner with Epstein in a huge vice network, I wouldn't be amazed but, equally, if it turned out he was entirely innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, that wouldn't amaze me either.
Time, as it so often does, will very probably tell.
Quote: Firkin @ 18th November 2019, 8:16 PMThe fact Prince Andrew thought it a good idea to balls this one out is astounding.
It was indeed a very bad decision as things turned out.
The interview might have gone well for him if he'd kept his answers very short and to the point.
Unfortunately, he said things about his never having been one for partying or public displays of affection - only to have the next day's newspapers full of photographs of him partying and engaging in public displays of affection.
That's the huge danger of telling lies (or what appear to be lies) as part of your story - even if your story is otherwise truthful.
If even one of your untruths is exposed, your entire story is thrown into question.
WTF was he thinking? 
Quote: Rood Eye @ 17th November 2019, 9:33 PMA dreadful incident.
After a trial lasting 10 months, the jury must have decided that, under all the circumstances, the tragedy was not foreseeable and that it was simply a very unfortunate accident.
Under Californian law, the children should have had permits to allow them to work at night but the studio had not applied for such permits. Be that as it may, however, I'm sure the defence argued that even if those permits had been obtained, the accident would still have happened.
If they had permits there would have been someone on set whenever the children were with the sole purpose of ensuring their safety and they wouldn't have had a problem sharing their concerns. The crew would have been more reluctant to voice concerns for fear of angering people and being fired but someone independent from the production wouldn't have that problem. Members of the crew also kept the children out of the way to avoid the fire marshal so they could make the scene as chaotic as it was. Someone has put a video together that shows how the scene unfolded by editing several clips together and chaos is not the word with pyrotechnics going off next to a very low flying helicopter. Literally a few metres above the actors. Someone made the point that it could have been filmed with just a couple of stuffed coats and didn't need children.
Quote: john tregorran @ 18th November 2019, 8:28 PMWhat if he is convicted?What's the punishment?House arrest in one of their palaces?
He'd better hope they don't lock him up in the Tower of London.
English princes tend not to thrive when imprisoned there.
Honestly, he looks like the most awkward unfashionable geek of all time. How he met all those really fit birds in St Tropez I will never know. There was even one who was such a looker that some might have mistaken her for Gina Miller. And at least she was old enough to be his mother. Diana to Dodi to Al Fayed to Khashoggi to Epstein to York. Oh all the who was friends with whos, all entirely innocuous of course. Christ knows how the Bushes fitted in, contra or otherwise. and if at all, but obviously it isn't the part of the tree that features anyone named Charles or bin Laden which is delightfully just as well.
Trump bought the yacht off K , then slagged him off in the media. Unusually for once, no questions there, even if he was photographed with Epstein. He just flits in and out of allegiances and plays a clever game. One off the other. It's fun for him. However un-loveable at times, I would never wish to criticise his often less than successful intentions to be good. Sure, a total maverick. Yet I am in no doubt that all the fanny he touched was adult. And his love for our Queen is genuine.
Diana, love her, genuinely believed in children. At the end, she did not believe so much in the Royal Family. No problems with the Queen but King Charles was not a wow of an idea for her and Andrew who she might easily have wed was a pawn in the making, You get at one from the grave by getting at A N Close Other. Bloody hell. To send messages down during a general election is untimely but her time keeping was always lousy. Ian Greer - there is arguably a case that usefully for his own self he died in '15. On an entirely different matter, how splendid it was to hear dear old Neil Hamilton on LBC tonight.
(Obviously I don't present any of this as cast iron fact - it's more a set of implied interesting and challenging questions) 
"Epstein accuser who was 'assaulted by his female associate' says the financier used Prince Andrew as BAIT to get her to his private island when she was 15 - and urges the Duke of York to speak to the FBI."
Another misleading and damaging headline in a British newspaper often mentioned on BCG forums stating that Jeffrey Epstein used Prince Andrew as bait to lure 15-year-old girl to his private island.
When reading past the headline and into the text of the article, it seems that Epstein used Andrew's name in an attempt to persuade the girl to visit the island.
Epstein invited the girl to the island, she wasn't immediately keen and so he told her Prince Andrew would be there.
The article concedes that there is no evidence that Andrew would have been on the island had the girl accepted the invitation.
The girl herself makes no allegations of any kind whatever against Andrew.
It seems therefore that there is no link between Andrew and that underage girl - except in that newspaper headline.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 18th November 2019, 11:08 PM"Epstein accuser who was 'assaulted by his female associate' says the financier used Prince Andrew as BAIT to get her to his private island when she was 15 - and urges the Duke of York to speak to the FBI."
Another misleading and damaging headline in a British newspaper often mentioned on BCG forums stating that Jeffrey Epstein used Prince Andrew as bait to lure 15-year-old girl to his private island.
When reading past the headline and into the text of the article, it seems that Epstein used Andrew's name in an attempt to persuade the girl to visit the island.
Epstein invited the girl to the island, she wasn't immediately keen and so he told her Prince Andrew would be there.
The article concedes that there is no evidence that Andrew would have been on the island had the girl accepted the invitation.
The girl herself makes no allegations of any kind whatever against Andrew.
It seems therefore that there is no link between Andrew and that underage girl - except in that newspaper headline.
It's very complicated. Much more complicated than how it is being handled. I don't like him. Never have done. I thought some of his answers were very dubious. However, I didn't quite have the negative reaction that those who don't like the royal family have. I thought it was a bit of a mixture and I do think that Maitlis did it quite well. I'm a monarchist. I love the Queen. I think she has been fantastic. I don't love Charles. I quite like William. Bald yes but a Villa fan. Having chosen Aston Villa as one of my new teams. my Villa shirt happened to arrive today. I still think that it should go Liz to Chas to Wills, otherwise there is no point in having a constitution. That is, unless something untoward emerges about Charles.
I see Andrew as the sort of so-and-so with immense privilege of whom I find there is no connection. However, these overly powerful blokes often pitifully have an inner groupie in their character. There is no doubt about who had the power when it came to him and his females but when it comes to groupie leanings that could conceivably even it out a bit. "Wow a Prince". "Wow a trailer girl". The age thing is of itself complicated. 17 going on 18, to paraphrase The Sound of Music. That officially ain't a child in the UK. But then there was Epstein and the allegations about as young as 14. What next? Go on to the Lib Dem website and you will find some Lib Dems wanting a lowering of the age of consent to precisely that age. I find that totally appalling. If I had my way, I would have the age of consent linked to whether someone was on a salary which could provide them and any offspring with adequate food and housing. Make it the age of 35 in some cases if necessary.
OK - so I kind of exaggerate to make a point but I've never loved those who jump in and out of beds as students with half a pill and a half baked condom. Obviously you could say that my approach would be detrimental to the poor and that is why I wouldn't pursue it vigorously. It is also why I hate the idea of middle aged men being led by their cockiness into female pauper engagement just as in Victorian times. But there are a lot of double standards. The millions who wank off to porn are essentially aroused by people who do what they do as they are on the breadline. And if the age of consent was lowered to 14, suddenly everyone would go "oh that's cool" just as in one moment fags are great and dope is illegal and the next moment it is the opposite way round. Society is so fickle, it is like a silly child who manages with manipulation to get the most cake. At the end of the day there is inevitably a banker or a lawyer making big money and screwing us all.
For those who hate the royals I say this. They were way ahead of the politicians on race relations and even gay rights. They were absolute trailblazers and they never get given the credit for those things. Tell all of your friends and especially the younger generations. But I thought Sir Simon Jenkins was interesting tonight. He believes that the fundamental mistake was made by the Queen in the 1960s when she decided to place accent on the family so as to modernise the monarchy. It was, he suggested, bound to lead to problems as with every member of a family you get a particular set of problems. I do think he is right in some ways. It wasn't her fault, He himself I believe is a monarchist. But whatever, my own position is clear. If anyone ever seriously threatens the Queen so as to place her life in danger, I will gather up an army of a million people and strike them down. Because at the end of the day what she is essentially about is our national cohesion.
Personally, I think it looks like Andrew is lying about the allegations. Some people lie to get themselves out of trouble. Bet he thought he could take what he wanted and use whom he wanted - I think he's been spoilt since birth. He's been around sycophants. Even his ex-wife lauds him and would be better off not doing so in the circumstances. Everyone I have discussed it with who saw him interviewed thinks the same. Which means he looks really bad even as is likely, the spoilt, indulged, man never gets to court. I have tried to moderate my language here. Just my opinion.
Quote: BTF @ 18th November 2019, 11:32 PMPersonally, I think it looks like Andrew is lying about the allegations.
I can see why you and others might think that - and, as I said to Teddy, I'm not saying you're wrong.
You may very easily be absolutely right and it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if you are.
The point I come back to is that even if that girl's allegations are proved to be 100% truthful, none of those allegations involves criminal or immoral behaviour on Andrew's part.
I'm not suggesting for a single solitary moment that he wasn't up to highly illegal and/or highly immoral activities with Jeffrey Epstein. Perhaps he was and perhaps he wasn't: I don't know. I'm simply saying that, at the present time, there is no evidence of it.
Quote: BTF @ 18th November 2019, 11:59 PMI think he had sex - allegedly - with her when she was 17. I think this was illegal in the US.
Different states in the USA have different laws: in some states the age of consent is 16, in some states it's 17 and in some states it's 18.
The sex is alleged to have taken place in New York where the age of consent is 17.
If the sex did take place as alleged, it was entirely within the law.
Quote: BTF @ 18th November 2019, 11:59 PMit is illegal to coerce as she allegedly was coerced
That is correct but the girl makes no allegation that she was coerced by Andrew.
Also, she makes no allegation that Andrew was aware of the alleged coercion.
In short, as I have said many times before, she makes no allegations of criminal behaviour on Andrew's part.
I'm sorry if my views and my statements of fact appear simplistic but the very nature of an efficient criminal investigation and subsequent fair trial is that the irrelevant be ignored along with all personal prejudice and that one and all apply their minds to that which is actually germane to the case.
If anyone BCG reader is ever accused of a serious criminal offence, it is my sincere hope that they will be treated by the authorities and the public alike with the sort of simplicity I have outlined above.
PS. If there were an ongoing argument on this thread about whether or not he is guilty of sexual crimes, I could understand different BCG factions becoming hot under the collar. However, there is no such argument. Some people are saying they think he's guilty and I'm saying they could very easily be right while pointing out that there is, at the moment, no evidence of any such guilt.
PPS. You know what, folks? I've never before known a BCG thread to become hostile without anybody disagreeing with anybody else. It's a first!