The man formerly known as Prince can fall no further....

eazybee

^There is though already significant evidence of Andrew having sex with underage girls.^
Is there, or is this more hearsay?
If it appears I stand corrected.

Guiffre has accused him; he has denied it; at present neither can prove it.
On the occasion of the visit to London, she was seventeen a and a half, and therefore of the age of consent in Britain.
And people should remember that the reason she agreed to give evidence against Epstein, after initially refusing, was because she had been accused of recruiting underage girls while working as a paid employee of Epstein.
I think Andrew's financial dealings with Epstein are of much greater concern, as are his dealings with the Chinese, and the mess he has made of his royal business affairs.

There’s this.
nypost.com/2025/10/31/world-news/ex-prince-andrew-allegedly-had-40-prostitutes-brought-to-thailand-hotel-on-taxpayer-funded-trip/

Anniebach

Quote Doodledog Mon 03-Nov-25 11:13:31
Allira
Oh, fgs, Anniebach!!
Unbelievable, isn't it?

And if anyone did have photographs they would be accused of doctoring them, so we are back to the situation where 'proof' is impossible to obtain, but there can be no action without such 'proof'. Which is, of course, what I meant when I said that running things on that basis means that people can do what they like if it is done in private

Not for God’s sake. I haven’t read anyone saying people can do what they like if it’s done in private, , as you have said

No, of course nobody is saying that, as it would be 'ridiculous'. But that is exactly what happens if the only way someone can be found guilty is if there is 'proof', and 'proof' cannot consist of witness testimonies (as they are considered to be 'he said/she said') and even photos are assumed to be doctored.

I have asked more than once for an example of what people would accept as proof of something that happened in private, but so far have not seen anything.

In my opinion Andrew can indeed fall a great deal further. He should be held accountable for his crimes. I would bet money that he is feeling extremely sorry for himself & at the same time is furious that his partners in crime are getting away with it - all the attention seems to be focussed on Andrew.

There is though already significant evidence of Andrew having sex with underage girls.
Is there, or is this more hearsay?
If it appears I stand corrected.

Guiffre has accused him; he has denied it; at present neither can prove it.
On the occasion of the visit to London, she was seventeen a and a half, and therefore of the age of consent in Britain.
And people should remember that the reason she agreed to give evidence against Epstein, after initially refusing, was because she had been accused of recruiting underage girls while working as a paid employee of Epstein.
I think Andrew's financial dealings with Epstein are of much greater concern, as are his dealings with the Chinese, and the mess he has made of his royal business affairs.

eazybee

With regard to Mandelson, association with Epstein.
When that was discovered he was removed from post immediately, but is continues to receive what is quoted as a six-figure salary for four years due to an apparently watertight contract he signed. One rule for one....?
He should never have been appointed to such a post with regard to his previous 'mistakes' while in Parliament.

To repeat, I think people will only support that if it is explained what it is specifically that Mandelson has done wrong which merits his removal from the House of Lords, or stopping his salary eazybee. Otherwise, it’s just a witch-hunt surely? His previous record did not result in him being charged for anything, or losing his appointments. I get that people don’t like him, I’m not fond of him myself, but I’m firmly in the don’t buy it camp at the moment.

Such twisting, I haven’t read anyone spoken of a prince or anyone should be protected from being charged,
I have spoken out against allegations against Russell Brand, Phil Schofield etc
False allegations cost John Leslie his career, I am referring to the allegation made and admitted it wasn’t true

Smileless2012 without evidence, which has not been made public if it exists, Andrew is convicted and found guilty by his own brother, and the rest of the royal family it would seem. I hope he enjoys his enforced exile however in Norfolk. The shrine at Little Walsingham is nearby.

With regard to Mandelson, association with Epstein.
When that was discovered he was removed from post immediately, but is continues to receive what is quoted as a six-figure salary for four years due to an apparently watertight contract he signed. One rule for one....?
He should never have been appointed to such a post with regard to his previous 'mistakes' while in Parliament.

In the public arena are other pictures of Andrew at Epstein parties where young girls were present, and of him at Epstein’s home with Paul Keating’s daughter, records of him on planes with redacted names, and photos of him with the Epsteins at his home, accounts from former staff, etc. It’s corroborative evidence - maybe some is lies or irrelevant, but it’s very unlikely that all of it is.

Whitewavemark2

Allira

Whitewavemark2

I’m feeling a bit queasy about removing WMs military medals.

Is that usual?

Have they? Which ones?

It depends if he earns them himself or they were honorary ones, Whitewave.

They cannot surely remove any medals he earned from his service in the Royal Navy?

That is my opinion.

Flying helicopters in a war zone and being awarded a medal for undertaking such a dangerous task - that imo can never be taken away from anyone. But I stand to be corrected.

They can't take his South Atlantic medal away from him, e earned that.
The Queen's Silver Jubilee medal? Not sure.

I think all other medals were honorary so could be removed, I think.

Yes Smileless I read of the Falklands medal , 42 years ago, probably there was the war so he could have a medal.

Casdon said there were photographs re sex with underage girls, I get blasted because I asked about them, I haven’t seen them

What do you mean ronib, are you suggesting that there will never be enough evidence to convict a Prince or in this case, there simply isn't any evidence to secure a conviction?

I agree WW. I don't know if it can't be taken away but don't think it ever should be.

It’s more shocking that no evidence will convict a Prince.

I can't speak for Annie but I'm certain that is not what she mean Allira.

The photograph (singular) doesn't prove that he had sex with VG.

Allira

Whitewavemark2

I’m feeling a bit queasy about removing WMs military medals.

Is that usual?

Have they? Which ones?

It depends if he earns them himself or they were honorary ones, Whitewave.

They cannot surely remove any medals he earned from his service in the Royal Navy?

That is my opinion.

Flying helicopters in a war zone and being awarded a medal for undertaking such a dangerous task - that imo can never be taken away from anyone. But I stand to be corrected.

Smileless2012

There are plenty of examples on this thread and others about Andrew that there's a cover up and the only reason he hasn't been charged with anything is because of his royal birth Doodledog, which to me is saying 'one law for one and another law for others.

Why is Annie's post Photographs? unbelievable. I'm only aware of one of Andrew and VG, are there others with her or other young women/girls?

It just sounded shocking that photographic proof is required of sexual activity before anything is to be believed.

can be justifiable

There's been talk of removing his Falkland's medal WW and Allira which I'm sure was awarded because of his service during that war. If so, I don't see how that can justifiable.

Quote Doodledog Mon 03-Nov-25 11:13:31
Allira
Oh, fgs, Anniebach!!
Unbelievable, isn't it?

And if anyone did have photographs they would be accused of doctoring them, so we are back to the situation where 'proof' is impossible to obtain, but there can be no action without such 'proof'. Which is, of course, what I meant when I said that running things on that basis means that people can do what they like if it is done in private

Not for God’s sake. I haven’t read anyone saying people can do what they like if it’s done in private, , as you have said

Whitewavemark2

I’m feeling a bit queasy about removing WMs military medals.

Is that usual?

As far as I can tell, AMW won the South Atlantic Medal and was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal but the other medals were probably honorary and not earned.

There are plenty of examples on this thread and others about Andrew that there's a cover up and the only reason he hasn't been charged with anything is because of his royal birth Doodledog, which to me is saying 'one law for one and another law for others.

Why is Annie's post Photographs? unbelievable. I'm only aware of one of Andrew and VG, are there others with her or other young women/girls?

Whitewavemark2

I’m feeling a bit queasy about removing WMs military medals.

Is that usual?

Have they? Which ones?

It depends if he earns them himself or they were honorary ones, Whitewave.

They cannot surely remove any medals he earned from his service in the Royal Navy?

I’m feeling a bit queasy about removing WMs military medals.

Is that usual?

Allira

Oh, fgs, Anniebach!!

Unbelievable, isn't it?

And if anyone did have photographs they would be accused of doctoring them, so we are back to the situation where 'proof' is impossible to obtain, but there can be no action without such 'proof'. Which is, of course, what I meant when I said that running things on that basis means that people can do what they like if it is done in private.