IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: So let's talk about Andrew
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Green Man |
Honey wrote:
Amanda wrote:
Honey wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
And precisely the reason my crusade continues that GLOBALLY our laws need changing, as the world gets more and more simplistic and people believe the slogans and headlines. It all reminds me of the Jimmy Tarbuck case where a photo of him at a church fete with a child on his lap was claimed to be evidence of abuse.
And the film of Jimmy Savile doing what was clearly nothing at all "in plain sight" on Top Of The Pops, proving that people see whatever they are told to.
Watch the film again..... I would really like to find the girls watching the so called "abuse" - they don't look shocked or disgusted do they? If we could find just one of these women to confirm he was just tickling the accuser in the ribs it would be a start.
Yes it was a surreal moment when I watched the clip and thought "what am I supposed to be looking at?" and saw nothing unusual. Then it dawned on my that the king had no clothes on. How very true that tale is.
Also the clip where his hand is a bit too close to Colleen Nolan's breast as he draws her in.
This happens all the time when people misjudge the distance, and women do it too.
Yet I have heard people say this is a clip of him "abusing" her. 
I am unsure if people genuinely see something that I believe is not there, or if they know full well and are frightened to say?
Also why did any one buy the Nolan's music ? Landlords bought Daniel O'Donnell CD's and played them to clear out the pubs when punters refused to go home at night. I used to play Black Lace and it was funny seeing the drunks doing the actions of the Birdie Song on the way out or sometimes forming a so-called Conga line. |
|
Honey |
hedda wrote:
personally..I don't believe the claims.
Why?..she was a plain little thing.
The reality is someone like Prince Andrew would have his choice of sexy women from a certain class.
I've met a well connected, titled very attractive woman several times in Sydney who has long been reliably reputed to be a girlfriend of Charles on all his early visits. Never said a word.
The British Royals are if anything..highly practical. They know the chaps will get up to antics and nature must run it's course. They tutor them from an early age..keep it within the right circles.
Have you ever heard any of Charles, William, Harry's etc etc exes ever speak to the media? 
I reckon this trial (if it gets to that) will show Andrew was no great friend of Epstein's any more than 100 other high profile ex-presidents etc.
I mean the media paints this entire episode as though every person who was in Epstein's little black book must have sat in on his "rub & tug" episodes and it's absurd.
Yes, it is daft to think everyone must have been joining in or knew about it.
People who are up to no good usually hide it very well, because it benefits them to appear trustworthy.
Nobody suspects friends and family of serial killers to have known, do they? |
|
Honey |
Amanda wrote:
Honey wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
And precisely the reason my crusade continues that GLOBALLY our laws need changing, as the world gets more and more simplistic and people believe the slogans and headlines. It all reminds me of the Jimmy Tarbuck case where a photo of him at a church fete with a child on his lap was claimed to be evidence of abuse.
And the film of Jimmy Savile doing what was clearly nothing at all "in plain sight" on Top Of The Pops, proving that people see whatever they are told to.
Watch the film again..... I would really like to find the girls watching the so called "abuse" - they don't look shocked or disgusted do they? If we could find just one of these women to confirm he was just tickling the accuser in the ribs it would be a start.
Yes it was a surreal moment when I watched the clip and thought "what am I supposed to be looking at?" and saw nothing unusual. Then it dawned on my that the king had no clothes on. How very true that tale is.
Also the clip where his hand is a bit too close to Colleen Nolan's breast as he draws her in.
This happens all the time when people misjudge the distance, and women do it too.
Yet I have heard people say this is a clip of him "abusing" her.
I am unsure if people genuinely see something that I believe is not there, or if they know full well and are frightened to say? |
|
hedda |
personally..I don't believe the claims.
Why?..she was a plain little thing.
The reality is someone like Prince Andrew would have his choice of sexy women from a certain class.
I've met a well connected, titled very attractive woman several times in Sydney who has long been reliably reputed to be a girlfriend of Charles on all his early visits. Never said a word.
The British Royals are if anything..highly practical. They know the chaps will get up to antics and nature must run it's course. They tutor them from an early age..keep it within the right circles.
Have you ever heard any of Charles, William, Harry's etc etc exes ever speak to the media?
I reckon this trial (if it gets to that) will show Andrew was no great friend of Epstein's any more than 100 other high profile ex-presidents etc.
I mean the media paints this entire episode as though every person who was in Epstein's little black book must have sat in on his "rub & tug" episodes and it's absurd. |
|
Wyot |
Amanda wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]JK2006 wrote:
Watch the film again..... I would really like to find the girls watching the so called "abuse" - they don't look shocked or disgusted do they? If we could find just one of these women to confirm he was just tickling the accuser in the ribs it would be a start.
The start of nothing I fear Amanda.
Anyone making an accusation and their proxies (which they shouldn't be but too often are) - The CPS & Police - have to produce the evidence of abuse and have it tested in a Court. This is the system we have, and I struggle to think of a "fairer" one, on paper. When it works. Or is attempted.
The trouble now is the weight given to the concept of a victim and the moral judgment attached to any view on the subject means that the whole system and concept of innocence is subverted.
The desire to project "goodness" is subjective and seemingly all-consuming, but it erodes the objectivity central to the notion of a "justice" system.
SJS was found guilty of nothing. So legally he is innocent. Others may be found guilty but are innocent or found innocent but are guilty; because any system is flawed, and always will be.
But guilt by media is an abomination; and deeply unhealthy to society. However, someone coming forward to question a detail of what SJS did or didn't do in 1982 will never be heard.
No one can listen because the clamour of self righteous indignation is too loud; society has passed a point. Society, broadly, is no longer concerned with justice applied at the level of the individual but in individuals proving their credentials by "right thinking". Group thinking.
So the "cause" is all. It can be seen everywhere; and clouds everything.
From being "good" (lockdown to save one life!) about Covid and ignoring more people dying from restrictions than the virus. From championing BLM to forgetting that it may have been about a violent officer. To letting men into women's toilets because trans responsively trumps the individual safety or rights of women. To the rights of a writer to publish snuffled because one of their characters said a racist word.
In all, the individual is sacrificed to the ideology.
Stalin and Mao "perfected" this approach. The radical left has lost the economic battle; but continues the collective ideological war. In it, people are numbers, dispensible. From the glasses-wearing professor shot by Mao's thugs, to the football pundit sacked for saying the wrong word. |
|
|
|
|
