Just made a comment on The Times saying of course Andrew should get all his titles back - he's done nothing but be a victim of a False Accuser, and got literally hundreds of hate filled replies (from Times readers!!) saying of course he's guilty, why else would he pay off the liar? And anyway he mixed with a criminal (Epstein). And all royals are perverts.

It really does still shock me how brain dead so many members of the public are these days - believing media absolutely, obeying mob instructions, thinking like idiots. No wonder the majority elect imbeciles, vote for stupid Brexit, fall for stupid Covid hype, we get what we deserve.

Good for you for sticking up for him. I suspect a certain number of the people who reacted that way were annoyed at you for spoiling their thoughts about an under-aged girl ("ooh!") being abused ("aah!") by a famous person ("yippee!"). Maybe the rest need it explaining to them that all his options for dealing with her claims were bad for him and paying her off the least worst option and the only way he could guarantee not being found liable and extricate himself without admitting guilt. As for him mixing with Epstein, how many of them mix with people whose sexual habits they know nothing about and who could be breaking the law? Does that make them complicit?

This unfortunate saga was more akin to the blackmail of an unattached, sexually active and innocent adult. Who was in the the public eye and couldn't afford to have more spurious allegations made against him. And was advised to settle, to allow him to retrieve his life before it became too late.

How can we as a culture continue to suffer from a collective amnesia regarding how things were only 20 years ago? At the turn of the Millenium when Prince Andrew was alleged to have sex with the 'trafficked' American 17 year old, FhM magazine published a racy photoshoot with a 17 year old American girl they had likewise 'trafficked' to London. Her name was Britney Spears. A 17 year old sex symbol posing for lingerie photos in a lads mag hardly raised an eyebrow in the UK at the time. After all, tabloids such as the Sunday Sport were still holding competitions for their millions of readers to win the chance to have sex with a 16 year old pornstar. Or counting down the days until they could legally show a teen girl's breasts on her 16th birthday etc (it wasn't until blind man David Blunkett turned 16 and 17 year olds into 'children' in the 2002 sex offences bill). Indeed, the Sun was still showing 16 year old topless girls on Page 3. Why wouldn't they, when Sam Fox had already turned their early pathetic sales figures around single-handedly by displaying her goods for their 'cor blimey' readers at 16?

There's apparently a punk song riding the charts called 'Prince Andrew is a sweaty nonce'. It's supposed to capture the spirit of the Sex Pistols and their gate crashing of the 1977 Queen's Jubilee with their famous anti-establishment anthem. And of course, we all know that Johhn Rotten tried to expose Jimmy Savile but was silenced by the establishment BBC! If only Johnny had stopped Sid from purusing a sexual relationship with a 15 year old schizophrenic and later killing her. Sex pistol fans are strangely silent about that.

I wish Prince Andrew in that Panorama interview had waved that magazine in the face of the BBC interviewer, instead of blathering defensively about not being able to sweat.

My haven't we grown? Into puritanical hypocritical halfwits!

www.amazon.co.uk/magazine-number-1999-Br...Spears/dp/B005SSZ4L4

Samantha wrote:
This unfortunate saga was more akin to the blackmail of an unattached, sexually active and innocent adult. Who was in the the public eye and couldn't afford to have more spurious allegations made against him. And was advised to settle, to allow him to retrieve his life before it became too late.

We don't know that he was sexually active at all, and especially with that trollop. Or any woman, come to that.

'Insania' NAILS it! "After all, tabloids such as the Sunday Sport were still holding competitions for their millions of readers to win the chance to have sex with a 16 year old pornstar. Or counting down the days until they could legally show a teen girl's breasts on her 16th birthday etc (it wasn't until blind man David Blunkett turned 16 and 17 year olds into 'children' in the 2002 sex offences bill). Indeed, the Sun was still showing 16 year old topless girls on Page 3. Why wouldn't they, when Sam Fox had already turned their early pathetic sales figures around single-handedly by displaying her goods for their 'cor blimey' readers at 16?"

And paraphrase The Indie, 17 August 2006.

"You couldn't make it up: 'Sport' editor quits for 'respectable' BBC.

Tony Livesey, editor-in-chief and managing director of the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport tabloids, is to end his 18-year association with Britain's most brazen 'family' publishers. Routinely splashing front and inside pages (not just Page 3) upskirt white-panties 'young schoolgirl' type photos of barely legal topless models.

In 1987 a randy young Livesey (born 1964), now a married family man, started at David Sullivan's and David Gold's tabloid rag as a 'sports' reporter for a paper that still covers virtually no sport."

www.independent.co.uk/news/media/you-cou...-for-bbc-412217.html

Samantha wrote:
nationalpost.com/news/world/prince-andre...tein-new-book-claims

Hahaha is this trash supposed to be proof of Andrew being a philanderer?

Honey wrote:
Samantha wrote:
nationalpost.com/news/world/prince-andre...tein-new-book-claims

Hahaha is this trash supposed to be proof of Andrew being a philanderer?

If you have money, maybe a celebrity or just successful, maybe your own transport, then you would get women at your feet.

If you're poor, car less then you will meet unemployed women at the Job Centre or on some trashy dating site.

Queen of Tarts and Insania making common sense
(crazy names)

Note Andrew's accuser is now being accused herself.

There is so much more to run in this tale.

# entirely co-incidental that Andrew's accuser never mentioned him before until it presumably dawned on her she could not sue the Epstein estate for having previously settled.

Still she hit the jackpot with Andrew but at least..it's not about the money.

Spot on Hedda but isn't it worrying that the mass of lemmings hurtling towards the cliff edge simply refuse to see the obvious? It really could be the work of Satan (if he or she existed).

Remember Piers Merchant and his resignation amid the Major 'Back to Basics' hypocrisy? He was caught having an affair with a 17 year old Soho night club hostess.

But I distinctly recall that the fact she was 17 was only a tiny part of the scandal at the time. Why should it have been when she (and other 16 and 17 year olds) was legally working as a sexy night club hostess in Soho?

www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/pi...hostess-1797040.html

Yes not a great to be associated with high profile moral programmes of national reform, when you are married and banging a cocktail waitress who left school the year before...

And the moral is: steer clear of moralising!

It is not the place of Goverments...