The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Prince Andrew.

Comments

    • @Leffe-Gin

      Whilst what you say is true, the Duke of Pork seems to have spent the last five years doing everything possible to avoid having to go to court and face his accuser(s).

      The arrogance and entitlement this loathsome creature displayed in his ill-advised interview with Emily Maitlis pretty much tells you all you need to know.

      • Eventually, I think he’s going to have to go to court. I don’t like the guy at all but I have no idea what is true and what isn’t (although for sure, that interview was a car crash).

  3. Mystified at why someone didn’t say “you shouldn’t be hanging about with these dodgy people”. Maybe they did and he ignored them… Not a lot of sympathy though, I’m afraid.

  5. I work with someone who once worked in the royal sphere…they have nothing but bad words to say about the Duke of Pork.
    A pompous, odious person for many years, allegedly.

    • I have it on decent authority that the vain, sexually obsessed character of ‘Prince Mark of Bath’, played by Tom Hollander in the David Mitchell sitcom Ambassadors, is based very closely on HRH, right down to travelling with his own ironing board.

      There was also a great story on Popbitch about HRH having some old friends round for the weekend, and throwing a major tantrum when they didn’t stand up when he entered the room first thing in the morning.

      • @TrypF

        Princess Margaret used to pull similar stunts. There’s loads of stories In Craig Brown’s book about the odious old hag using royal protocol to belittle those unfortunate enough to come into her orbit.

        As no one was allowed to sit until she herself was seated, making dining companions stand until their food got cold before taking her place at the dining table was a particular favourite..

        • The pair of them haven’t been great adverts for the old firm, have they? I have from first hand that she had to have a gasper between each course at big dinners, again holding up everything pretty much for giggles.

          I love the completely rubbish ‘story’ that the firm were using her for spare parts – she and the Queen Mum always seemed to be in hospital at the same time, QM always much improved, Margaret always looking even worse.

  6. The disgusting embodiment of a repulsive institution. Love seeing headlines about how the royals are concerned that this might be an unwelcome distraction from the queen’s jubilee. 🗑

  11. I imagine him every morning stood in front of the Royal mirror in his Royal socks and boxers. Doing the dance and singing…

    “Prince Andrew, Prince Andrew,
    Ridicule is nothing to be scared of.
    Don’t you ever, don’t you ever,
    Stop being Randy, showing me your handsome.
    WOOF!”

  13. An innocent man would support a criminal investigation and look forward to his day in court to contest hideous lies I would have thought. Especially if you could afford decent lawyers.

    • I hold no candle for the odious twerp, but every lawyer I know in America advises the opposite. Do not engage Law Enforcement if it can possibly be avoided, and if interviewed say as little as possible, no matter how innocent you are.

      More than one person has done time, not for the crime, but for ‘lying’ to the FBI

  14. To be fair, that’s not necessarily true. For a lot of public figures going to court to have their lives publicly pored over is something they’d prefer to avoid, innocent or guilty. Which is why we shouldn’t always assume a settlement to be an admission of guilt.

    I’m trying not to pre-judge Prince Andrew’s guilt (although it’s a bloody struggle). What’s inexcusable already is the establishment closing ranks around him and, as you rightly say, his refusal to cooperate with the investigation.

    That, plus the knowledge that he could have been caught on camera abducting and murdering the nation’s children by night and there’s absolutely zero chance he’ll do bird.

    • I don’t think it’s quite the same as most public figures toughing out the bad press. This is more like the accusations Rolf went to prison on and John Leslie and Gambo fought to clear their name. It’s not a big stretch to see that the strategy is to give it a serious ignoring. However, the crunch will surely come when Maxwell takes the stand.

      A sure bet would be a win double on he did it and won’t serve time.

      • I think it’s a dangerous road to go down to make these assumptions. Not least because – ultimately – the onus is on the prosecution to demonstrate guilt, rather than a defendant to prove (by conduct or otherwise) their innocence.

        I cannot abide Prince Andrew, his entire family (including the noxious LA-based spin off luxury brand referenced elsewhere in this thread) and the institution they uphold, but I’m still trying to be a bit fair minded about all this.

        It’s always important to ensure we extend the benefit of our values to those we dislike. That tends to be the real test of principle.

        • I did steer away from saying I’m sure he did it. My point is really that none of his behaviour since the accusations surfaced have done anything to make me believe his side of the story. Quite the opposite. The tactic of not allowing police or prosecutors to present evidence in a court of law is the most troubling aspect for me.

  15. I expect some sort of financial settlement before the civil case (not a criminal case) comes up in court. No details of this will be released, and the matter will be declared closed.

  18. Slight aside. A mate of mine served on the royal yacht back in the 80s.

    He says that on more than one occasion her Maj has taken him away from the dinner table to pull him up for his manners (lack of) towards the stewards.

    By all accounts when he was commanding officer of a ship in the late 80s he was not a popular skipper.

    Who would have thought?

  19. The more time that passes, the more I appreciate the skill of Emily Mattis in that interview. At the time, Andrew was completely unaware that he was coming across badly and thought it had gone rather well. He probably still thinks that. She gave him the time and the space to damn himself with his own words.

  20. Interesting to see Prick Andrew has now pivoted from not knowing VG to trying to denounce her as being Epstein’s procurer and a gold-digger in search of a huge payday for doing nothing (Not sure if his legal team spent sufficient time thinking that last bit through)

  21. Prince Philip… erm… “didn’t suffer fools gladly.”

    A euphemism, of course, for being off-hand with anyone who didn’t shoot animals (see – Princess Margaret).
    But re: his favourite son –
    PP, by definition, couldn’t have liked him, otherwise that “didn’t suffer fools gladly” angle is surely bogus.

    It’s one or the other.

    Fat Boy J. called time on Parliament illegally… what did the Queen do?… answer: F*** all. What’s the point? “Oi, Queenie, an Etonian’s taking the piss, what are you going to do about it?” “I’m going to do F*** all.”

    In my history (probably yours) of Britain in the 50s and 60s… I’ve already got the bit about the royal family written –
    “Queen Elizabeth II was coronated in 1953.” That’s it. Do you think I’ve overstated their importance?

    I don’t like the royal family.

    • I’ve nothing much against the Queen. But of course the point is that she should not have been crowned in 1953, but not until the 1972 when the Nazi-curious Edward VIII popped his clogs.
      The fact that for nearly 70 years we have had a fairly good monarch is just good luck and chance. A ridiculous way to run a country.
      I’ve been a republican for years, despite the threat of a President Thatcher, President Blair or President Johnson (actually I think Johnson thinks he is President rather than PM).
      I don’t see any reason for deference to Prince Andrew, nor give a stuff who Prince Harry marries.
      I would like their assets back in public ownership though.

  22. Swingeing sentence for the loathsome Ghislaine Maxwell.

    Not looking good for Randy Andy is it?

    The only prospect he seems to have of getting back into the Royal Good Books is if
    they rename the nick where he gets banged up as “Her Majesty’s Good Graces”..

  24. Interesting to see if Maxwell starts attempting to barter names for a reduction in her sentence.

    While it seems Virginia Roberts/Giuffre was not called on to testify against Maxwell because of concerns about inconsistencies in her past statements, the burden of proof in civil courts is apparently far less onerous.

    Given the craven way Randy Andy has repeatedly tried to dodge Roberts’ accusations against him, I’m sure I won’t be the only person here who hopes they throw the book at the sleazy freeloading gobshite.

    • Apparently he had a good trial, in that his name was hardly heard. Whether naming names such as his or various ex US presidents has any effect on the length of her sentence is pretty doubtful. Don’t think that would be a “good look”

      • Not what they’re saying in the UK press.

        From Maxwell’s perspective, spending a few less years in an orange jumpsuit for dobbing in a few high-profile nonces would seem to be a very good look indeed.

        The same principle applies for the book deals signed by the cops and attorneys who pursue those same nonces through the courts.

          • Maxwell’s not been convicted for child abuse, she’s been convicted for sex trafficking. They’re equally appalling crimes, but the difference between the two is the sort of technical nicety that keeps bottom-feeding lawyers in work for years and years.

            Given the way the US prosecutors let Epstein off with 13 months the first time they had him, you’re right about the US attitude to sentencing though.

            As for Prick Andrew, his biographer Nigel Cawthorne told Newsweek:

            ‘The verdict does not help Prince Andrew at all in the court of public opinion. The famous picture is now seen in a whole new light.

            ‘Now we have Ghislaine Maxwell, sex trafficker, standing there next to a woman who says she was trafficked, next to Prince Andrew who says he wasn’t there.

            The Queen’s former favorite son will be lucky if this ends in civil court

  25. Nice to hear Johnson’s sister feeling sorry for her.
    How did we get to the stage where we have these people in power?

    Really strange that the only thing Maxwell has ever been good at – schmoozing, networking, flashing her eyelashes – she left in the locker room by not taking the stand.
    Of course, it would be the absolute last advice you’d give to Prince Philip’s favourite son – “whatever you do, Andy, DO NOT take the stand!” – but you’d have thought it was her strongest hand.

    I’ve got a spring in my step just thinking about Prince Andrew squirming over all this.
    Can’t wait, 2022 is shaping up nicely already.

  26. I’ve no idea whether Mr Windsor is guilty of the civil charges brought against him. However I am very much hoping that the decision to extradite sexual assault charge-avoider Julian Assange to the US turns out to be a particularly striking example of the law of unintended consequences.

    • Just for the record, the Swedish authorities stated 2 years ago that the investigation was ceasing because ‘ the evidence is not strong enough to form the basis for filing an indictment’.
      Also neither of the 2 individuals wished to file charges, their contact with the authorities stemming from wanting to know if they could compel him to undergo a compulsory STD test, but stated that the police were ‘very keen’ to get ‘something on him’. The inference that the authorities in Sweden were subjected to intense ‘diplomatic’ pressure from the US is not the stuff of conspiracists, but common sense.

      • None of that is actually true. However I suspect there is no amount of evidence that would convince you otherwise. Personally, I’ll be glad to see him in jail in the US – hopefully spilling his guts about his Trump-enabling activities.

        • Oh it’s true indeed. That was a direct quote from the Assistant Prosecutor.
          It’s a matter of public record & can be checked by anybody.
          And that’s the funny thing about evidence, you have to actually produce it, & there wasn’t enough to even begin considering a trial. Pretty basic rule of law stuff really.
          As for enabling Trump, his ‘administration’ were if anything more keen to extradite Assange than the current lot.
          If you truly believe the whole affair is about any other than a state trying to crush somebody who clearly exposed exactly what our charming democratic pals actually get up to (regardless of how he acquired the info) supposedly in our name, I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you.

          • Here’s the actual quote, from the BBC:
            “”The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question,”

            Not quite the picture you were trying to paint. Essentially, by avoiding extradition, he weakened the case against himself.

            Assange is a cunt and I hope he goes down for a very long time.

            • Nail/head.

              Assange hid in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to avoid charges of sexual assault in Sweden. His apologists argued that he did this because he was more likely to be extradited to the USA from Sweden than from the UK. This always looked like nonsense and now has been shown to be so. And yet not a murmur of acknowledgement of this.

              Meantime, two women have been denied justice despite pursuing it to the point of, in one case, giving up the right to anonymity.

              The legal blogger David Allen Green wrote about the ‘zombie facts’ of Assange apologists, in the New Statesman nearly 10 years ago. Yet still they persist: https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

                • Is Pilger a baddie now? I remember him from when he used to write for the Daily Mirror, my parents’ newspaper of choice when I was growing up. I liked him. I remember some excellent documentaries too. What’s he gone and done?

                  • He’s a terrible, terrible man Gary.
                    His main offence is that he doesn’t appear to have wavered from the stances that made his name.
                    He’s not a big fan of US, UK , Australian & Israeli foreign policy & has not cultivated allies amongst the movers & shakers of their respective governments. As a consequence, he doesn’t serve well as a client writing puff pieces.
                    He’s infuriatingly consistent.

              • The quote posted is direct verbatim from Eva-Marie Persson in The Guardian Tuesday 19 November 2019 in a piece by Ben Quinn, in the event you’re inferring it is incorrect or made up.
                It doesn’t matter what you or anybody else considers Assange’s character to be – he is subject to the law, like everybody else, which requires evidence.
                Personally, I think he’s an egotistical, skeevy creep, but that is not the issue here. It’s the fact that the US state are out to crush him that is pertinent.
                In case you think I’m sitting wearing a tin foil hat & it’s all codswallop conjured from the ether, those Assange ‘apologists’ i.e. those concerned that he should not be extradited to the US include – in no particular order- Amnesty International, the ACLU, the NUJ & Reporters Without Borders. In a recent statement these organisations were prepared to commit to print that they have been made aware of plans in 2020/21 by the CIA to kidnap or even assassinate Assange, essentially to ensure he never gets to trial under the Espionage Act. These are not flaky, 6th Form politics organisations, prone to making wild accusations. If they are concerned for Assange’s welfare, & more importantly, the precedent it sets to silence troublesome types, then we all should be.
                Just to hammer the point home, here are a couple of quotes on the case from the Editor In Chief of The Wall Street Journal ‘The right to publish uncomfortable important information that the government would prefer to be kept secret is central to a truly free press’ & the Executive Editor of The New York Times ‘the indictment against Assange is a deeply troubling step forward to giving the government greater control over what Americans are allowed to know’.
                These are aren’t fanzines, they are bastions of the American establishment & they are calling it out for what it is.
                This is a much bigger issue than whether he’s a creep or not, & far from enabling the Trumps of this world, the attempt to suppress information which nobody has credibly denied ( such as spying on Angela Merkel) plays into the hands of those who want to undermine democracy for good.

          • Re: the Trump thing; a few months after the 2016 US election, a number of Wikileaks staff conducted a Reddit AMA during which they were asked how they arranged to make public the various hacked Clinton emails which they’d circulated during the election campaign.

            Their answer was that they’d agreed with the source of the hacked materials (!) to time the release for “maximum impact”.

            As it transpired, that meant the eve of Democratic National Convention for the first batch, and a few days before the actual election (and hours after the release of the Trump groping video) for the second.

            Whatever the other ins and outs of Assange, it seems readily apparent that Wikileaks’ role in that election was to act as useful idiots, at best, and active opponents to the Clinton campaign at worst. It seems mind boggling to me that an organisation ostensibly dedicated to making the truth public have openly admitted to sitting on documents of this type until the moment of greatest political expediency. Surely it goes directly against the mission statement?

            Whether they sought to enable Trump or not (and my own recollection, which may be incorrect, is that at the time of the election there was speculation he’d pardon Assange, albeit clearly he never did), they succeeded in doing so. They can get in the bin.

            • Well Bingo, useful idiots or not, the unpalatable truth is that if Clinton & the DNC hadn’t been so stunningly shit & so demonstrably out of touch with many people in those boring ‘flyover’ states, the horrendous Trump wouldn’t have stood an earthly.
              There was without doubt much shenanigans in that US election- voter suppression, Russian interference, blatant fraud in numerous districts- as there was in the Biden election- & perhaps the Wikileaks factor also played a part. The fact remains that all of the ‘damaging’ stuff that came to light was true & showed the Democrat regimes as literally no better than the Republicans. They hold their own constitution in contempt & the citizens of the US along with it. The easiest way to not be accused of being duplicitous scumbags, or revealed as such for all to see, is to actually *not* be duplicitous scumbags.
              It can’t really be blamed on those who draw back the curtain if what is behind it is shockingly sordid. I’d suggest that it is extremely inconvenient for those it exposes to put it mildly, but that really is shooting the messenger.

              • I’m not defending the Democratic Party or Clinton.

                But there are neutral messengers and then there are campaign participants. And Wikileaks, by their own admission, were the latter, posing as the former.

                They deserve shooting, and they’re just as shockingly sordid and duplicitous as all the other actors you mention above.

                • This.

                  Journalists, who want to avail themselves of the rights and protections of that title, report on the news and the process. They don’t seek to affect either. There is no doubt that Wikileaks are players, not reporters.

                  • You must have fairies at the bottom of your garden if you genuinely think that journalists actually report on the news & process & don’t want to affect either.
                    They don’t set the news agenda, their employers do, & their feet won’t touch the ground if they stray from the editorial line.
                    I believe it was Evelyn Waugh who stated that the job of newspapers was to convey as much of the proprietor’s prejudice as possible without alienating the advertisers.
                    What they don’t report or investigate is just as important (probably more so) than what they do.
                    Rock the boat, you no longer get access & you’re dead in the water.
                    This is just as prevalent in broadcast media, including our dear BBC, whose news & current affairs dept. these days is a laughing stock – have Laura Keunssberg & Nick Robinson really been holding the govt. to account for years? & inviting personal friends & family of convicted sex traffickers on TV the day after a verdict to give their ‘perspective’ ( Alan Dershowitz & Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother) & never mind mind the garbage spewed out in the US.
                    There are very few writers & investigators worthy of the name these days who aren’t consigned to the fringes, able to write books, use social media & podcasts but denied access to conventional platforms.
                    Given that, it’s not surprising that Wikileaks , who considered themselves publishers rather than journalists if I’m correct, opted for a nihilistic & disruptive approach of dumping tons of info & declaring ‘ there it is, loads of really foul, messy shite, all true – check it over for yourself’

                    • That’s the entire point here.

                      They didn’t just dump the info and say: ” there it is, loads of really foul, messy shite, all true – check it over for yourself”.

                      They carefully stage-managed the release, working in conjunction with whoever hacked the emails, for maximum political impact (which is to say: maximum detriment to the Clinton campaign).

                      I raised the issue above in response to the comments re: enabling Trump, which Wikileaks very clearly did. To give but one, comparatively superficial, example, shortly before the second batch of emails was released by Wikileaks (including Clinton’s speeches to various investment banks) Trump literally stated at a rally “I would like to see what the speeches said. She doesn’t want to release them. Release the papers, Hillary, release those papers.” Four days later, Wikileaks obliged.

                      We can only speculate as to their reasons for acting in this fashion, but it’s fairly clear that there was expectation amongst at least some of Assange’s supporters that Trump might pardon him; indeed, it was still being speculated about in the absolute twilight of the Trump presidency.

                      I don’t think it’s a tenable position to argue that Wikileaks didn’t enable Trump. I also think that this behaviour is total bullshit, and would have been no matter who the relevant candidates were.

                    • For some reason, I’m unable to post replies under Bingo’s point below.
                      That being the case, it’s rather difficult to knock it back & forth, so I’m knocking this one on the head.

  28. I like the developing trend of calling him Andrew Windsor. Does he really need to be referred to as “Prince”….? As he has proven links with convicted sex traffickers (plural) who dealt with underage girls, isn’t the “Randy Andy” nickname also a bit too affectionate?

  29. Net’s closing in.
    The lawyers for Victoria Giuffre have asked Prince Andrew to submit any information regarding the medical condition of his inability to sweat.

    This should be very simple to clear up as Prince Philip’s (“didn’t suffer fools gladly”) favourite son obviously wasn’t lying on Newsnight. Via email, shouldn’t take more than half-an-hour.

  30. Given that PA’s memory is so inconsistent – having fallen on stony ground, his vague “I have no recollection of meeting this person” was quickly replaced by pin-sharp recall of a kid’s birthday party at Pizza Express – I’m amazed that her legal team haven’t taken out a court order covering his security detail’s relevant time sheets.

  31. Should a member of anyone’s family on this site be convicted of five sex-trafficking related counts, one of a minor, in a U.S. Federal Court, be rest assured that this broken and corrupt country will grant you, as a sibling, an 8 minute interview on the Radio 4 Today programme the following day.

    I’m quite pleased about that and, in the very unlikely event I should have to invoke this privilege, I will not be slow off the mark to make the necessary contact.

  32. The BBC has the 2009 agreement signed by Epstein and Giuffrie. It shows a $500K settlement was made so that no further action would be taken.

    “ The prince’s lawyers say this previously-secret 2009 deal means she cannot sue him – because she agreed to end all legal action against anyone connected to the offender who could be described as a “potential defendant”…”

    It appears that Andrew’s lawyers believe that this is the end of the matter; which is unbelievably naive of them. A rich criminal paying off a victim to keep quiet doesn’t mean the crimes didn’t happen and can’t be investigated.

  33. Ever since the verdict, or more accurately about 24 hours after the verdict, the story has been about Prince Andrew. Always vacuous, Maxwell’s actually vanished from her own story!

    Every time I turn on the computer, it’s not her who pops up, it’s him.
    He’d have been much better advised to keep as low a profile as possible and these continual interjections from his lawyers are doing him no favours.

    Mind, I’d still be amazed if he spent one night in a cell.
    There’s one law for him, and one law for everyone else.

    And if all this isn’t enough to keep your food down, wait for the Prince Andrew War Hero ( I don’t care one jot) stuff to come to the surface in a couple of months time.
    I bet they’re all eagerly preparing it right now.

  34. It’s becoming increasingly clear that there really is one rule for them. We are held in nothing but contempt, to be played when it suits, and scorned when dare speak up. Whatever one thinks of Brexit, it was clearly a waste of time and is now nothing more than an orchestrated car crash. The recent knighting of Blair was the ultimate insult, and that optional arse cheek Starmer has the gall to defend it. Well, he would, wouldn’t he. Part of the club, some might even say ‘controlled op’ considering his pathetic idea of opposition, and being ahead in the polls purely because he’s not the loathed Cocktavius is nothing to pop a cork about it. It’s going to be an interesting year.

    • The reporting on the news here in NZ was “Prince Andrew has been thrown a lifeline by the release of a document …”. – no he hasn’t!

      If he is completely 100% innocent, the reaction would be no more than a shrug – along the lines of “what’s that got to do with me?”.

      To give Andrew the benefit of the doubt, he could have posed for that picture without knowing who she was and never saw her before or after that brief snap. After all, he’s a senior royal and probably posed for pictures like this all the time. That defence would be credible. Instead he concocts a defence containing bizarre details that he cannot back up – so much so that we all now think he’s a big liar.

      As others have said, we really remember our chance encounters with famous people – in my case Melvyn Hayes, Bobby Davro and Fred Dinenage. It’s beyond weird that no one at all recalls Prince Andrew visiting Pizza Express in Woking.

        • Yeah, like that will happen.

          As Rob C said above, they live by different rules to the likes of riff raff like me.

          I believe that HEH, will not be interviewed under caution let alone charged/ convicted.

          It just won’t happen.

        • I think she has said she can’t recall the party or at least, him being there. But I am surely missing something – wouldn’t the presence of a Royal at Pizza Express in Woking leave a paper trail of some sort? Restaurant staff stories in the papers? “I Served Andy An Extra Hot Pepperoni Pizza And He Didn’t Break A Sweat” etc?

            • Apparently, the authorities did do some checking into what went on at Pizza Express in Woking on that infamous night.

              Unfortunately, it wasn’t possible to ascertain exactly who was and wasn’t there as the eatery had simultaneous bookings for Prince and Andrew Ridgely

  37. This “pretty soon” timescale appears to be the same one quoted by our local plumber.
    I wonder if they know each other?
    I don’t suppose it’ll be long before the Tottenham manager starts using it either.

    • Reading between the lines with Emily Mattis’ recent comments – it’s clear he had every opportunity to rehearse and revise the answers he gave. She was astonished with his answers which he gave without pressure.

      Who knows what he might have said if he was in press conference conditions.

      Andrew (30 minutes of a dull prepared speech)- “And finally, It can’t have been me because I’m actually unable to sweat due to a rare medical condition…any questions?”
      Tabloid journo – “Really? You look like you’re sweating now!”
      A – (drenched in sweat) “Well…I’m not!”
      TJ – “How come you’re soaking wet then?”
      A – “It’s raining outside…er…I’ve just been out there”
      TJ – “It’s NOT raining and you’ve been here for half an hour…”
      A – “All right then … all right…I’ve pissed myself…OK? I’ve PISSED myself!”
      TJ – “right – perhaps we should move on…”
      A – “Oh no you don’t ! I want to make absolutely clear that I do not recall EVER having a golden shower from a young girl, if that’s what you’re insinuating…”
      TJ – “sorry Sir, but what is a ‘golden shower’?
      A – (laughs, looks around for support) “Are you serious? …Oh! I mean …er….I don’t know either!”

  41. It’s been a good news day, although all I’m really relishing with Andrew (and Fat Boy) is that they have to go through hoops through all these tawdry proceedings… jail time will be a bonus, but I’m sure his mummy (the woman who did not deal with Fat Boy when she had the chance over the unlawful proroguing of Parliament – if she’d done that, we probably wouldn’t now be in this mess) will bail him out. What a “man.”

    One mention of the Falklands in three months time, and I can not be held responsible for my possible comments!

  43. Without once more being accused of defending the prince that picture of him with the accuser and Maxwell does look a bit strange. If someone told me it was his head photoshopped on to another body I could see that.

    Doesn’t change anything regarding his guilt or not. But obviously if it can be proved he was in the same room as her then that means something. I guess there is a technical way to check if something is photoshopped, a negative I suppose could be available for a photo of that vintage.

  47. Andrew: “Medal, medal, medal, gimme, gimme, gimme.”

    Queen: “Medal? No, Andrew. Those medals you wear on your moth-eaten chest should be there for bumbling at which you are best.”

  48. There beneath the blue suburban skies I sit and…

    Meanwhile back in Australia, Djokovic’s visa has been cancelled again!

    Fantastic news.
    Maxwell, Andrew, Fat Boy, Djokovic…
    2022 – the year that just keeps on giving.
    Sit back and enjoy…

  50. Damn, was really looking forward to the trial.

    Suppose Andy thinks that this will get him back into his Mum’s good books.

    Afraid that shit (sic) sailed some time ago, your lowness

  55. He’ll be back.
    Nothing tabloid readers like more than a war and that tedious Milk Cup 2nd Round tie from the dire 1980s is up for an anniversary soon.
    Triffic. Can’t wait. What a man.

    In a wonderful irony, haven’t the Falkland Islanders been shafted more by Brexit than anyone?

  56. It never sits comfortably with me to mock someone because they lack intelligence, but I’ll make an exception for ‘Air Miles’ Andy. The Newsnight interview was staggering in its sheer awfulness: when asked a direct question concerning whether he regretted being friends with an international sex- trafficker/paedophile, Andrew performed a rubber-faced bout of rampant solipsism… and said no!

    • It’s not just the lack of intelligence in Andy’s case though.

      It’s the sense of arrogance and entitlement, plus the fact he
      is totally devoid of empathy

  61. Someone is trying to spin the idea that the Newsnight interview was a stroke of genius on his part because it was a free-of-charge rehearsal of what might happen if he was in court. Oh – I see! It wasn’t an arrogant oaf who was clearly out of his depth and flustered in a relatively benign TV interview – this was all part of the plan.

    This is why the likes of us can never understand the workings of the very rich and privileged because they operate at a much higher, much more sophisticated level than we can possibly understand.

  64. The Porkster, as part of the settlement, can no longer deny he raped her, nor assert he didn’t know/had never met her. Couple this with her freedom to write anything she damn well wants, and twelve million pounds he’ll never see again, and he must be wondering how this settlement is in any way better than locking himself in his study with his service revolver. Her Maj and The Fam might think it’s done and dusted, with him “out of the way,” but this will last to the end of his wretched life and beyond. Still, we’ve always got Chuck n’ Cam’s coronation to cheer us all up after Her Maj’s funeral. Gawd bless ’em! That’ll be the tonic the nation needs! Street parties, souvenir tea towels, and one in the eye for Johnnie Foreigner!

  66. Virginia Giuffre has taken her own life at the age of 41.

    Given that she had three young kids,it’s impossible to imagine
    how much pain she must have been suffering

      • And today, Monday, The Sun ran with it – they were hardly going to go too big on Liverpool winning the league!!! – and, for what it’s worth, Fat Boy Andrew’s ‘comeback’ is toast.

        Don’t think the Queen comes out too good, she comes out SHITE, not least ‘cos around that time she allowed Fat Boy J. to illegally (for those not paying attention, that’s ‘illegally’) prorogue Parliament… yes, THAT fat bastard… as opposed to HER own fat bastard who she paid millions to (‘our’ millions) so he could run away like Johnson.

        A significant benefit is, of course, the fall out from all this for that f****** b***** of a daughter that that Fat Bastard Maxwell managed – no one knows how!!! – to sire… it doesn’t seems feasibly possible does it. I’m sorry if you’re eating right now.

        Why are they all Fat?

        Punk? You want punk? I am punk… I just listen to the Yardbirds instead!
        What a country.

        More fallout? My wife is rewatching the Fat Andrew interview… the very last thing he’d want. Good. I’m going back to the Yardbirds. Get me outta here.

Leave a Reply