To support the Duke of York

[LadyLanka]

Just that.
Although he is being asked the wrong questions.

From the beginning, he maintained that he Epstein weren't proper friends, he just knew him via Ghislane. So why did he feel the need to meet Epstein face to face to tell him that they couldn't be friends anymore when they weren't actually that close in the first place?

Exactly.

As I said before, if someone I knew was convicted of sex offences, I would just ghost them. Epstein would know exactly why. PAndrew does exactly what he wants to do all the time, he could've cut Epstein off, but he chose to go and see him and stay there 4 days, with a dinner party thrown in as well.

He is even worse, more entitled, more arrogant than I thought if he actually imagined for one minute that interview would make things better.

Afternoon all.

We've removed some victim blaming posts from here and we thought it was a good moment to remind folk of our We Believe You campaign.

It was established to challenge some of the myths associated with sexual assault and rape and we'd really appreciate it if folk would take a look at it and bear it in mind when posting on threads like this

Thanks all.

Many thanks, @Roussette ... like yourself I'd love to know just how old the girl in the clip was

"He’s going to look mighty foolish"

He already does!

You don't need anything like hindsight to know not to be the guest at the home of a convicted sex offender!

The girl in that Mail video is so young

Yes. Her body language and immaturity to me points to her possibly being 13 to 15.

I totally believe him. Who wouldn't remember an afternoon out at Pizza Express in Woking 18 years ago (The American Hot with a Thick Upper crust was particularly memorable). I think that the only very slightly questionable aspect would be how he managed to locate Woking, given that he was unable to locate the actual bar within a private member's... ERM...bar! (Ignoring that it was waiter service). I'm sure, however, that he had a chaffeur to drive him to Pizza Express, who can vouch for him - no sweat!

if someone I knew was convicted of sex offences, I would just ghost them

So would I - but I'd do it knowing that my own behaviour would mean they'd have nothing to work with if they wanted to retaliate

I wonder if the same applies here, or if Andrew's continuing contact with his "close friend" Ghislaine suggests a need to keep her onside?

Puzzledandpissedoff

There’s the nub of it, if you ask me. He couldn’t do what any decent person would do because he isn’t a decent person and the people in question knew that.

Yes. Her body language and immaturity to me points to her possibly being 13 to 15.

She looks like a cold person with no make up in her late teens to me.

He's still disgusting, of course.

On specific allegations around his involvement with young women and underage girls, I avoid commenting.

For me the glaring issues are:

1. He claims they weren't good friends
2. Epstein was convicted of sex offences
3. Andrew continued to have a friendship with someone he's not that close to, but then continued to stay at the sex offender's house
4. The newsnight interviewer asked if he would give evidence on oath about his relationship and engagements with Epstein and he spent ages avoiding giving an answer

@Rosehip10

@TheMidasTouch Do you enjoy your job as one of Andrew's advisors?
Don't be ridiculous.

Puzzled true. He was indebted to Epstein in some way. Allowing that sleaze to bankroll your ex-wife is bad, wish EmilyM had asked him about that.

Having done some quick googling, it looks like (and I seem to remember) Sarah Ferguson was up to her eyeballs in debt, and Epstein didn’t just lend her £15,000 (which wouldn’t be that much to PA); he facilitated the restructuring of £5m worth of debt.

Yeah Pizza Express in Woking over a decade ago is VERY memorable. I know what I was doing that night too, I was at McDonalds in Guildford. I had a filet of fish meal.

From the beginning, he maintained that he Epstein weren't proper friends, he just knew him via Ghislane. So why did he feel the need to meet Epstein face to face to tell him that they couldn't be friends anymore when they weren't actually that close in the first place?

I haven't watched the BBC interview yet - was he challenged on this point?

flower
Yes he was challenged on it.
She also said very clearly that whilst he said he was cooking the friendship off, his actions say otherwise as surely you wouldn't be staying over at someone's house repeatedly if you'd made the decision to distance yourself from them.

She also made the valid point that Andrew allowed JE to be a guest at one of his teen daughter's 18th parties.

He should have been asked if he had sex with ANYONE whilst staying with Epstein.
He keeps saying he doesn't recall meeting the girl but that doesn't mean he didn't meet her or have sex with her.

That Mail piece had a clip of Emily's expression - really does say it all

Thanks Lola - it sounds like Emily did a great job. I've seen a couple of clips and it's absolutely excruciating to watch. The way he's shaking his head in a no motion while talking contradicts everything that's coming out of his mouth.

I just keep thinking what now ? Does he think well I did my interview all is well with the world.

He keeps saying he doesn't recall meeting the girl but that doesn't mean he didn't meet her or have sex with her..

He does say he never had sex with any young woman at any of JE’s residences.

Who is the second woman that PA opens the door for?

" Does he think well I did my interview all is well with the world."

Could he be that deluded??

Having done some quick googling, it looks like ... Epstein didn’t just lend her £15,000 (which wouldn’t be that much to PA); he facilitated the restructuring of £5m worth of debt

And yet we're invited to believe that the real purpose of Andrew travelling to see Epstein was to tell him they couldn't be seen together any more

Yeah, right ...

BTW if it's of interest to anyone the full transcript's here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50449339

I'll play along, with the sceptical disclaimer that I doubt there is one one person in the country who could possibly have watched such car crash TV and still believe this creep was ignorant of Epstein's goings on, or that Virginia Roberts is lying. Abusers' narratives are, moreover, always variations on the same script. An inability to remember certain events (while remembering others perfectly well) is not the same thing as an emphatic denial. When they start saying they can't remember, it's usually BS. Nor was he shocked or disgusted at the shenanigans of his 'friend'; nor does he deny having any involvement with any of the women he sold; nor does he express one iota of sympathy or regret for the victims.

What did he hope to achieve by that interview? If it was plausible deniability, he failed spectacularly. His story is riddled with holes and has more inconsistencies than the rail schedule of First Capital Connect.

Roberts's story, on the other hand, is more plausible. Her account is consistent. It was made in a legal context and is borne out by names, dates, places, and witnesses.

Whose sounds more likely?