To support the Duke of York

[LadyLanka]

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

Church you are not being a voice of reason and your strange comments are certainly not of earth logic.

I haven’t seen anyone argue against what I have said with anything other than emotive rubbish, Tiddler. Do so, and I might listen. At the moment the only reason that I am saying you are angry is that you are coming across as angry.

Well, I can't say I'm remotely surprised that Boris would come out with something so crass. Posh toff with zero human empathy completely overlooking a person's immoral behaviour because they might be financially lucrative - how repulsive. A slimy politician through and through.

I hope people women will remember this when they go to the ballots on 12.12.

I haven’t seen anyone argue against what I have said with anything other than emotive rubbish

Utter balderdash.

Utter balderdash.

More of same.

Church your postings are very far fetched it has to be said, not beyond the realm of possibility but still ridiculous.

Tiddler

apparently she is AWOL in some posh remote mansion

The Times are running a piece "Where is Ghislaine Maxwell? Search is on for Jeffrey Epstein’s loyal ‘madam’" - why would someone do what she did?

Careful, Tiddler. Laughable is redolent of emotion.

church reminds me of those BrexitBots

Well, I can't say I'm remotely surprised that Boris would come out with something so crass. Posh toff with zero human empathy completely overlooking a person's immoral behaviour because they might be financially lucrative - how repulsive. A slimy politician through and through.

And yet women are going to vote for this man!

TiddlerontheRoof

Let’s begin with ‘gaslighting’. ‘Gaslighting’ is an attempt to manipulate a person into doubting their own sanity. So we can dispense with that accusation. I’m not doing that.

You made up a wild, entirely hypothetical story about Epstein getting an impersonator to rape someone, something not even Andrew has claimed.

I didn’t make it up in the sense that I am claiming it happened, and you know that. So it is irrelevant what Prince Andrew said about it (nothing) because if he wasn’t there, that’s how much he would know about that (nothing). Which is precisely how much we know. We don’t know what happened.

You said there’s no evidence Epstein didn’t hide his true nature and that Andrew genuinely might not have known, and have ignored posters pointing out that Andrew continued their friendship after Epstein’s conviction

I did, and it is possible that Epstein hid the illegal aspects of his conduct, or it’s possible he didn’t. I don’t know. It’s also possible that the reason Prince Andrew stayed with Epstein is yet to come out, and doesn’t reflect well on him. As I have said.

You’ve ignored or downplayed the fact there is photographic proof Epstein did not hide away his army of naked girls around Andrew and that Andrew was fine with it

I haven’t seen photographic proof of an army of naked girls. I have seen some people sunbathing on a yacht. I don’t know who they were, I don’t know why they were there, I don’t know how old they were. Nor do you. Logically, topless women are not proof Prince Andrew knew his friend was a paedophile and a rapist.

to yammer on about some hypothetical paintings hypothetically being put in a cupboard which has no relation to reality and wouldn’t be relevant even if it did happen.

I didn’t mention the paintings. They were mentioned as ‘proof’ that Prince Andrew must have known his friend was a paedophile when he saw them. I don’t know if that’s true because I don’t know whether they existed. I don’t know if that’s true because I don’t know what they depicted. I don’t know if that’s true because I don’t know if they were there when Prince Andrew was. I don’t know if that’s true because I know it’s possible to move paintings.

Logic. You’re not going to undermine my sense of what is fact and what is supposition by accusing me of gaslighting, or anything else. I know what is fact here.

NormanSmith

I believe that version of events is unlikely. I don’t think it’s ‘ridiculous’ that a sex offender would try to disguise their offences to someone who wasn’t a fellow sex offender. I believe it’s unlikely Prince Andrew knew nothing before the conviction, as I have said. I believe after the conviction that it’s possible Epstein had knowledge Prince Andrew wanted kept out of the public domain, as I have said.

I know what is fact here.

So do I and your fairy stories facts have no synergy with mine.

Whoops strike through fail.

Toddler:

“Emotive rubbish” refers to people trying to argue against what I have said by implying I am mad, or MRA, or gaslighting, or stupid. I am none of those things.

I have pointed out several times that there are possible explanations for Prince Andrew staying with Epstein after he was convicted that do not encompass Prince Andrew committing a crime. If you disagree with that, please argue that point with fact, not with accusations.

Alsohuman

Again, you are failing to acknowledge that I haven’t claimed that what I say is possible is fact. On the other hand, there are quite a few people here who are doing precisely that: claiming that a theory is fact and that any other theory is a “fairy story”. These are all stories because there is no proof.

TiddlerontheRoof

I’m not angry, Tiddler.

These are all stories because there is no proof.

One narrative has been claimed as true by the person in question, Virginia

The other has been claimed by no one. Just made up by you as a ‘possibility’ much in same vein as aliens, lizards and so on.

If you can’t tell the difference between these two ‘stories’ then god help us all, especially you.

Anyway, I feel sure you’re achieving your aim of leading people down rabbit holes to distract from the serious issues at hand.

The queen doesn't seem to like change. She didn't like lowering the flag for Diana when she died as it wasn't done in those circumstances. It was only when forced due to public opinion and strong advice from staff that she did it. She also didn't like having to bend to the public's will that someone needs to say something about Diana's death, as far as I recall.

I do genuinely believe the Queen has done her best, after all she was never meant to be Queen really. But yes, questions do have to be asked as to how it was that Andrew was allowed to go galavanting around with a man, initially of very dubious character and then later a confirmed convicted sex offender. A very prolific one.

How was this allowed to happen? Does each royal have a separate court or staff advisors that don't report to anyone higher up the chain? Are there no carefully placed snitches?

It is a question that needs to be asked. Who was PA accountable to? Or does it not work that way?

Then there's the disaster of the interview itself and permission being given.

So we are talking about a lack of control that's been evident for some time. Maybe always, considering the Charles and Diana fiasco.

And I agree about the Queen Mother, 'Nations granny' I heard she treated Mrs Simpson like shit whenever she got the chance and provided a bolthole for Charles to curl up with Camilla.

The other has been claimed by no one. Just made up by you as a ‘possibility’ much in same vein as aliens, lizards and so on.

The same absence of logic here. That version of events hasn’t been claimed by me. It has been used to illustrate the point that we don’t have all the information needed to declare Virginia Roberts’ version as a ‘fact’. Sarcastic comments about aliens - as funny as some people seem to find them - are completely futile in refuting my argument that the facts may be other than how they have been presented.