To support the Duke of York

[LadyLanka]

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

Is that you Sarah!

Funny, how the thread is all about churchandstate now?

The hiding dubious activities etc.church mentions is pretty much what PA said:

And if you go in for a day, two days at a time, it's quite easy I'm led to believe for those sorts of people to hide their activities for that period of time and then carry on when they're not there. PA claims not to have know anything about anything, I'd be interested to see how that would uphold in court.

It's quite clear from the interview that PA is super scared of being summoned. When EM asked if he'd be willing to testify or give a statement under oath he was really, really flustered and hot under his collar.

she was never meant to be Queen really

No, but she was brought up in the immense privilege of the Royal Family and it was clear by the time she was a young adult that she would succeed. It's not as if she grew up on a council estate and the day after George VI's people arrived out of the blue and told her she had to be queen now.

If Andrew had been brought up on said council estate, there would be plenty of finger pointing at his parents right now to ask what their role had been in producing a son with so little moral or common sense.

Considering the RF’screlationship with Jimmy Saville, this is all depressingly predictable.

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’

Virginia Roberts' version has been stated by her as fact. This doesn't mean that this is necessarily true, but it puts it in a totally different category (i.e. worth investigating) than your random bollocks.

LaurieMarlow

Of course. Hers is her version of what she claims happened and mine isn’t. Mine is an alternative version of what might have happened. I never claimed they were the same.

I never claimed they were the same.

You did say 'they're both stories' which would indicate that you aren't seeing the crucial category difference. But anyway, I'm through with your time wasting.

LaurieMarlow

They are both stories. One is a story of what someone claims did happen. The other is a story of what someone else (me) states is possible. From my perspective, as a person who wasn’t there, both are logically possible.

PA claims not to have know anything about anything, I'd be interested to see how that would uphold in court.

Me too. I would like to see him asked how he thought Jeffrey Epstein behaved towards women and girls. I would like to see him asked who the women on the yacht were, or who he thought they were. I would like to see him asked whether he agrees with Trump that Epstein liked young girls, and what they meant to him. I would like to see him asked whether he accepted massages, whether he thought the masseuses were qualified and how old he thought they were, and what they said to him.

I thought Maitlis went in too soft.

He came across as a pompous, pampered, toad too stupid and/or arrogant to accept the advice he must surely have been given to at least feign sympathy for the real victims in all this.

The interview reminded people like me, who probably hadn't thought about him much since 'it's a royal knockout' in 1987, what an affront his ridiculous lifestyle, and general ridiculousness, is to the taxpayer & to the people who still view themselves as 'subjects' of his like. The interviewer's use of medieval terms of address & deference to such a witless shitbag were genuinely painful.

But none of this has any bearings on the merits of the accusations. Who knows the truth on that score.

I suppose my best guess would be that over the years he's been to so many parties and been with so many pretty girls that it's a challenge for him to remember a specific one from nearly 20 years ago. At the time she was legal age-wise, & as a royal I doubt that concepts like consent & people paying for stuff mean quite the same as they do to mere mortals like us.

From my perspective, as a person who wasn’t there, both are logically possible.

Well technically but how disingenuous to even conflate them like this.

One is worth investigating.

I think PA is in big trouble, the press are gunning for him, I think he will disappear to an island somewhere, which the tax payer will pay for.

witless shitbag

I'm stealing this

One is worth investigating.

You can’t separate them like this. The question of whether VR is telling the truth is directly relevant. The question of whether there is any way she might believe she is telling the truth (but be mistaken) is also directly relevant. My example shows only that there are scenarios we can imagine that would mean she believed something that isn’t objectively true.

And rather unsurprisingly Boris Johnson has defended the Duke of York in light of his car crash interview praising prince Andrew for the " good he has done for UK business overseas".

Boris Johnson didn't 'defend' Prince Andrew' in light of his car crash interview - the Guardian link to a radio phone in from January 2015.

And it is pretty much what she and the other women involved will face in court.

I am listening to the interview now and even without seeing body language and facial expressions it seems clear to me that the man is lying. Much of what he is saying sounds very much like someone trying to wriggle out of any involvement. He can't remember a lot of things, dates, people, places but clearly remembers being in pizza express on a day many years ago. So yes YABU.

You can’t separate them like this.

Any sane person would.

The question of whether VR is telling the truth is directly relevant.

It's actually offensive that you give so little weight to her claims that you equate it directly with some made up bollocks in your own head.

But i now, far too late, reach the end of my patience with your time wasting, so I'll leave it here.

If the Newsnight interview's timeline is out, and the actual interview took place over a much longer time period, I would prefer the BBC to release the entire unedited version. I don't mind if it lasts two hours. I think it would give us all a better insight into the situation and into our feelings about Prince Andrew.

Was it just edited so much to make it into a one our slot? Was it stopped at times by PA or his legal advisors? Were any questions not allowed? I'd like to know more about it.

Any sane person would.

There you go again.

No, they wouldn’t. Her lawyers and Prince Andrew’s lawyers will look at the evidence or lack thereof on both sides. His lawyers will work up alternative scenarios and challenge her to say why those things didn’t happen. The purpose of a legal defence is to create doubt, so that is what they will do. They will ask her what he looked like naked. They will ask how she knew the person she was having sex with was Prince Andrew, and how she knows he wasn’t someone else. They will ask her whether she was sober or had consumed any other narcotics, and how much, and how often. They will ask her whether it was light or dark. They will ask her questions about the physical environment to see what else she remembers. They will create doubt. I am not mad or offensive because I recognise this.

I thought Maitlis went in too soft.

She had to be somewhat objective and not be seen as a hostile interrogator to be fair. However I do think she could have followed up on her questions better.

I think it's about time churchandstate buggered off to go and get a pizza or something. This thread is becoming a vanity project for one's opinions.

Overall she did well.

if nothing else, her jacket was a doozy.

I thought Maitlis went in too soft.

I thought she was formidable. Quiet but deadly. Her face had scepticism written all over it and she gave him plenty of rope to hang himself.