To be completely unsurprised by Boris Johnson's support of Prince Andrew

[JasonPollack]

In fact I think they are very similar men, which is probably why they get on so well.
"I’ve worked with Prince Andrew, I’ve seen the good he has been able to do for UK business overseas. I have no comment, or indeed no knowledge of this other stuff.”

To chose to defend someone who, even if he is personally innocent, which is doubtful, knowingly associated with a convicted sex offender beggers belief. The casual disregard being shown for the many victims of Epstein, vulnerable children, just dismissed as "this other stuff". The Prince is accused of sleeping with a trafficked, underage girl. To think that his record working for British business could erase that, or is even relavent to it!

The clip is from January 2015!

Lol

@clavinova
So? The allegations against Andrew were already well known. Why are you so interested in defending him? Why not just admit it was, at best, a very stupid thing to say?

Why not just admit it was, at best, a very stupid thing to say?

Because maybe she doesn't think it was stupid?

I don't know how some of you get through the day I really don't. What happens in RL if someone says something you don't agree with?

Cam77
I've just watched the clip from January 2015 (have you?) - the only topic being discussed is Prince Andrew's 'air miles' - and his work for British business.

“Peter Oborne, writing in The Daily Telegraph in January 2015, *stated that "the proven facts are grim enough. What was the prince doing, in the first place, with Epstein, a paedophile who was jailed in 2008 for soliciting young girls for under-age prostitution?”

As reported in the Telegraph of all places. This scandal and links to the Prince was already old news in 2015 when Johnson gave that interview and made those comments. So stop trying to deflect!

No, the topic under discussion is Epstein’s links to Andrew. You hear a lot of waffle from Johnson in the short clip of the interview precisely because Johnson was trying to deflect away from any question of Prince Andrew’s involvement/wrongdoing, hence Johnson waffling on about air miles and he’s so great and wonderful and hardworking blah blah blah.....why do you think the clip is titled “Boris Johnson defends Prince Andrew”? For goodness sake!?

Cam77
Odd then that the Guardian would edit out the bit about Epstein.

I have two thoughts on Andrew and Boris -

Andrew - surely there is a record of how he spends his time (and where) within the security records. Shouldn't that prove conclusively one way or another?

Boris - has never pretended to be a lovely, caring family chap - no photos of his wife and babies (however many there may be). So although I may not like his morals, he hasn't pretended to be Mr. Family Man. Jennifer Acurri (?) is an attention seeking idiot. She has not spoken to Boris for a number of years - they have both moved on with their lives, and the presumed affair was obviously long ago - she subsequently married and had a child. He gets a higher profile, and she wants to be dragged along on his coat tails....just wrong.

They are both privileged entitled men. That is how many of them think about women. Frankly, it’s how a lot of men think about women, regardless of privilege. It’s just not usually so unequivocally illustrated as it is in the case of Johnson and Andrew.

He is accused @Lifecraft of having a sex with a trafficked underage girl. That he has been photographed with his arm around. That's not insubstantial evidence.

If nothing else he maintained a relationship with a convicted paedophile, and invited him to the Palace. We know very well that he has done something, despite his denials.

Does he though? I did not get the sense he really thought he’s done anything wrong at all!

@Cam77

You are aware that you amateur political activists do far more damage to your cause by just making up stuff or posting things out of context aren’t you?

Anyone with half a brain can see through this nonsense and as a result some of the more valid criticisms get lost in the wash.

@JasonPollack

Just read that back to yourself. Ideally whilst looking in the mirror.

“He is accused of having sex with a trafficked underage girl. That he has been pictured with his arm around. That is not unsubstantial evidence”

That’s exactly what it is. By definition. It’s a photo of someone with their arm around someone. It proves nothing.

FWIW I think he’s guilty. But your definition of what represents ‘evidence’ is bizarre.

I mean he says he's never met the woman, so a picture of him with his arm around her proves he's lying.

@JasonPollack

There you go again with the reading difficulties.

He’s said he denies any sexual contact with her.

He’s said doesn’t recall meeting her.

He’s said he doesn’t recall that photo being taken.

All of which could be untrue. But the existence of that photo proves nothing and certainly doesn’t prove he’s lying.

Like I say, I think he’s guilty. But I also read things properly and have the basic common sense to know what “evidence” is.

He is accused @Lifecraft of having a sex with a trafficked underage girl. That he has been photographed with his arm around. That's not insubstantial evidence.

Firstly, putting your arm around someone is not proof that you had sex with them. Secondly, no one can produce the original photo for inspection by experts to see if it's been digitally altered. All we have is a photo of a photo.

If nothing else he maintained a relationship with a convicted paedophile, and invited him to the Palace

No he didn't. He never invited Epstein to the palace after he was convicted. No one is even accusing him of that. You've made that bit up.

I have no idea why some people are so reluctant to admit they don't know if he's guilty of anything or not. They might think he's guilty. Or innocent. But no one on here knows.

Mr Johnson maintains private lives and friendships are private matters. So should not have commented at all on this, to be consistent.

I mean he says he's never met the woman, so a picture of him with his arm around her proves he's lying.

If you sent me a picture of you, within 5 minutes I can mock up a pretty convincing shot of you having sex with a goat.

But that does not prove you had sex with a goat.

As far as Andrew is concerned, as yet, we don't know if there are any victims. Because none of us know if he actually did anything?

Come off it, Lifecraft; even leaving aside what he may or may not have done with Virginia, he continued to meet (and therefore lent legitimacy to) a known, time-served paedophile ... one who wasn't even a "close friend" but merely someone else's "plus one"

Does that really sound to you like the choice of an "honourable" man?

Not good at all.

Mr Johnson maintains private lives and friendships are private matters.So should not have commented at all on this, to be consistent.

He hasn't commented on the latest developments;

"LONDON: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson twice refused on Monday (Nov 18) to comment on Prince Andrew who has faced a backlash after denying he had sex with a teenage girl and talking about his relationship with late US financier Jeffrey Epstein."

"I won't get dragged into commentary about matters concerning the royal family," Johnson said when asked about Andrew by reporters."

www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/british-pm-johnson-refuses-to-comment-on-prince-andrew-scandal-12104186

The facts of the case are the same as they were when he last commented. Only public opinion differs which is why Johnson wouldn't comment again. I'm sure he maintains his sympathy.