News1 min ago
'in Defence Of Prince Andrew'
In today's Telegraph the estimable Charles Moore begins an article with the above caption & starts ;
'When the whole world condemns someone, it is a journalist’s duty to look at the other side. I therefore want to make the case for the Duke of York in his Newsnight interview. If you start from the position of a juror, rather than of our judge-and-jury media, you believe that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. On that basis, Prince Andrew did all right.'
Has anyone read it?
'When the whole world condemns someone, it is a journalist’s duty to look at the other side. I therefore want to make the case for the Duke of York in his Newsnight interview. If you start from the position of a juror, rather than of our judge-and-jury media, you believe that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. On that basis, Prince Andrew did all right.'
Has anyone read it?
Answers
Just a stupid arrogant man who has obviously not taken on board what being a royal is all about. No different from the old prince of Wales, who was a womaniser,
13:11 Tue 19th Nov 2019
n. //What a pity ‘the estimable Charles Moore’ doesn’t apply his journalistic skills to others similarly potentially misjudged.//
Oh - does, he certainly does! & if you were wider read you'd know it.
Here's the next two paragraphs;
'Given his state of knowledge at the time, he was not automatically wrong to be friendly with Jeffrey Epstein. It is the misfortune of being a famous person that lots of other famous people want to be your “friend”. Although you should be wary, you cannot always know dark facts about them.
Many famous people were Epstein’s “friends”: that, it turns out, was the way he operated. Prince Andrew seems to have taken Epstein on trust because he (the Prince) was a long-standing friend of Epstein’s friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who vouched for him. I wonder why the interviewer, Emily Maitlis, did not pursue the subject of Ms Maxwell.'
What he doesn't say, (& I have said all along), is that Andrew isn't
married & is free to see & bed whomever he likes - within the law, unlike a lot of the shenanigans which many hypocritical public figures do (like his brother for example)
Oh - does, he certainly does! & if you were wider read you'd know it.
Here's the next two paragraphs;
'Given his state of knowledge at the time, he was not automatically wrong to be friendly with Jeffrey Epstein. It is the misfortune of being a famous person that lots of other famous people want to be your “friend”. Although you should be wary, you cannot always know dark facts about them.
Many famous people were Epstein’s “friends”: that, it turns out, was the way he operated. Prince Andrew seems to have taken Epstein on trust because he (the Prince) was a long-standing friend of Epstein’s friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who vouched for him. I wonder why the interviewer, Emily Maitlis, did not pursue the subject of Ms Maxwell.'
What he doesn't say, (& I have said all along), is that Andrew isn't
married & is free to see & bed whomever he likes - within the law, unlike a lot of the shenanigans which many hypocritical public figures do (like his brother for example)
Until Andrew comes up with a reasonable explanation for the 4 day stay in Epstein's Manhattan apartment in 2010, anything else he says is a waste of time. That stay - and perhaps the photo - lies at the heart of the whole case against him, and his defence is pathetic.
I mean, you only have to read this ...
https:/
I mean, you only have to read this ...
https:/
continues;
'The Duke explained why he went to stay with Epstein to tell him – after the latter’s criminal conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution – that he could no longer have contact with him.
He admitted this had been a misjudgement; but it sounded believable that he had thought that merely telephoning the man would have been “a chicken way of doing it”. If a person has committed a crime, even a foul one, anyone with a Christian upbringing is taught that they must try to forgive and treat that person fairly.
As for Prince Andrew’s denials of meeting Virginia Roberts, drinking and dancing with her, and sleeping with her, they seemed firm and backed by some evidence. The fact that a photograph exists which seems to show him with his arm round her waist does not – in the wicked world of photo-shopping – prove anything. Given the risks involved, it is surely hard to believe that Prince Andrew was lying on this point: if it is proved that he did, that is the end of him.'
'The Duke explained why he went to stay with Epstein to tell him – after the latter’s criminal conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution – that he could no longer have contact with him.
He admitted this had been a misjudgement; but it sounded believable that he had thought that merely telephoning the man would have been “a chicken way of doing it”. If a person has committed a crime, even a foul one, anyone with a Christian upbringing is taught that they must try to forgive and treat that person fairly.
As for Prince Andrew’s denials of meeting Virginia Roberts, drinking and dancing with her, and sleeping with her, they seemed firm and backed by some evidence. The fact that a photograph exists which seems to show him with his arm round her waist does not – in the wicked world of photo-shopping – prove anything. Given the risks involved, it is surely hard to believe that Prince Andrew was lying on this point: if it is proved that he did, that is the end of him.'
P. Andrew's explanation for there being a lot of people around in Epstein's mansion - he thought they were just members of staff! Who was he waving goodbye to at the door, the cleaner? It's a shame he wasn't asked this in the interview. I hope others will come forward who were there when he was there and say what they know.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.