Are the royals on the rocks?

191012141542

Comments

  • Well, having a neutral and ceremonial figurehead means things like inviting a championship doesn't necessary involve that figurehead making an awkward political comment: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/politics/white-house-lsu-ceremony-donald-trump/index.html

    I don't think having a monarch protects against them making an awkward political comment.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The furor was over an episode involving two teenage sisters, one 14 and the other 17, visiting his hotel room in 1969 to seek an autograph. Mr. Yarrow answered the door naked. Other than indecent exposure, there was no sex crime involved. This is classified as a misdemeanor, not a felony.

    Mr. Yarrow was charged with taking indecent liberties with a minor, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months in jail. President Jimmy Carter pardoned him in 1981.

    He has continued to express contrition and regret over an incident that happened 51 years ago.

    There are no other reports of inappropriate behavior on the part of Mr. Yarrow.

    At what point is a person absolved a a past indiscretion? He has a presidential pardon. Seems like people need to move on.

    Yeah, forgive and NEVER forget. People don't change. Ever. Apart from getting more like themselves. They are changed by experience, by consequences, by guilt, by getting caught, by shame, by conditioning, but not fundamentally. Apart from those who are magicked better.

    Man's a flasher.
  • Mr. Yarrow was charged with taking indecent liberties with a minor, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months in jail. President Jimmy Carter pardoned him in 1981.

    He has continued to express contrition and regret over an incident that happened 51 years ago.

    Rehabilitation of ex-offenders does not require them to be issued a pardon. You can accept someone has moved on, changed turned their life around etc - but a pardon to me seems to say either a) you weren't really guilty and this is the quickest way of negating your conviction b) the laws you broke were wrong and as a society we now recognise that (e.g. Turing's pardon) c) there is a mitigation or defense to your conduct that should have been taken into account at the time but wasn't.

    In this case we have an offense, admitted at the time and not subsequently negated by any of these factors.

    It's not that we now think its ok to flash children, or that someone was threatening him with a knife from behind, or he was acutely mentally ill and it wasn't taken into account at his trial - it seems be simply that he campaigned for or donated to a particular political party, that seems to me to be the definition of corruption. If he is genuinely contrite, he should have refused the pardon.
  • Well said. What the Hell was the Blessed JC (whom I regard most highly) thinking?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    No, no - it's Trump who is the Chosen One of God.

    Mr Carter was (and is) a fallible Humming Bean, like the rest of us.
  • A
    Mr. Yarrow was charged with taking indecent liberties with a minor, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months in jail. President Jimmy Carter pardoned him in 1981.

    He has continued to express contrition and regret over an incident that happened 51 years ago.

    Rehabilitation of ex-offenders does not require them to be issued a pardon. You can accept someone has moved on, changed turned their life around etc - but a pardon to me seems to say either a) you weren't really guilty and this is the quickest way of negating your conviction b) the laws you broke were wrong and as a society we now recognise that (e.g. Turing's pardon) c) there is a mitigation or defense to your conduct that should have been taken into account at the time but wasn't.

    In this case we have an offense, admitted at the time and not subsequently negated by any of these factors.

    It's not that we now think its ok to flash children, or that someone was threatening him with a knife from behind, or he was acutely mentally ill and it wasn't taken into account at his trial - it seems be simply that he campaigned for or donated to a particular political party, that seems to me to be the definition of corruption. If he is genuinely contrite, he should have refused the pardon.

    I think you misunderstand what a pardon does. A pardon represents a full legal forgiveness for a crime, removing any remaining prison sentence, probation conditions or unpaid fines. Technically, when a person accepts a pardon they admit that they did indeed commit the crime but are contrite and have shown rehabilitation.

    There is no indication that Yeager has continued to flash anyone. If he had the second offense would have been a felony, and in this era he would have been required to register as a sex offender.
  • Rehabilitation of ex-offenders does not require them to be issued a pardon. You can accept someone has moved on, changed turned their life around etc - but a pardon to me seems to say either a) you weren't really guilty and this is the quickest way of negating your conviction b) the laws you broke were wrong and as a society we now recognise that (e.g. Turing's pardon) c) there is a mitigation or defense to your conduct that should have been taken into account at the time but wasn't.

    Literally none of those apply to the pardon power of an American president. It's a plenary power, meaning it has no requirements or restrictions within its defined scope. You don't have to have been convicted or even indicted to receive a pardon, (Hi there, Richard Nixon!) much less admit guilt or express any kind of contrition.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I think you misunderstand what a pardon does. A pardon represents a full legal forgiveness for a crime, removing any remaining prison sentence, probation conditions or unpaid fines. Technically, when a person accepts a pardon they admit that they did indeed commit the crime but are contrite and have shown rehabilitation.

    This is also false. Or half true. A pardon does represent full legal forgiveness for a crime, but accepting a pardon does not require the recipient to acknowledge anything other than that they were legally either convicted or in jeopardy of being so. I remember a few years back Justice Scalia made the argument in a death penalty case that actual innocence was irrelevant as long as legal guilt had been properly established. And once again, pardons as they exist in the United States are plenary, meaning that they don't require anything from the recipient, such as an expression of contrition.
  • We've got a long way from the royals, haven't we?
  • re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

  • Eirenist wrote: »
    We've got a long way from the royals, haven't we?

    Threads often defy the notion of a straight line.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    We've got a long way from the royals, haven't we?

    I thought Mr Markle's interview on Channel 5 might've given this thread a new impetus.
  • stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Rehabilitation of ex-offenders does not require them to be issued a pardon. You can accept someone has moved on, changed turned their life around etc - but a pardon to me seems to say either a) you weren't really guilty and this is the quickest way of negating your conviction b) the laws you broke were wrong and as a society we now recognise that (e.g. Turing's pardon) c) there is a mitigation or defense to your conduct that should have been taken into account at the time but wasn't.

    Literally none of those apply to the pardon power of an American president. It's a plenary power, meaning it has no requirements or restrictions within its defined scope. You don't have to have been convicted or even indicted to receive a pardon, (Hi there, Richard Nixon!) much less admit guilt or express any kind of contrition.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I think you misunderstand what a pardon does. A pardon represents a full legal forgiveness for a crime, removing any remaining prison sentence, probation conditions or unpaid fines. Technically, when a person accepts a pardon they admit that they did indeed commit the crime but are contrite and have shown rehabilitation.

    This is also false. Or half true. A pardon does represent full legal forgiveness for a crime, but accepting a pardon does not require the recipient to acknowledge anything other than that they were legally either convicted or in jeopardy of being so. I remember a few years back Justice Scalia made the argument in a death penalty case that actual innocence was irrelevant as long as legal guilt had been properly established. And once again, pardons as they exist in the United States are plenary, meaning that they don't require anything from the recipient, such as an expression of contrition.

    Tries again in concepts of one syllable:

    Yes BUT - ***why*** - do you, (if you are the potus), CHOOSE to give it to *this man* not *that man*. What thought about this man, (if you are the potus), did you have - or did you want folk to have ?
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Eirenist wrote: »
    We've got a long way from the royals, haven't we?

    I thought Mr Markle's interview on Channel 5 might've given this thread a new impetus.

    My main thought about that was, why do it ? (I did not watch it, but as it was not splashed across the newspapers I assume nothing salient was said.)
  • Oh, and according to some other articles I found, George McGovern, among other leading Democrats, lobbied for Yarrow's pardon.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Eirenist wrote: »
    We've got a long way from the royals, haven't we?

    I thought Mr Markle's interview on Channel 5 might've given this thread a new impetus.

    My main thought about that was, why do it ? (I did not watch it, but as it was not splashed across the newspapers I assume nothing salient was said.)

    Money, publicity, sour grapes perhaps.
  • This looks fun: Harry and Meghan: Sussex Royal trademark bid challenged
    unlike a full objection, filing a notice of threatened objection requires no fee and no evidence ... "You could just do it to be difficult," said Mr Evans. "It looks like the IPO might be quite busy on this one."

    Running a business under such scrutiny may not prove to be an easy ride.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.

    Is the transcript of the sentencing proceedings available? Probably not, but that would be the most reliable source.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.

    The linked article is not from the Chicago Tribune, but from The Awareness Center. It was also written in 2006--the incident was in 1969--and contains, at best, only a secondary report.

    Show me something current that says he had continued to show such behavior.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.

    The linked article is not from the Chicago Tribune, but from The Awareness Center. It was also written in 2006--the incident was in 1969--and contains, at best, only a secondary report.
    The linked article contains images of contemporaneous newspaper reports. The wording in the one from the Chicago Tribune is very close to the wording in the wikipedia article.
    He did it, he admitted it, why would you challenge the wiki Article?

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.

    The linked article is not from the Chicago Tribune, but from The Awareness Center. It was also written in 2006--the incident was in 1969--and contains, at best, only a secondary report.
    The linked article contains images of contemporaneous newspaper reports. The wording in the one from the Chicago Tribune is very close to the wording in the wikipedia article.
    He did it, he admitted it, why would you challenge the wiki Article?

    Yeah, sorry, I thought I had linked to an image of the article directly. Scoll down about a quarter way on the Jewish Awareness Whatever site to see the Tribune article.

    For the record, I like Peter, Paul, and Mary as much as the next guy, and I'm not someone who thinks that Yarrow, having served his time, should have his work and personage shunned from society forever.



  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.

    The linked article is not from the Chicago Tribune, but from The Awareness Center. It was also written in 2006--the incident was in 1969--and contains, at best, only a secondary report.
    The linked article contains images of contemporaneous newspaper reports. The wording in the one from the Chicago Tribune is very close to the wording in the wikipedia article.
    He did it, he admitted it, why would you challenge the wiki Article?

    And I did look at the photocopied articles. As you say, the Tribune copy comes "close" to the Wikipedia statement. "Close but no cigar" comes to mind.

    However, you have yet to answer my last request: show me any examples where Yarrow has continued this behavior.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.

    The linked article is not from the Chicago Tribune, but from The Awareness Center. It was also written in 2006--the incident was in 1969--and contains, at best, only a secondary report.
    The linked article contains images of contemporaneous newspaper reports. The wording in the one from the Chicago Tribune is very close to the wording in the wikipedia article.
    He did it, he admitted it, why would you challenge the wiki Article?

    And I did look at the photocopied articles. As you say, the Tribune copy comes "close" to the Wikipedia statement. "Close but no cigar" comes to mind.

    However, you have yet to answer my last request: show me any examples where Yarrow has continued this behavior.

    For the record, I think I was the person you addressed that challenge to, and I don't think I had ever claimed that he continued to engage in that kind of behaviour. The point I was making was simply that his actions encompassed more than just "flashing", which I think is substantiated by the Tribune article.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.

    The linked article is not from the Chicago Tribune, but from The Awareness Center. It was also written in 2006--the incident was in 1969--and contains, at best, only a secondary report.
    The linked article contains images of contemporaneous newspaper reports. The wording in the one from the Chicago Tribune is very close to the wording in the wikipedia article.
    He did it, he admitted it, why would you challenge the wiki Article?

    And I did look at the photocopied articles. As you say, the Tribune copy comes "close" to the Wikipedia statement. "Close but no cigar" comes to mind.

    However, you have yet to answer my last request: show me any examples where Yarrow has continued this behavior.
    I haven't said he has. That is not a reason to erase history.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.

    The linked article is not from the Chicago Tribune, but from The Awareness Center. It was also written in 2006--the incident was in 1969--and contains, at best, only a secondary report.
    The linked article contains images of contemporaneous newspaper reports. The wording in the one from the Chicago Tribune is very close to the wording in the wikipedia article.
    He did it, he admitted it, why would you challenge the wiki Article?

    And I did look at the photocopied articles. As you say, the Tribune copy comes "close" to the Wikipedia statement. "Close but no cigar" comes to mind.

    However, you have yet to answer my last request: show me any examples where Yarrow has continued this behavior.
    I haven't said he has. That is not a reason to erase history.

    Sorry, I confused who I asked to prove if Yarrow continued to show the offensive behavior.

    But I think I can safely say the past has not been repeated and is no longer present. Fact is, assuming Yarrow was in fact a sex offender (he did plead guilty to that), his recidivism rate would have been between 14% if he received treatment (which he did) and 26% if he did not receive treatment, according to this article: https://www.sapiens.org/culture/can-child-sex-offenders-be-rehabilitated/ . Therefore, I do not think Yarrow has to wear a scarlet letter burned into his chest for the rest of his life. He was pardoned. Let the past be past.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    We and/or the USA don’t routinely pardon rehabilitated ex-offenders, sexual or of any other kind. If he gets a pardon because he didn’t reoffend, why not everyone else in the same situation ? Because pardoning is something *additional* to rehabilitation and reintegration with society.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Peter Yarrow's crime, according to the sourced quote on his wiki page, in addition to answering the door naked, he "made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse".

    Not taking sides in any particular debate, just clairifying that his crime went somewhat beyond "flashing".

    I will challenge the wiki article. I tried to follow through on the referencing links. One only said he answered the door naked--there is no mention of sexual advances. Another was behind a paywall so I could not get beyond it. The other links appear to have expired.

    Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune, written immediately after his guilty plea. In addition to answering the door naked, he also hugged and kissed the girl. Some dispute over who initiated it, but that doesn't really matter when she's below the legal age of consent.

    The linked article is not from the Chicago Tribune, but from The Awareness Center. It was also written in 2006--the incident was in 1969--and contains, at best, only a secondary report.
    The linked article contains images of contemporaneous newspaper reports. The wording in the one from the Chicago Tribune is very close to the wording in the wikipedia article.
    He did it, he admitted it, why would you challenge the wiki Article?

    And I did look at the photocopied articles. As you say, the Tribune copy comes "close" to the Wikipedia statement. "Close but no cigar" comes to mind.

    However, you have yet to answer my last request: show me any examples where Yarrow has continued this behavior.
    I haven't said he has. That is not a reason to erase history.

    Sorry, I confused who I asked to prove if Yarrow continued to show the offensive behavior.

    But I think I can safely say the past has not been repeated and is no longer present. Fact is, assuming Yarrow was in fact a sex offender (he did plead guilty to that), his recidivism rate would have been between 14% if he received treatment (which he did) and 26% if he did not receive treatment, according to this article: https://www.sapiens.org/culture/can-child-sex-offenders-be-rehabilitated/ . Therefore, I do not think Yarrow has to wear a scarlet letter burned into his chest for the rest of his life. He was pardoned. Let the past be past.
    On one hand, I understand that sentiment. On the other, we are only beginning to be in a place where we do not accept such behaviour. The history is part of the lesson being taught now.
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    Especially somebody Orange.

    They used to point and say 'Im orange, now they say 'Im peach.
  • Is Yarrow cousin to the Windsors? I've lost the thread.
  • Is Yarrow cousin to the Windsors? I've lost the thread.

    I think the thread's lost the plot.

  • ... as have some members of the royal family :naughty:
  • O quite. Couldn't agree more.

    Umm...what exactly was the plot? Something to do with Gunpowder, perchance?
  • I don't know.
    Ask Guy over there, the one with the funny hat with 7 other chaps around him
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Well, Fawkes and his mates (Catesby et al ) might have gone about things the wrong way, but I can't help feeling a little sympathy for them - those were desperate times, at least for some people.

    I'm not sure who first said this, but I rather tend to agree (sort of):

    'I prefer Anarchy, but only under a wise, and benevolent, Anarch.'
    :naughty:
  • Well, Fawkes and his mates (Catesby et al ) might have gone about things the wrong way, but I can't help feeling a little sympathy for them - those were desperate times, at least for some people.

    I'm not sure who first said this, but I rather tend to agree (sort of):

    'I prefer Anarchy, but only under a wise, and benevolent, Anarch.'
    :naughty:

    At the risk of taking this way too seriously, I was reading the other day something from a group of radicals saying that western charities were not helping a particular situation because they would not fund groups engaged in armed conflict.

    I was reflecting that the problem with supporting radicals and anarchists with an "all means necessary" mindset is how easily that can spin out of control. The flip side is that refusing to support those groups might well mean that the conflict never ends.
  • Well, yes. I was being a tad flippant, perhaps, but it's a good point, perhaps warranting its own thread?
  • The FBI have asked to interview Prince Andrew.
  • Mama, I guess, will NOT be Amused...
  • The FBI have asked to interview Prince Andrew.
    Perhaps we could swap him for Anne Sacoolas.
  • The BBC are reporting the FBI as saying he’s not being cooperative.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    edited January 2020
    The FBI have asked to interview Prince Andrew.
    Haven't they got enough muck in their own back-yard?

    Don't get me wrong - I think the Duke has done some very unwise things.
  • The BBC are reporting the FBI as saying he’s not being cooperative.

    But Meghan is the difficult one.
  • The FBI have asked to interview Prince Andrew.
    Perhaps we could swap him for Anne Sacoolas.

    What a good idea :naughty:
  • Piglet wrote: »
    The FBI have asked to interview Prince Andrew.
    Haven't they got enough muck in their own back-yard?

    Don't get me wrong - I think the Duke has done some very unwise things.
    He at least stepped in their muck. It is right that they wish to question him.
  • The FBI have asked to interview Prince Andrew.
    Perhaps we could swap him for Anne Sacoolas.

    What a good idea :naughty:

    Seems fair.
  • Yup. All that Andrew is suspected of is having sex with someone (a) over the age of consent, and (b) young enough to be his daughter. Vile - yes, but not a crime.

    Anne Sacoolas made statements in front of witnesses at an RTA acknowledging that she broke the law by driving on the wrong side of the road (a criminal offence), and that offence caused the death of an innocent young man.
  • Yup. All that Andrew is suspected of is having sex with someone (a) over the age of consent, and (b) young enough to be his daughter. Vile - yes, but not a crime.
    Being forced to have sex against your will is a gd crime. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/prince-andrew-alleged-sexual-assault-victim-seeks-uk-support-191203082657620.html

    The guy's a pig.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Yup. All that Andrew is suspected of is having sex with someone (a) over the age of consent, and (b) young enough to be his daughter. Vile - yes, but not a crime.

    Anne Sacoolas made statements in front of witnesses at an RTA acknowledging that she broke the law by driving on the wrong side of the road (a criminal offence), and that offence caused the death of an innocent young man.

    And (allegedly) failing to report sex trafficking, and (allegedly) failing to support or assist enquires into said sex trafficking and associated crimes by those he claims as friends.

    But in both cases, they are being requested to participate in the relevant bits of due process.
Sign In or Register to comment.