Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

Carl Steele said:
The duke won't be convicted of anything, there's the little matter of social class here. Epstein was a schoolteacher who made a lot of money. He was dispensable, and dispensed with. Putting away a member of the royal family is a whole different ball game. If the duke can't get away with raping teenagers, then who can? What's the world coming to?
Click to expand...
He killed himself cos he couldn’t face time. He wasn’t ‘dispensed’ with - that’s just conspirojizz nonsense
 
TopCat said:
A detailed but lame excuse. Any journo knew post guilty they were not accusers.
Click to expand...
If you re-read what I said, you'll note I didn't actually disagree that post guilty verdict the accusers effectively became victims/survivors, so you seem to be putting words in my mouth and disagreeing with something I haven't said, a position I haven't taken.

And what I said wasn't an excuse, it was an explanation as to how in the midst of a breaking and developing news story in a busy newsroom and control room and gallery a word might slip through the net, a death toll might not be updated, earlier versions of scripts get used, etc.

It was unfortunate that it wasn't updated sooner, of course, but from your rudeness and hostility to me over the issue of what seems to have been a belated amendment and/or human error on the BBC's part, which was corrected, am I to assume you're 100 per cent perfect and you never, ever make a typo at work? Never badly word something? Never forget to update something? Never accidentally overlook something? Never make a mistake?
 
Carl Steele said:
The prosecution and defence. I followed this on the Trueanon podcast which gave daily reports from the courtroom. The conclusion they came to was that the focus was deliberately kept as narrow as possible to avoid naming names. They sum this up in the day 18 podcast, the day of the verdict.
Click to expand...
I'm not listening to anything that is described as being created by unlicensed private detectives. Surely, that just means they're armchair detectives.

Also describing it as a 'non-pedophile investigation of Epstein' is inherent bias and no true investigation should start with such bias.

So, yeah, check your source.
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
If you re-read what I said, you'll note I didn't actually disagree that post guilty verdict the accusers effectively became victims/survivors, so you seem to be putting words in my mouth and disagreeing with something I haven't said, a position I haven't taken.

And what I said wasn't an excuse, it was an explanation as to how in the midst of a breaking and developing news story in a busy newsroom and control room and gallery a word might slip through the net, a death toll might not be updated, earlier versions of scripts get used, etc.

It was unfortunate that it wasn't updated sooner, of course, but from your rudeness and hostility to me over the issue of what seems to have been a belated amendment and/or human error on the BBC's part, which was corrected, am I to assume you're 100 per cent perfect and you never, ever make a typo at work? Never badly word something? Never forget to update something? Never accidentally overlook something? Never make a mistake?
Click to expand...
There's typos and then there's making a typo that looks like the BBC is cementing it's establishment position and funding stream.
 
SpookyFrank said:
Someone had editorial responsibility for that broadcast and that someone should be in the dole queue by now. Getting a known associate of Epstein on to smear his victims right after that verdict? If that's not deliberate apologism for nonces then it's a fuck up of such magnitude that someone needs to realise that they're in the wrong profession and they should get a job more in line with their abilities; like sitting quietly in a corner and trying not to soil themselves.
Click to expand...
It seems like you're arguing with me as if I defended what they did?!?!?

I simply responded to your previous post:

"BBC looking into how the Dershowitz interview happened. Real head scratcher that one."

I hazarded a guess how it happened. I didn't agree with or defend what happened, I ventured a guess as to how it happened.

Nowhere did I defend the decision to book him as a guest. I also think it was an appalling misjudgement, terrible editorial judgement.

Booking him as a guest was indefensible and nowhere did I approve or agree or defend the decision to do so.

Whoever did have overall editorial responsibility for that programme needs reprimanding at the very least.
 
equationgirl said:
There's typos and then there's making a typo that looks like the BBC is cementing it's establishment position and funding stream.
Click to expand...

This is why I never buy the 'honest mistake' angle. The BBC's mistakes have a distinct directionality to them. They've never slipped and edited footage to make Johnson seem more drunk, for example.
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
It seems like you're arguing with me as if I defended what they did?!?!?

I simply responded to your previous post:

"BBC looking into how the Dershowitz interview happened. Real head scratcher that one."

I hazarded a guess how it happened. I didn't agree with or defend what happened, I ventured a guess as to how it happened.

Nowhere did I defend the decision to book him as a guest. I also think it was an appalling misjudgement, terrible editorial judgement.

Booking him as a guest was indefensible and nowhere did I approve or agree or defend the decision to do so.

Whoever did have overall editorial responsibility for that programme needs reprimanding at the very least.
Click to expand...

Wasn't having a go at you at all, apologies.

Your scenario is entriely plausible and seems to be based on more knowledge of the trade than I have. But like you say, someone would have had ultimate responsibility for the content of that broadcast.
 
Confidentiality agreements notwithstanding it must surely be inconceivable that Andrew's lawyers could settle this case?Someone upthread (can't find it now) said something about if the numbers were right....It boggles the mind to think what the right numbers could be.
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
When you are prosecuting/defending person A, why would you concern yourself with defending person B, as you claimed?
Click to expand...

I didn't claim this. Some of the witnesses in the trial were very close to Epstein and could easily have named others who were involved with him, but oddly no names came up. There were detailed descriptions of some Epstein's properties but no description of the people who visited them.
 
Duncan2 said:
Confidentiality agreements notwithstanding it must surely be inconceivable that Andrew's lawyers could settle this case?Someone upthread (can't find it now) said something about if the numbers were right....It boggles the mind to think what the right numbers could be.
Click to expand...
Presume it's the same as in the UK but if you bring a case and lose you'll be liable for other person's costs which can be 10s of thousands with lawyers as they do who run up costs.
 
On the nonce being called out about not sweating and the pizza express alibi: I remember seeing this in the interview and thinking that whilst both seemed 'unlikely', they must be things he could get someone to back up or else he wouldn't have said them. There were rumours that 'the palace' and maybe some of his own advisers had warned against the interview. Even with that in mind it just seemed common sense that he wouldn't have put those 2 definite claims and pieces of evidence forward if they were going to crumble when challenged. You'd have thought he'd at least have a bent doctor and royal protection officers lined up to back his nonsense (nonce sense, naturally).

Did we ever get the final word on his interview preparation? Were the pizza express and non-sweat lies ever 'signed off' by a lawyer or one of his team? If not, the startling conclusion is that he was flying solo and, with all those professional liars available, he just decided to fashion his own lies? :confused: Well, that went well..
 
Carl Steele said:
Thanks, I'll be sure to get on to that right away.
Click to expand...
You've clearly not been on urban very long, but on this website you are expected to apply some critical thinking and yourself if a source you propose is a truly independent piece of research or merely the ramblings of the biased.

This site does not tolerate shit sources or batshittery on any subject. You have been warned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
British Empire and Slave Trade Reparations
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
155
Views
6K
shambler
shambler
tony.c
Major suspect named in Stephen Lawrence murder by BBC
Replies
23
Views
2K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
Elpenor
Prince William’s many good deeds
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
176
Views
10K
Petcha
P
BristolEcho
Modern Slavery at TN Trawlers
Replies
5
Views
588
CNT36
C
friedaweed
Gwynedd council calls for abolition of title Prince of Wales
Replies
2
Views
412
Serene
Serene
Back
Top Bottom