Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Tanya1982 said:
Has anyone ever ‘frolicked’? Like ‘romping’ and ‘stepping out’ with a ‘new beau’, frolicking seems to be something that only happens in tabloids. It’s odd to see it here applied to real life - albeit real life with Halloween style cut out face masks.
Click to expand...
There was once a thread about verbs that only apply in newspapers. I’ve no doubt pogo could find it.
 
Rob Ray said:
It doesn't help his case, but this is the Daily Telegraph, which has been team Andrew for ages because the Barclay brothers are proper swivel-eyed loon royalists. It's 100% intended to try and rehabilitate him.

The only other alternative would be that the rest of the family leaned on the Telegraph to deliberately embarrass itself with a bait splash to de-rail Andrew's efforts to rehabilitate himself, which'd be fun, but not terribly plausible.
Click to expand...
I just think they published it for reposts, clicks and sales, rather than either of those options
 
rutabowa said:
do you think the article was seriously intended to benefit his case then? I just cant see it.
Click to expand...
I've read the Telegraph articles (there are two of them). The messages I think they contain are
  • Guiffre may be an unreliable witness
  • The Maxwell family staged a clearly nuts photo (I don't believe the editorial team would be stupid enough not to understand exactly how the photo would come across to most people)
The article as a whole doesn't hinder Prince Andrew's case, because the nuts photo is not presented by him.
Worth noting that the details presented about the bath aren't just about how many people can fit in it, but contradict some of what Guiffre apparently said.
 
rutabowa said:
I just think they published it for reposts, clicks and sales, rather than either of those options
Click to expand...
Lots of media trolls for clicks, but in the broadsheets it's usually constrained to the comments section because that offers plausible deniability (it's just the columnist's opinion maaan) or buried way down (it's just filler, don't take it so seriously). Doing it as the lead article of your news section though is damaging to the "newspaper of record" brand.

The article as a whole doesn't hinder Prince Andrew's case, because the nuts photo is not presented by him.
Click to expand...
It does hinder his case, not because he said it but because "Prince Andrew's incapable of sex in a normal-sized bath" is so bizarre it becomes memorable. Cameron didn't comment on the pig-fucker story until years after it sank him, but everyone remembers it.
 
Last edited:
teuchter said:
...Worth noting that the details presented about the bath aren't just about how many people can fit in it, but contradict some of what Guiffre apparently said.
Click to expand...

The bit about how many people can fit in the bath is all that most people will bother with though, or remember in even a few days time.
 
I think the article does have nuance and guiffre whilst also sort of poking at Andrew.

But I think vast majority of that will be lost as it has already entered realm of I can't sweat
 
Rob Ray said:
Lots of media trolls for clicks, but in the broadsheets it's usually constrained to the comments section because that offers plausible deniability (it's just the columnist's opinion maaan) or buried way down (it's just filler, don't take it so seriously). Doing it as the lead article of your news section though is damaging to the "newspaper of record" brand.


It does hinder his case, not because he said it but because "Prince Andrew's incapable of sex in a normal-sized bath" is so bizarre it becomes memorable. Cameron didn't comment on the pig-fucker story until years after it sank him, but everyone remembers it.
Click to expand...
anyone who thinks the telegraph is a "newspaper of record" isnt going to change their mind cos of this...
 
andysays said:
The bit about how many people can fit in the bath is all that most people will bother with though, or remember in even a few days time.
Click to expand...
What people pay attention to will be largely determined by what they already think.

From Prince Andrew's point of view, if he wants to salvage his image, then who does he want to salvage it with?

There are lots of people who have already decided he's guilty of the worst, based on various things including his reputation, and his completely bizzare interview performance, but not on any conclusive evidence. There's not really anything that would change their minds.

But there must also be a fair few people (unlikely to be represented in any number on u75 but quite likely to be Telegraph readers) who would agree everything looks very weird, but don't think wrongdoing has been proven. They will have their own explanations for the bizarre interview, they may think he is simply naive or is trapped in a strange bubble where his view of "normal" has become distorted. They will probably accept the idea that he settled in order to avoid distraction and trouble during the jubilee - that's not an implausible explanation if you are starting out with some sort of sympathy for him. They will read this article, they will probably think the photo is bizarre, but it's something produced by the Maxwells not Prince Andrew. They will pick up on the suggestions of inconsistency in Guiffre's story, they will note the other thing mentioned in the article, that she has dropped her accusations against someone else and decided that she mistook his identity.

The bath photo is unquestionably bizzare - I'm pretty sure the Telegraph editors will know this - and they will know that it will attract a lot of attention to the story attached to it, which contains some information that might not be unhelpful to Prince Andrew in the eyes of those already willing to give him some benefit of the doubt.
 
To be fair to the Telegraph, it would have been quite difficult coming up with a snappy headline for this. I'd have gone with:

'Son of mass fraudster and industrial scale pension fund thief, who himself was charged with conspiracy to defraud millions, poses picture of a bath big enough to accommodate a threesome between Giant Haystacks, the BFG and Peter Crouch to show that a royal nonce couldn't have raped a much smaller woman, in the house where he is photographed with his arm round her waist, to help his sister who was convicted of trafficking girls for her paedophile lover, because undermining the victim's case on this might help said sister's case and, as a by-product, help the royal rapist get his job back, plus the millions he knowingly gave away, despite saying he'd never met her, because his mam was having a cheese and wine do'​

 
teuchter said:
What people pay attention to will be largely determined by what they already think.

From Prince Andrew's point of view, if he wants to salvage his image, then who does he want to salvage it with?

There are lots of people who have already decided he's guilty of the worst, based on various things including his reputation, and his completely bizzare interview performance, but not on any conclusive evidence. There's not really anything that would change their minds.

But there must also be a fair few people (unlikely to be represented in any number on u75 but quite likely to be Telegraph readers) who would agree everything looks very weird, but don't think wrongdoing has been proven. They will have their own explanations for the bizarre interview, they may think he is simply naive or is trapped in a strange bubble where his view of "normal" has become distorted. They will probably accept the idea that he settled in order to avoid distraction and trouble during the jubilee - that's not an implausible explanation if you are starting out with some sort of sympathy for him. They will read this article, they will probably think the photo is bizarre, but it's something produced by the Maxwells not Prince Andrew. They will pick up on the suggestions of inconsistency in Guiffre's story, they will note the other thing mentioned in the article, that she has dropped her accusations against someone else and decided that she mistook his identity.

The bath photo is unquestionably bizzare - I'm pretty sure the Telegraph editors will know this - and they will know that it will attract a lot of attention to the story attached to it, which contains some information that might not be unhelpful to Prince Andrew in the eyes of those already willing to give him some benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
The irony is, whatever doubts the Maxwell/Royal Nonce team are able to create, the biggest barrier to him getting his (mum's... our...) money back, is the fact that he paid it in the first place.
 
Wilf said:
The irony is, whatever doubts the Maxwell/Royal Nonce team are able to create, the biggest barrier to him getting his (mum's... our...) money back, is the fact that he paid it in the first place.
Click to expand...
I doubt the money itself is his main concern.

And there is a plausible reason for why he paid up, other than that he knows the case against him could be proven.
 
teuchter said:
I doubt the money itself is his main concern.

And there is a plausible reason for why he paid up, other than that he knows the case against him could be proven.
Click to expand...
Not saying it is, people like him will always find ways to get more of our millions.

He can argue that there was a reason he paid up, but the fact that he did do is bound to be a major issue when it comes to seeking any kind of 'redress'. Also, his repeated refusals to meet the American investigators. If you're main objective is clearing your name as both an individual and the member of an institution, the reasonable person might think you would fight the case directly and publicly after it became clear it really was going to court. Those 'common sense' ideas are bound to be in the mix as soon as he tries to get any court/authority to look at his case again.
 
teuchter said:
What people pay attention to will be largely determined by what they already think.

From Prince Andrew's point of view, if he wants to salvage his image, then who does he want to salvage it with?

There are lots of people who have already decided he's guilty of the worst, based on various things including his reputation, and his completely bizzare interview performance, but not on any conclusive evidence. There's not really anything that would change their minds.

But there must also be a fair few people (unlikely to be represented in any number on u75 but quite likely to be Telegraph readers) who would agree everything looks very weird, but don't think wrongdoing has been proven. They will have their own explanations for the bizarre interview, they may think he is simply naive or is trapped in a strange bubble where his view of "normal" has become distorted. They will probably accept the idea that he settled in order to avoid distraction and trouble during the jubilee - that's not an implausible explanation if you are starting out with some sort of sympathy for him. They will read this article, they will probably think the photo is bizarre, but it's something produced by the Maxwells not Prince Andrew. They will pick up on the suggestions of inconsistency in Guiffre's story, they will note the other thing mentioned in the article, that she has dropped her accusations against someone else and decided that she mistook his identity.

The bath photo is unquestionably bizzare - I'm pretty sure the Telegraph editors will know this - and they will know that it will attract a lot of attention to the story attached to it, which contains some information that might not be unhelpful to Prince Andrew in the eyes of those already willing to give him some benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what we're clearly seeing here is Urban75's lack of empathy for ordinary people who think Prince Andrew isn't a nonce. :(
 
Urban’s favourite news source will tomorrow deliver irrefutable proof that the picture of the sweatless nonce is genuine.
 
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
592
CNT36
C
friedaweed
Gwynedd council calls for abolition of title Prince of Wales
Replies
2
Views
415
Serene
Serene
Back
Top Bottom