Prince Andrew spent £16k of taxpayers' money on a private flight to watch golf

[Streetwalker]

same here cromwell. Im a scottish republican , but i think steves blind hatred at times ( of certain groups and individuals) shows him up to be one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum over issues like this.

Talk about exaggerated rhetoric. There are very few people even in my personal life that I have "blind hatred" for. And that includes the royals.

As for hypocrite, you are being one right now. How many time have you and others slagged off Corbyn for being a supposed terrorist sympathiser and/or anti-semite? Where is his innocence until proven guilty?

Fact is his alleged "guilt" on that score is no more than a personal opinion based upon the evidence as you see it. Just like my suspicion that Andrew has at least once had sex with an under aged girl procured for him by a friend convicted of such things.

You cannot play the "innocent until proven guilty" card only when it suits you. Not without being a hypocrite yourself in any case.

I would point out that Jimmy Saville was never convicted of anything in a court of law. Does that mean we should in perpetuity regard him as innocent too? There is such a thing as using common sense judgement upon the evidence before us, FFS. Which is also ultimately why a trial under the law to test all the evidence is in the best interests of truth. But the guilty are likely to go running scared from that.

I would point out that Saville was never convicted of anything because the CPS at the time decided there was no case to answer . The head of the CPS at the time one Sir Kier Starmer .

Anyway moving swiftly on what evidence have you seen that brings you to the conclusion that HRH Andrew had underage sex ? 

[srb7677]

When andrew gets found guilty in a court of law , come back and bleat then , not before.

If you think they'll ever let him be put on trial - whatever the evidence - you are deluded.

[srb7677]

Bullshit via wilfull misrepresentation which is typical of you. I have called you out on such things many times before.

What we on the left want is not to string people up because someone somewhere thinks they are guilty of something. We want evidence tested in a court of law via a fair trial, without fear nor favour due to position in society. Without that, forming suspicions based upon what the evidence appears to be telling us is legitimate common sense.

You havent called me out on anything. All i seem to remember is no stop crying from you over many subjects.

Many of us on here recall the once moderate person you used to be before you came into the clutches of the hard left momentum cult.

You are a one man walking advert for the disaster that is the labour party under jeremy corbyn srb. If i had my way , i would parade you on every single political forum and blog in the uk.

You still can't see why the public gave you and your party the biggest kicking you have ever had in the best part of the last century at the GE in december. The uk certainly diodged a bullet , and its no wonder starmer is trying but failing to distance himself from the far left corbyn cult in labour.

Actually my politics have not changed and I am just as capable of debating reasonably with people willing to do so. I am no less moderate than I ever was. Most of the policies in our 2017 manifesto are ones I myself have advocated for decades, and which were advocated by moderate me. The Labour party for a time moved towards me, not the other way around. So how come that - with the same views - I was moderate before but hard left now?

You are talking absolute pish as usual, to coin a phrase.

[Thomas]

Bullshit via wilfull misrepresentation which is typical of you. I have called you out on such things many times before.

What we on the left want is not to string people up because someone somewhere thinks they are guilty of something. We want evidence tested in a court of law via a fair trial, without fear nor favour due to position in society. Without that, forming suspicions based upon what the evidence appears to be telling us is legitimate common sense.

You havent called me out on anything. All i seem to remember is no stop crying from you over many subjects.

Many of us on here recall the once moderate person you used to be before you came into the clutches of the hard left momentum cult.

You are a one man walking advert for the disaster that is the labour party under jeremy corbyn srb. If i had my way , i would parade you on every single political forum and blog in the uk.

You still cant see why the public gave you and your party the biggest kicking you have ever had in the best part of the last century at the GE in december. The uk certainly diodged a bullet , and its no wonder starmer is trying but failing to distance himself from the far left corbyn cult in labour.

[Thomas]

As for hypocrite, you are being one right now. How many time have you and others slagged off Corbyn for being a supposed terrorist sympathiser and/or anti-semite? Where is his innocence until proven guilty?

.

i didnt call corbyn an anti semite , i proved with evidence and links your party had become rife with antisemticsm while he was in charge and the calim was he did little about it.

Keir starmer made that same insinuation.

Your hypocrisy is you slur everyone  with tags of racism , prejudice paedophiles etc with little to no evidence except "what you think".( but remain wilfully blind to prjudice in your own party)

When andrew gets found guilty in a court of law , come back and bleat then , not before.

[srb7677]

Yep this is the world the hard left in labour want to take us towards...where the mere thought of guilt is enough for the brothers and sisters to string someone up.

To actually decry this as resonable shows indeed the extremist element in srbs thinking.

Bullshit via wilfull misrepresentation which is typical of you. I have called you out on such things many times before.

What we on the left want is not to string people up because someone somewhere thinks they are guilty of something. We want evidence tested in a court of law via a fair trial, without fear nor favour due to position in society. Without that, forming suspicions based upon what the evidence appears to be telling us is legitimate common sense.

[srb7677]

same here cromwell. Im a scottish republican , but i think steves blind hatred at times ( of certain groups and individuals) shows him up to be one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum over issues like this.

Talk about exaggerated rhetoric. There are very few people even in my personal life that I have "blind hatred" for. And that includes the royals.

As for hypocrite, you are being one right now. How many time have you and others slagged off Corbyn for being a supposed terrorist sympathiser and/or anti-semite? Where is his innocence until proven guilty?

Fact is his alleged "guilt" on that score is no more than a personal opinion based upon the evidence as you see it. Just like my suspicion that Andrew has at least once had sex with an under aged girl procured for him by a friend convicted of such things.

You cannot play the "innocent until proven guilty" card only when it suits you. Not without being a hypocrite yourself in any case.

I would point out that Jimmy Saville was never convicted of anything in a court of law. Does that mean we should in perpetuity regard him as innocent too? There is such a thing as using common sense judgement upon the evidence before us, FFS. Which is also ultimately why a trial under the law to test all the evidence is in the best interests of truth. But the guilty are likely to go running scared from that.

[Thomas]

No it isn't reasonable it's a thought in your head.

Yep this is the world the hard left in labour want to take us towards...where the mere thought of guilt is enough for the brothers and sisters to string someone up.

To actually decry this as resonable shows indeed the extremist element in srbs thinking.

[Thomas]

Well let's just say that it is my personal opinion that the evidence seems to suggest that Andrew is guilty in at least one instance of having sex with an under age girl procured for the purpose. Until or unless I see evidence that refutes that, this inevitably remains my suspicion. It is reasonable grounds.

Your personal opinion is meaningless , just like your personal opinion the uk was full of racists was meaningless.

I dont like andrew and im not a royalist , but to scream someone  is guilty without them being found guilty merely on your personal opinion does your argument no favours whatsoever.

[cromwell]

Thank you for confirming that he wasnt convicted of being a pedo .

He is not a convicted paedo because he has exploited his position to avoid answering any charges. But there are lots of paedos out there who are not yet convicted. They are still paedo's. Andrew has not been exonerated in any court of law, and the evidence against him is substantial.

Haven't much time for the Royals,always thought Andrew an entitled T@@@ but SW is right.......you need to look up the definition and how many times in the past have you railed against people being found guilty without trial as Borchester has pointed out what is inconvenient for you.

Well let's just say that it is my personal opinion that the evidence seems to suggest that Andrew is guilty in at least one instance of having sex with an under age girl procured for the purpose. Until or unless I see evidence that refutes that, this inevitably remains my suspicion. It is reasonable grounds.

No it isn't reasonable it's a thought in your head.

[srb7677]

Thank you for confirming that he wasnt convicted of being a pedo .

He is not a convicted paedo because he has exploited his position to avoid answering any charges. But there are lots of paedos out there who are not yet convicted. They are still paedo's. Andrew has not been exonerated in any court of law, and the evidence against him is substantial.

Haven't much time for the Royals,always thought Andrew an entitled T@@@ but SW is right.......you need to look up the definition and how many times in the past have you railed against people being found guilty without trial as Borchester has pointed out what is inconvenient for you.

Well let's just say that it is my personal opinion that the evidence seems to suggest that Andrew is guilty in at least one instance of having sex with an under age girl procured for the purpose. Until or unless I see evidence that refutes that, this inevitably remains my suspicion. It is reasonable grounds.

[srb7677]

He is not a convicted paedo because he has exploited his position to avoid answering any charges. But there are lots of paedos out there who are not yet convicted. They are still paedo's. Andrew has not been exonerated in any court of law, and the evidence against him is substantial.

He was convicted and jailed back it 2008 for procuring under age girls for sex.  Frankly you are on a hair splitting exercise.

I was talking about Andrew, not Epstein. I know Epstein was convicted.

[Thomas]

=cromwell link=topic=1897.msg39745#msg39745 date=1601032260]

Haven't much time for the Royals,always thought Andrew an entitled T@@@ but SW is right.......you need to look up the definition and how many times in the past have you railed against people being found guilty without trial as Borchester has pointed out what is inconvenient for you.

same here cromwell. Im a scottish republican , but i think steves blind hatred at times ( of certain groups and individuals) shows him up to be one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum over issues like this.

[Thomas]

=Borchester link=topic=1897.msg39742#msg39742 date=1601031493]


You don't have to be exonerated in acourt of law Stevie. Unhappily for the brothers and sisters, the old tag, innocent until proven guilty still applies.

You beat me to it borkie.

Steve seems to have great difficulty in grasping this basic western democratic point of law.

[cromwell]

Thank you for confirming that he wasnt convicted of being a pedo .

He is not a convicted paedo because he has exploited his position to avoid answering any charges. But there are lots of paedos out there who are not yet convicted. They are still paedo's. Andrew has not been exonerated in any court of law, and the evidence against him is substantial.

Haven't much time for the Royals,always thought Andrew an entitled T@@@ but SW is right.......you need to look up the definition and how many times in the past have you railed against people being found guilty without trial as Borchester has pointed out what is inconvenient for you.