I respect the institution of constitutional monarchy, and in general think such institutions are more likely to succeed long-term than republics. I also think Elizabeth II was a model constitutional monarch, in that she understood her role and fulfilled it well. What remains of the House of Windsor is, in the words of the fictional Francis Urquhart, (largely) “talentless and discredited”, and it’s difficult not to see both Andrew and Harry as preeminent examples of this.
Yes, a lot of what you are saying is. Unwise and foolish but not a criminal offence. You do not know why he made an out-of-court settlement, and neither do I. People too often jump to the conclusion that a respondent is at fault if they agree to an out-of-court settlement. There are different reasons for doing this. Plus it was a civil action not a criminal trial. That is true and I can see; however, evidence is what matters and not what you think. You won't unless you adduce evidence rather than gossip and title tattle.
'Unwise' to be friends with a sex trafficker and pedophile - that's putting it mildly. LOL He made an out of court settlement because he knew even more damaging stuff would likely come out in court, when he was under oath. You don't hang around with pedophiles because they serve a nice meal or are stimulating company. The company he keeps says a lot about his own character. A civil trial is just as damning, it just requires less of a burden of proof, but it is still guilty or not guilty. He was afraid of the truth so chose to settle. Evidence is that out of his own mouth he stated he hung around with a pedophile. Was he gossiping about himself? And you won't convince me otherwise. People didn't believe Bill Cosby was guilty either, until there were so many women saying the same thing that had to accept it. I know times were different when Andrew was behaving badly, but it just shows what a total lack of character he had in the first place. If he hadn't been royal, he might have actually had to pay for his crimes. I don't believe it was a once off thing - it never is with these guys. You can believe what you want about him and so can I. We will go around and around and neither convince the other of anything.
No, you will not convince me because all your answers are the same. They are your opinion. That does not count as evidence. Even if he had gone to trial he could not have been found guilty because that is not the outcome of civil litigation. I said he was 'unwise' as opposed to meaning he was guilty. Just because you have known someone who was a paedophile does not make you one. That is guilt by association. Unless you come up with some facts I am not going to be convinced of anything. It is quite obvious to me that I am not going to convince you to deal in facts rather than forming opinions without them.
It would be wonderful indeed if Andrew associated with pedophiles in order to influence them toward righteousness and God's Kingdom, but.....
What you don't understand is that I am not trying to convince you. I am stating my opinion against yours because I disagree with you. You are stating yours and I am stating mine - neither of us is going to change our minds or be convinced the other is right. I get it. do you?
No, you don't; yes, I do. I'm not stating any opinions whereas you are. I'm looking for and am only interested in facts; something you appear to regard as superfluous.
I disagree. I think you are stating opinions, just as I am. You think you are stating facts. At least I know mine is opinion but you don't seem to understand that your opinions are not facts either. BTW the late Queen obviously felt there was some truth to the rumors because she took away some of Andrew's roles and made him a non-working royal. She knew that the rumors were more than just rumors and gossip, and that something had to be done to show that she disapproved of his actions. He settled the lawsuit because he knew that to open himself up to cross examination and investigations would be dangerous. First he denied even knowing Giuffre, then he settled. It doesn't take a genius to see that being friends with a sexual predator (and staying in his house) just doesn't give the appearance of innocence. And he knew he couldn't fake it - he was guilty of having sex with an underage girl - one who was sex trafficked by his friend. So he half admitted it with the settlement. To pretend he is innocent is simply not facing facts.
I’m not sure a refusal to condemn without the benefit of a trial is quite the same as pretension of innocence.
He had the opportunity to face his accuser in court but chose to settle instead. Although this might not make him guilty, it certainly doesn't scream innocence either. And if the Queen felt it was serious enough to remove him from the working family, then I think perhaps adding up 1+1 can equal 2. The very fact that he continued to stay in the same house with the convicted pedophile and sex trafficker says a lot about his choices and character. And he certainly is no Jesus to get off with the excuse that even Jesus ate with sinners. We are talking about knowingly staying in a house with a CONVICTED sex offender and seeing nothing wrong in it.
I am not. I do not. I have no evidence to state facts. The only thing I can state are a lack of evidence. You cannot adduce evidence for a negative. I am not pretending anything. Maybe Prince Andrew has committed a large number of criminal offences. However, I think the principle of being presumed innocent until proven guilty is an important one. I do not say he is innocent. I simply don't know. However, without convictions I'm not going to accuse him of guilt. Presumption of innocence is an important component of democracies. To do otherwise would have us behaving like countries such as China. I think we should also give the presumption of of Christian charity We do not know why he settled his lawsuit out of court and we do not know the exact reason why the Queen deprived him of his patronages and military roles. No one is going to be rushing to tell us, either. I am not saying he's the brightest button in the jar. He's far from it. He's made a lot of bad choices. Is he a paedophile? We just do not know.
And we never will know until he tells us, because he settled instead of defending himself, so we can only make an educated guess. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then sometimes it's ok to make an assumption. I understand that you don't care to do that. I choose to make judgment calls about some things that seem fairly obvious. Not all countries presume innocence and in fact, most don't. From Quora: "All countries use inquisitorial procedure to some extent. Generally, it is used for preliminary hearings such as grand juries, and trials for minor offenses such as traffic tickets, whereas trials for serious crimes and torts use adversarial procedure. Two uses of inquisitional procedure for serious crime are plea bargain and trial by media. The US Constitution does not explicitly mention presumption of innocence. It is thought to follow from the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the Supreme Court decision in Coffin v. United States. Conviction rate is a good indication of whether suspects are getting fair trials. Conviction rates average 60-80% in US state courts, where trials are generally fair. China's and Japan's 99% conviction rates tell us trials in those countries are unfair. US Federal trials also have a 99% conviction rate, but the even more astounding statistic is that only 3% of cases go to trial. Fully 97% are settled by inquisitorial plea bargain. Thus, the evidence says China, Japan, and the US Federal system treat suspects as guilty until proven innocent, regardless of their stated rules of procedure." I am not saying that we should presume always presume guilt, but I do believe that we can make some judgments based on a preponderance of evidence, rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is why civil cases are easier to win than criminal ones. This is one of those topics that is always going to be an 'agree to disagree' type of thing, just like women's ordination. Back and forth and round in circles and simply no meeting of the minds. But I will continue to state my opinions, just as you do (whether you see them as opinions or not). PS - If anyone actually believes that Andrew is innocent of all charges in this matter, then I have some swampland in Florida I would like to sell you.
PS - If anyone actually believes that Andrew is innocent of all charges in this matter, then I have some swampland in Florida I would like to sell you. [/QUOTE] I am not weighing on on the Andrew thing but swampland in Florida can be valuable depending on what you are using it for. But yes I know it was a scam at one point in time. I would love to have some Florida swamp land to hunt and protect wild life on.
Thanks for your opinion and I can't help it if you can't see the difference. You obviously want to keep arguing black is white. Please feel free to carry on but don't expect me to entertain any more of it.
LOL - so I am arguing and you are not? I have opinions and you do not? Hmmm... interesting perspective.