I'm not twisting anything, but once again you have failed to take my words and use them in the right context.

I don't want to be a judge, but I'd say the same to you as well.

Do you not have much experience with people? I can often tell when someone is lying to me, if I had a son who was accused of rape, and I couldn't believe him to be innocent, then I would turn my back on him. I don't forgive or tolerate rape. I couldn't love someone who would do that to another person, nevermind a child.

Jet why do you ignore the fact Andrew was best pals with a notorious rapist, guilty or innocent the person doesn't have a leg to stand on . Be honest now .

Still doesn't prove conclusive guilt. If you know of evidence and other suspicious encounters, report it to the USA police. They will act on it.

I believe his victim, I stand with her.

He stayed in contact with him ,a normal person would of cut ties immediately. But as the saying goes predators usually flock together .

Me too

I didn't ignore it, I have actually stated it. Read back.....
But there is still no actual evidence he had sex with the girl - he said he didn't, she said he did. I have no idea which statement is true, and neither do you.
Is it likely, maybe. But still no actual evidence. Twist it all you like, but those are the facts.

But maybe the Queen does believe him to be innocent, so why should she turn her back on him - because you say so?

Well I think even if the Queen thinks he's guilty she'd still protect him.

Of course she would, it's no secret a good public image comes before any basic morals with this family.

You can't tell me you saw the interview, with the man lying out of his backside, and believed him?

For all of those saying he hasn’t been found guilty of anything then why is he not cooperating with the investigation?

Thats it though they are, allegations same with the MJ thing really, he was found not guilty but is still guilty in some peoples view, If Andrew is found not guilty it won't matter as he is already guilty to some ,and it will never change, I made the MJ connection as I know you defended him as I did,but we were about the only two.

And the garbage about not being able to sweat , it was a cringefest seeing him bumble his way through excuse after excuse.

...I guess that Amy’s point as well...(...so far as I see it...)...is that Meghan has had accusations of bullying laid and there is at yet no proof../...there is still an investigation to take place...(...and hopefully an independent investigation...)...and yet it’s assumed that ‘there must be some truth..’...and she is a bully etc...but when Andrew is known to have visited and has admitted that he did visit Epstein at his home after Epstein had already been convicted in a court of soliciting a minor for prostitution, so maintaining a relationship/friendship with a convicted sex offender...that same ‘there must be truth in it...’...vibe etc..is quite contrasting...

...I would think that his parents/family etc would know and be able to clarify that he had a period of not being able to perspire at that time...that’s quite an unusual thing that those close to him would know...

Kaz this is literally nothing like MJ :facepalm: .

There's was countless evidence of extortion plans against MJ , plus he was investigated for a long time and the media were NEVER KIND to him. So we both know if he was guilty he would of been locked up . As they were out to get him so to speak.

But Andrew was best friends with a rapist ! . So as I've said already guilty or not that still doesn't look good on his part . And the comparisons of Meghan & Andrew is warped beyond belief .

I get that , and I am not defending Andrew in anyway but he has to be found guilty or not by a court of law and hopefully that will come, as for Megan and Harry,tbh I couldn't give a toss but I dont think they will come out of all this too well and certainly will not get the privacy they so yearn for I can see the press never being kind to them again. Plus can you be found guilt of being besties with a rapist :shrug: surely they will have to prove more than that. For me Andrew and Megan and Harry are two totally different issues, I dont get the versus thing.

I have always used the term 'alleged bullying' with Meghan though, just as Andrew is 'alleged' also. Whereas some are saying Meghan is NOT a bully, it is lies, but stating Andrew is guilty as a fact.
Also, accusations of bullying are not in the same league as having sex with a minor, which is a serious crime. Really, Ammi, come on.

see this is where David Ike comes in. He maintains that the royal family are actually lizards pretending to be humans. Clearly if they are lizards, they won't want that information confirmed or denied . If they confirm Andrew doesn't sweat, they are all lizards, if they confirm he does sweat, then that confirms he has lied :laugh:

...I have no idea why you feel that you always have to be so condescending and passive aggressive...it’s not a good look at all, Jet...

I agree with that Ammi all through.

Sadly I believe the investigation into Meghan's alleged bullying, is not going to be independent.
It will be an, internal Palace HR one.
Which is in effect, the Palace investigating itself, which I don't approve of.
I hate all internal investigations unless they allow them to be independent, public or via police investigation.

All it appears is at present re Prince Andrew, is the USA investigators only at this stage want to talk to him, to learn what he knew or anything that could help them.

Why he, and indeed the Queen see a problem with that, to then not permit it taking place and further to hide him away from all media and never talking to anyone about it.
Looks rather unsavoury, to me anyway.

...I do personally think that the royal ‘firm’ holds some very deep and unsavoury secrets...which is why also, it would feel ironic that Meghan has always been perceived to be the ‘one to watch’..as it were..:laugh:..

I find it very weird aswell Joey , I guess we'll have to see what happens if anything will ever come of it .

No more than many others Ammi which you don't comment on... :shrug:

Seeing you have gotten personal and are taking my post as personal against you when I would have said the same in answer to what you said to anyone...maybe don't be so ultra sensitive.
If 'really Ammi, come on' upsets you that much maybe you need to grow a thicker skin.

No I’m not...sorry because I didn’t have time to finish that post the way I would have liked. I don’t know whether you have children or not. Sometimes it’s easy to say that if you don’t have children. If you do...then I respect your honesty. I too would drag my child down to a police station...it would ruin my life if a child of mine were guilty of an abhorrent crime...but personally I would never disown them.

The truth is, Andrew will never face consequences, he will never see the inside of a police station. It took Saville's death for everything to come out about him, and he was just a skeevy 70s/80s celeb, Andrew is a Royal and basically untouchable.

because people are ****ing gross lol

absolutely insane how andrew being affiliated (at best) with nonces has been swept under the carpet in favour of a woman who wasn’t given a chance from the very beginning (for no good reason either)

I think sadly you are right all through on that.
Even only to talk to the investigation team.

No one's even indicating arrest of him.
It's just an information seeking exercise in relation to him as to what he may have known and when.

So where's the harm, in going and proving he knows nothing and can't assist them further.

That should be the biggest question, why won't he even do just that!!!

Totally untrue. The investigation is ongoing and we still have to hear the evidence of that Griselle (or whatever her name is) woman. She may implicate Andrew and have evidence against him - we'll just have to wait and see.

His age is relevant to the point that a 90+ year old woman is hardly going to grab her 61 year old son by the scruff of the neck and drag him kicking and screaming in a car and take him to a police station...
The U.S say they have asked him to cooperate but it’s been denied by the Palace...he could I guess be sopaenad and if he does then we will be sure to know about it.

Money and favours will be exchanged, and it will be buried, it always is. It's how the upper class functions.

...my skin is the perfect thickness, Jet...your passive aggressiveness is not so perfect, though...as you can imagine if it were being aimed at you...I’d appreciate it if you don’t direct it to me at all, when it isn’t necessary or justified...

I agree.

Plus can anyone rational possibly really see if the USA demands his presence there.

The Queen and the government via the Home office and courts would have to agree to that.

Does anyone rational likely see any possibility of that happening.
Not a chance of it I'd say to that.

there will have to be some very serious allegation made against Andrew before he would face any criminal charges and even then i think they would claim diplomatic immunity as he was working for the government for much of the time in question. To sum up, Andrew knows he is unlikely to face any consequences so he won't cooperate with the investigation

...I would say that he was told to step back fro. Royal duties ...(...I don’t know actually if his mother asked him to or whether he made that decision himself...)...and keep a low profile ...it’s been said that he’s refused to answer questions and for a regular person, it would be a long process to extradite them to the USA...but for a a member of the royal family, I have no idea how long it would take, if it was possible at all...

Puts him on par with the American ‘Diplomats wife who used Diplomatic immunity after killing that young boy....it’s all wrong.

...I don’t know the legality but it was said at the time that he was strongly advised not to do the interview because in doing it, it would mean that he would no longer have his right to diplomatic immunity...

Can someone care to answer this please.

It often is by many, I don't complain every time though.
Can you explain to me what is passive aggressive about saying 'Come on Ammi'?
It was a reaction to how I felt about your words. Now I feel I need to tread carefully around you and react to you differently than to everyone else. Fine, If that's what you need.