blonde poker forum

We live in an increasingly mad World.

L am no particular fan of the Royal Family. I have never met Andrew. Various friends of mine have, and were generally pretty unimpressed.

But this pile-on is ridiculous. What exactly is he supposed to have done wrong? Entitled rich middle-aged man partakes of some beautiful 20-something women? Ooh, he must be really unique there. Not.

I can see various American Lawyers circling. Trying to get rich. Since when is a 26 year old woman choosing to fly halfway round the World to shag a man she has never previously met, in return for large amounts of cash, a "victim" ?

The World has gone mad. If a 26 year old woman gives it away, she is still in danger of being derided as a slag (for reasons that escape me, women are never "players"). If they charge £200 they are derided as a prostitute. Charge £20,000? A "victim".

The Man is a fool. A liar. And not someone who lives by values that I agree with.

All of this is just a smokescreen to divert attention away from the people who are still rich and powerful. Presidents. And ex-Presidents. Republicans. And Democrats.

Rant over :)

Seriously?

What exactly did he do wrong?

Mr Mountbatten-Windsor and his ex-wife peddled themselves to the paedophile for years. Trips to Balmoral, Windsor and Buck House were traded for cash and for sexual opportunity. The excuses/rationalisations you make for him would apply to most of Epstein’s acolytes.
He added a veneer of respectability to Epstein, offered him access to society, stayed ‘loyal’ despite the earlier conviction, and lied about it. On the plus side, the Maitliss interview was hilarious in an Alan Partridgr/David Brent way but I don’t think he meant it to be.

The 26yo's claim is obviously idiotic. The idea is probably to stimulate a denial (as windsor is too stupid to kep his mouth shut) and then instigate libel proceedings.

That's the good bit about debate. Because different people see things different ways. In my career, I had the dubious pleasure of advising both for and against many paedophiles. They are not just 1 group of people to be lumped into the same box. Life is more complicated than that.

Was Epstein a paedophile? We will never know. Not least because, while he was charged with various offences involving 14-yr-olds (in 2008), those cases were dropped.

The next point to make is that what constitutes either a "paedo" or a "sex trafficker" varies. Not only from Country to Country, but also from State to State.

The US (unlike the UK) has different rules relating to the legal age of consent, both for the act itself, and again for the age someone can charge for it. And, in some States, what me might term "pimping" has a lot wider definition.

To put that in a context that might resonate with Poker Players, what might meet the legal definitions in, say, Nevada, is 21. So any porn involving people who have not been proved to be over 21 is illegal. And anybody viewing UK porn in, say, Las Vegas is likely to be viewed as, technically, a paedophile.

In this instance, various legal arrangements in Florida became illegal once 17-20 year-olds were flown elsewhere.

The idea that there is something inherently wrong with trading trips to Buck House in return for cash or favours is faintly amusing. It's why we have a Royal Family. Why else do you think that Intellectual pygmy Andrew was a Trade Envoy for years? Why else is Trump (or various mass murderers) invited to Buck House?

Epstein's specialties were 2 fold.

1. Giving specialised financial and tax advice to the mega-rich; and
2. Being a supremely gifted networker. Long before Andrew. And to people infinitely wealthier. Which is, of course why the American Left just shout about Trump and Musk, while the American Right shout about Clinton and Gates.

Whereas, of course, the 1 thing both sides can agree on is finger-pointing at foreigners. And our Press love selling papers with lurid details dressed up as outrage. Always have. Always will.

Having said all that, the Maitliss interview was funny. I suspected Andrew was the man who put "genital" in "congenital idiot". What I didn't know is that there was no-one capable of stopping him making such a public fool out of himself.

I take your points - they are well made and provoked some thinking.
It doesn’t make me change my view of the piss-artist formerly known as…

Inviting The Donald to a State Visit in hopes of a favourable trade deal is a very different thing to arranging for Epstein and Maxwell to enjoy hospitality in hopes of a shag. Apart from anything else the hope seems more likely to be realised in the latter case.

Should we not add a third category to Epstein’s specials board? Or was that just part of his networking prowess?

Glad we agree on the comedy side.

I guess none of us were surprised that Mandelson had his snout in the trough.

The Royal Family has had a huge problem for Decades in relation to the whole "heir and a spare" thing.

Ever since George VI was promoted (unready) to the top job at the last minute the 2nd in lines have been car crashes. Andrew doesn't look that out of place with Margaret and Harry. Spend years training for a job, then heir has kids, and there is nothing to fall back on.

My wife met Mandelson recently. She has no interest at all in Politics-and didn't have a clue who he was :)
The Mandelson thing is rather more important than Andrew in various respects. I'll forgive a sad man looking for a shag quicker than selling info on the sly.

For all the fuss about Epstein's Parties-and he did seem to have most of the World's elite at them-fact remains the only people getting heat are Bungalow Andrew, a Gay Man and 2 Women (Fergie and G. Maxwell).

The Billionaires seem strangely missing...

Fabulous debate and debating gentlemen.

My take, sans the eloquence.

Andrew is an idiot.

The women knew what was what and didn't seem coerced or forced to me.

The media are undeniably necessary but often despicable.

The women that I've seen that is.

"Scuse me love, do you want to go to a millionaire's island and get shagged by a Prince?"

I've heard worse chat up lines.

Force and coercion aren’t always physical.
I mean, we don’t have a lot of information but we do know that Ghislane Maxwell was convicted of procuring girls as young as 14 for Epstein.
I don’t think they knew what they were getting into.

Bill Gates and Mad Musk are starting to get some heat…

Loving this debate, & well done EssexPhil for starting it. All the contributions have been good, even those from Red-Dog.

Phil was a mainstay of the now defunct Sky Poker forum whilst I was responsible for it, & he almost single-handedly kept it going with insightful stuff. I know him quite well personally, but his capacity to surprise, & come up with left-field debates was a constant source of fascination. You never quite know what angle he's going to take.

Great to see Enut here too, he's one of the few to understand how the minds of billionaires work.

Completely agree that all of the contributors have been good.

To give 1 example, "force and coercion aren't always physical." Completely agree. Point well made.

However, IMO worth bearing in mind that, amidst all the Lawyer-driven "victim" stiff, I have not seen a single allegation relating to coercion. To give 1 example, worth remembering what Virginia Giuffre said in her own book in relation to how she met Epstein. She was working for Donald J Trump at the time, as a Receptionist. And was publicly reading a book on how to be a masseuse.

Having some experience in representing the scandalised super-rich, would also mention this. It is very easy for an insanely rich person to use Lawyers to coerce people into only saying what they want them to say. Because people who have spare £millions can scare people who do not.

Meanwhile, the Headlines today beggar belief. The main story is Man (Andrew) is moving from House A owned by his Brother, to House B owned by his brother, while repairs are carried out to House C, owned by his Brother. All of which was agreed, and reported on, months ago. When it was mildly relevant. That and Police are (supposedly) investigating whether a Man in his 50s had consensual sex with a Woman in her mid-20s. 15 years ago. Which might have been paid for by a man who is not able to be questioned, on account of being dead.

What a colossal waste of time.

Ah, the old, "Don't ask me, I'm dead" ruse.

It doesn't always work though. When I'm lying beside Mrs Red in bed I sometimes pretend to be dead to avoid answering an awkward question but it often leads to violence.

In 1 sense, developments today look amusing. Whereas, in reality, this sort of media-led bloodlust is going to cause problems.

"Misconduct in public office" is a strange Criminal Offence. Not least because it is totally different to how most people perceive it.

In whatever job most of us do, misconduct leads to disciplinary action and, at worst, serious misconduct leads to Dismissal. Not some sort of Media Trial and Arrest.

Next, "Public Office" is a bit of a stretch. Why was he a Trade Envoy? It wasn't because of his brilliant mind. Or his knowledge of Trade. It was his Title and his Address Book. And anyone who genuinely believes that part of his brief wasn't to divulge various "secrets" is living in a lovely sweet world divorced from reality. Dim people tend to do dim things.

This is the bit that is problematic. There are lots of people who do Jobs that are essential for the smooth running of MI5, MI6 and the like. Who have to be able to make judgment calls. Where a wrong choice doesn't involve public arrest. Because I am long out of stuff, but I guarantee there are a lot of people essential to our Country both taking advice and demanding written assurances before doing their jobs.

Imagine being a Working Royal. Or a US Ambassador. Any idea how many lies you are supposed to feed to the Trump entourage? Or how many things you are supposed to "accidentally" let slip? And there will ne nothing in writing-until now. Any idea just how safe we are going to be when Andrew lifts the lid on a whole load of stuff? Because, if he is charged, he is going to have to.

It's Andrew's Birthday today. Why pick today? And why not just invite him in for questioning instead of this Grand Theatre?

Interesting post Phil.

Slightly at a tangent, & not related to any potential criminal charges, but can there be anything worse than the life of a working Royal? I can't imagine anything worse.

If you think it through, surely not one person here would swap their life with that of a working Royal, the boring stuff they have to endure daily, and it's consequent total lack of freedom, would they?

What use is a posh house in the country & loads of money if you can't enjoy it & be free to do what you want?

We’re all, like it or not, living in a Daily Mail/Express world. (I don’t like it but it’s hard to change it).

AM-W was arrested in the full glare of publicity to satisfy the masses of readers and viewers.

Exactly this.

The Press even ran a story detailing all the different Forces yesterday, and what they were/were not doing in relation to this.

From there, it just takes 1 Chief Constable hoping for advancement to beat the others to the punch. Hence Thames Valley and Norfolk seeking to steal the Met's thunder.

While our King throws his own Brother under the bus. Part of me would love to cross-examine King Charles for a day or two. And he really needs to realise that that prospect is getting very close (not by me!)

I've always thought the same. Fame seems absolutely horrible. Royal fame one of the absolute worst.

Personally, completely agree. Particularly in this country, where our Press like nothing more than to build someone up, only then to publicly disembowel them.

However, it might be a wisdom thing. Or an age thing. Because most people seem to crave fame. Not for being the best at anything. Just for being famous. That's why we were given Reality TV.

And people get silly about money. Reminded of the great Mrs Merton question to the lovely Debbie McGee:-

"What first attracted you to the Millionaire Paul Daniels?"

reporter to peter crouch .. "what would you be if you had not made it as a professional footballer " ?

crouch .. "a virgin"

I've been on the cusp of greatness for most of my life, but so far I have managed to avoid the spotlight.

:)

I was going to post some fun cross examination stuff. Then I remembered that we live in the sort of Democracy where I could be imprisoned for Contempt of Court

Still fascinated by all this pile-on. Just madness. Just to mention 2 quick things from this week's news:-

1. What exactly is the point of Parliament seeking to disqualify Andrew from being 8th in line to the Throne? This is a 66 year old man. Ahead of him are his 2 40-idd year old Nephews (William and Harry), and their 5 children, aged between 4 and 12. Statistically, nothing is impossible. But this is pretty close. If he ever made Top 3, then worthy of consideration. But that is statistically next to impossible, too.

2. Just want to put what he is alleged to have done into some context. The allegation is that, some time between 15 and 20 years ago, he passed confidential info to 1 of his contacts. Who has also been dead for a long time. Who had little or no business details in the UK. To which we have no knowledge of anything happening as a result.

Let's compare and contrast that with another story this week. The Chagos Islands. Our Press initially reported that the Dementor had just flip-flopped again. But now it is reported that the reason behind it is a UK operational decision not to allow use of joint UK-US bases to be used if/when the US decides to bomb Iran. Something that is rather relevant when the sanctioned Chagos deal included a Joint UK/US base there.

How do we know this? The UK Forces have said (quite rightly) that they never comment on operational matters. But-someone has leaked this to the Press. And the only people with that sort of operational knowledge will be holders of current High Public Office. Not unpaid wasters, who were removed from this sphere of influence more than a Decade ago.

Let's contrast the effect of this leak. Poking the US bear. Potentially costing us £Billions. Making War slightly more likely That happened this week. And done deliberately, either by Govt, Opposition, or someone with an axe to grind. Not blaming our Press for this-they report on what they are given. At the other end of the scale, who topped off that Photographer where Andrew was being held?

While the distraction tactic works wonderfully well.

Perhaps they want to be seen to be using a very big stick on someone who is perceived to have spent most of his life enjoying enormous carrots.

Depends on who you mean by "they". Do you mean:-

1. The Police? This is being done in this way for personal advancement
2. The Public? Yes, envy sells Papers. In much the same way as when the News of the World used to print every detail of lurid sex stories.
3. Andrew has led a privileged life, undoubtedly. Some of that has been funded by the Taxpayer. But more of ot-such as the Trade Envoy-was largely paid for by his Mummy. Don't know what she knew when she agreed to his removal in 2011. Sure there are reasons for that-including that she was more loyal (and discreet) to her Family that various others
4. Charles. The Police can't go in mob handed to Sandringham without briefing him first. Why exactly did he allow this to proceed in this way?

I don't really know who I mean by "they" What is the collective noun for those in power, "The establishment?"

The police said Charles wasn't briefed before the arrest. Do you think that's a lie? (Personally, I think it is)

What a thrill it must be to take a career-defining photograph.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93wl4kp671o

I wonder how he managed to get focus on Andrew rather than the front seat occupants and how he avoided glare from the flash?

But still got red-eye

Maybe Andy was drunk.

Charles was not briefed before the accident is not quite the same as saying that he (and others) didn't know that Andrew was about to be arrested, and how.

Let's look at practicalities, here. I don't know how many current and/or former Special Forces are at the Sandringham Estate at any 1 time. What I do know is that any Senior Police Officer organising and/or conducting such an operation is thinking of the reputation of themselves and the safety of their men.

Do you think it would be wise for a bunch of people to turn up unannounced and bundle the King's brother into the back of a car without the prior knowledge of Armed Protection Officers? Do you think no terrorist has ever used a Police car?

PS. The 1 time a 66 year old man is unlikely to be drunk is 6 am on his Birthday. 6 am the next day, definitely.

Why do you suppose Mandelson hasn't been arrested?

All kinds of possibilities there. Again, I assume you are referring to possible misconduct in Public Office. Because a lot of the other stuff is not Criminal

The most fundamental problems go to the very heart of Govt in this Country (and many others).

Govt Ministers (and Diplomats) are often unofficially told to divulge "secrets" as some sort of trade-off.
Mandelson (unlike Andrew) is an astute politician, who may well have, shall we say, inconvenient recollections and/or proof
He may have a supportive Family, who are not actively seeking to stab him in the back
It may be that (as is usual in such matters) things proceed outside the public glare, to see if he should be tried in a proper Court, rather than the "Court" of Public Opinion. And receive a proper Sentence, rather than lurid Headlines which, in reality, probably make it more difficult to prosecute, not less.

Great insights. Thanks Phil.

Just 1 more thing that occurs to me.

When Andrew was arrested, he was taken to Aylsham.

I don't know if anyone knows Aylsham. It is about an hour away from Sandringham, and in the middle of nowhere. You would have to spend a day or 2 getting the right people in position to question him. And it would take some considerable time to get proper legal representation to be present for the suspect.

Once upon a time, I used to be a pretty decent Solicitor. And I wouldn't have had the first clue of how to properly represent him. Because this particular charge is as rare as rocking horse poo. And, back in the day when I was relevant, there were very few people who would. And I would bet that all of them are both rather busy, and are based quite a long way from Aylsham. There are lots of sound financial reasons why this sort of stuff is normally done by Appointment. So people don't have to wait around for hours for no good reason.

Far be it for me to suggest that someone was already waiting, having been instructed in advance by someone who had not been briefed...

So someone could use a headline like "Norfolk OAP in police raid drama". Which no one did.

He is eligible for his old age pension, £7k a year.

That’s not red-eye, it’s his natural look…

The whole sorry story is becoming boring. Frankly I think it would be better to just leave him to his seventh age in Norfolk descending into mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything


Mandelson and many others of his ilk on the other hand…

£12k assuming he's paid his NI conts - if not pension credit* and legal aid.


*other benefits are available

I'm actually rather pleased that Her Maj (Lizzy, not Camilla) is no longer with us. Can't begin to imagine how she'd be feeling now about all this.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/who-was-lord-porchester-all-about-man-who-allegedly-had-affair-queen-1603053#slideshow/1585787

he does look like the aristocrat formerly known as prince ...

for a little context , my dad taught william and harry for 5 years before eton

when "porchy" died , 25 years ago , dad showed me a picture of him that was an absolute ringer for andrew . he showed me the obituary with a photo i cannot find and asked if it looked like anyone .

2 seconds max i said andrew.

Here's my thoughts on the late Queen in relation to all this.

I'm certainly no fan of the Monarchy. Even so, probably better than some elected figurehead.

We live in a strange World where people are portrayed as heroes and villains. In reality, people are more rounded. Not just "saints" and "sinners". The late Queen is not some sort of flawless Saint.

The bits about Andrew would come as no surprise. The Press don't report facts if they don't fit their narrative. In 2011, the late Queen was in a better position than anyone else in relation to this:-

1. She was funding Andrew's lifestyle, and paying most of his expenses as Trade envoy;
2. She was presented with the facts as to why she should no longer support him in that position (currently believed to be in relation to Epstein), and agreed to his removal
3. It was her that was presented with the facts presented by Mrs Giuffre, and decided to spend £12 million of her own money to protect her son

She resonated with the people, for all sorts of reasons. But (unlike her eldest boy) she was not a "people pleaser". She would not have allowed the Monarchy to be dragged through the current media frenzy. And indeed avoided it. For more than a Decade.

I’d have said William, and yes I know that’s an extra generational carry over.