Prince Andrew's military titles revoked

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
That is a shame. Have you any idea how much he sweated to earn those Military gongs.

As I posted, he was a pretty good pilot. Some of those "gongs" came from some good flying in the Falklands.

Care to elaborate.?

JIMC previously stated that he had flown with him.

I'm specifically asking about his "Heroic acts". Being a good pilot doing shuttle runs from ship to ship doesn't necessarily win you medals for heroism. Lots of good pilots out there.
Specifically, detail how he won these gongs for Bravery?. What did the mission involve?. What gongs did he receive? VC?.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The/A, "Titled", "individual", needs to "serve" his/her, own time.
"Modern", "civilization".. Requires it! .. "Titles" are not a "get out of jail, "free card", as they have been. ...People are actually "educated" now, (By observation, "science" and "stuff".)
A lot of us "uneducated" M"Frs, ... "Followed", "Leaders", into "BATTLE", that had no "business" leading themselves, let alone ME, or my Troopers....

But we made it work.... The F'n leader? A F'n "hero"!

You do realise that your posts are incoherent and make no sense?

Maybe it’s a keyboard issue?

Andrew is a sacrificial goat you reckon?

Like throwing smoke or popping chaf.

a reply to: ToneDeaf

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: sarahvital
i hear 50 officers and such signed a letter to the queen to strip him of all his titles and medals etc.

basically court marshalled? from the military and i have no idea what it is called losing royal status besides royally screwed?

150.

yeah my 1 vanished.

thanks for the correction.

a reply to: puzzled2

"Seems you favour locking them up and preventing them from partaking in life without a Man to make their decisions."

Where do you get any of that from?

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

Or just generally confused?

a reply to: trollz

Surely this is something that should be done "IF" he is found guilty, not before the trial has even started.

If he's found innocent I sincerely hope that his titles will be restored to him with a full public apology, though I doubt very much that they will.

I'm sick and tired of this presumption of guilt thing that the western world seems to have. They're effectively punishing people for the crime of being accused of something.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Didn't he use a helicopter to decoy incoming missiles away from British ships during the Falkland's war.

I seem to remember something about him slinging some kind of electronic warfare pod under his helicopter and flying into the path of missiles to lead the away from British forces?

...never mind.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

As usually you are wrong about what others think and need to change the topic to avoid the problems with your own thought patterns.

Women are smart intelligent human beings and are capable of self determination and getting enjoyment.

Seems you favour locking them up and preventing them from partaking in life without a Man to make their decisions.

Not defending Pedo scum - defending the right of a 17 almost 18 year old American girl in the UK to make her own decisions in life and highlight the incorrect assumption everyone is vetted / approved before any interaction occurred.

In your youth did you ever ask anyone's age at a party?

Prince Andrew wasn't exactly in "his youth" at the time, was he?

And yes, you are defending "Pedo scum".

a reply to: puzzled2




"In your youth did you ever ask anyone's age at a party?"

In my middle age I'm fairly sure that I didn't party or sleep with young girls procured for me by a convicted Pedo's convicted sex trafficker.

You?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

OK, so we get it you don't like Andrew because he is a royal.

But do you agree that in 2001 having sex with a consenting 17.75 year was not illegal in the UK?

As all the actions in the Falklands were acts of of bravery and were worthy of awarding a medal then the medals should not be revoked.

The 2 have nothing to do with each other.

I am remarking on a situation, just because I don't agree with you that "no young American girl would realistically want to have sex with an older man" and Andrew would have known what the world knows today about those that accompanied her without a doubt in 2001. Does not mean I am defending grooming. -- 2020 was definitely in hindsight year.

Wondering, when you were in your late teens - early twenties did you ever go to the night clubs around military bases or medical colleges? I remember a lot of young ladies having fun of their own freewill. Wasn't there even a whole 18-30 scene back then? So it wasn't unusual for some to contribute zero monetary amounts to a holiday or even a dinner but contributed their great personality, skill, sculptured body and close adult company to excel the experience for all.

Please do go thru all your hero's lives and try to fine a single one without a blemish in woke 2022.

Now have a nice day and not get too jealous that people of different ages are having sex. Otherwise with your broad moral brush stroke you are not speaking too highly of many rich people's spouses.

a reply to: puzzled2

Who's "we"? Do you speak for ATS?

You don't get it at all and it's getting tedious that you keep ascribing opinions and beliefs to me that I neither hold or have ever posted about.

Nothing to do with him being a Royal, I don't like him because he is an arrogant, pompous ass with questionable associates and friends etc.

Arms deals too.

"Wondering, when you were in your late teens - early twenties did you ever go to the night clubs around military bases or medical colleges?"

Actually, no, I didn't.

But you keep on defending paedos and abusers of young girls.

Do you see nothing "questionable" about sleeping with a young girl procured by a sex trafficker?

Your moral compass needs fixing.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Well, we finally agree on something - " I don't like him because he is an arrogant, pompous ass ". But that's because I met him, once. Not what I read in a paper.

Well it's your loss that you failed experience the sexuality's of the many free minded young people in your youth.

Once again the legal age of sex in the UK is 16 this young woman was 17.75.
Not a crime to have consensual sex with her no matter how jealous you are.

But again this has nothing to do with being recognised for doing act of bravery in the Falklands war.

Age only counts when it matters politically. We charge 12 and 13 year olds with murder, saying that they knew enough to be responsible for their actions, while at the same time calling 17 year old gangbangers children and they haven't the cognitive capability to know what they were doing.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2


But do you agree that in 2001 having sex with a consenting 17.75 year was not illegal in the UK?

My understanding is that because she was brought into the UK specifically so that she could have sex with people, then it would count as a crime.

a reply to: puzzled2

"Well it's your loss that you failed experience the sexuality's of the many free minded young people in your youth."

What, because I didn't go to nightclubs near to military base or medical colleges?!! You draw that conclusion about me from that?!!!

Look, this thread is not about me.

Prince Andrew faces a law suit about sex trafficking and questions about his associations with Epstein, a convicted Paedo and Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker of young girls.

Please stay on topic and stop with your ad hominem personal digs at me.

originally posted by: puzzled2

In your youth did you ever ask anyone's age at a party?

I think most people except if its people of the same age partying with each other and no I did not ask the age of the women at partys i attended at that age BUT when someone is in there 40s and is partying with under 18 year olds surley some alarm bells are set off in most peoples minds, the fact you would not question a middle aged man partying with your under 18 year old daughter is your choice

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2


But do you agree that in 2001 having sex with a consenting 17.75 year was not illegal in the UK?

My understanding is that because she was brought into the UK specifically so that she could have sex with people, then it would count as a crime.

Yes. She seems to have been trafficked by a convicted sex trafficker of young girls.

Which is not a "good thing", though some on here don't seem to have a problem with that.

a reply to: puzzled2



"Not a crime to have consensual sex with her no matter how jealous you are."

Sex trafficking is a crime. Which Ghislaine has been convicted of. And who procured this girl for Andrew.

You accuse me of being "jealous"?

T & C's prevent me from responding to that.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

A possible in hindsight piece of information - IF Andrew's was the subject of a blackmail scam and his ego used to entrap him is he a victim?

If he was told she was a young looking 21 year old there of her own freewill just touring Europe and during the course of the evening they mutually decide to have sex would anyone have a problem?

Why is it assumed that a 17 year old is incapable of being a lying scheming barsteward?
It needs to go to the real court and be investigated on all parties actions. Not in the court of public opinion.

Yes her character at the time needs to be fully investigated perhaps today she would be the "“Cash Me Outside” Girl Danielle Bregoli who Made $1 Million In Six Hours On Only Fans".

-----
Isn't this like the Assange case where he was accused of technical rape because he didn't have a condom
Or the footballer who met someone in a over 21 private club, have consensual sex and get put in jail because she lied about her age and it was technical rape?

In all 3 cases there are no reports of the woman screaming no and the man ignoring it but a "legal" technicality that caused the problem.


As usual the MSN papers have printed only part of the story to sell papers, the righteous have raised bloody hell on false definitions and half truths.

Perhaps in a full deep dive we will find out she is telling the truth and she didn't know what she was doing was wrong at the time.