PRINCE ANDREW, INNOCENT OR GUILTY

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • I support Liz, Phil is good for a laugh as he's still living in the past and the twunts lost his no-claims and Harry shows promise as he's a bstard and deffo not a Windsor. The rest are just hangers on. As for Andrew 'can't remmeber holding a blonde girl' as per photo, guilty as sin.


    If he'd got any decency he'd do the right thing and commit harikari and save us £250k / year.


    fqUzTaq.jpg

  • I think the French royalty had the Same attitude once upon a time?,it didn't work out too well for them either!

    Vive la Republique. Though I don't see us setting up Madame la Guillotine any time soon. I've already got my knitting on the go though so save me a front row seat . Apparently he has decided to retire from public life. My life is over and my heart is broken. That was sarcasm by the way ;) An old, tired, and very corrupt institution. Sadly there's still a good proportion of the people in this country who still seem to support them.

  • I honestly don’t think he (Andrew) had a problem meeting up with his “mate” again. After the prison sentence I expect it would be “business as usual”


    Let’s face it. Andrew will have been exposed to the elite/rich and famous from all the big houses of our Country. Including government and the church. Men of high standing nonce-ing about would shape Andrews interpretation of “normal behaviour” in high society. It’s just how it is. MP’s, Judges, Lords, Creeps and pervs all going about “doing their bit.”

    I bet he just didn’t think anyone would have a problem with his associates back then or in the future.

  • I dont really know much about the story nor do i care that much. They all belong to a putrid parasitical elite society that feeds off of itself.

    Theyre all very happy to associate with each other and ruthlessly exploit friendships when theres something to be gained from the association and equally as fast to ditch each other and poor petrol on the fire when things go publicly wrong or they dont get what they want.


    The same goes for the corporates, organisations and media who exploit the public standing of royalty and celebs crawling all over them for royal patronage and monied celebs on board but cannot dump any association with these people fast enough when public opinion swings the wrong way and then queue up to dish more dirt and pretend they knew nothing.


    They all deserve each other,what annoys me more is this group of elitist creeps lords themselves over the rest of us lecturing us about our loose morals, low standards and questionable lifestyles.

    Di occhi belli ne è pieno il mondo,ma di occhi che ti guardano con sincerità e amore, c'è ne sono pochi. :hippy:

    The post was edited 1 time, last by NomadicRT ().

  • I can't help feeling slightly sickened by the way this thread has twisted about. I'm not a fan of the royals or of any elites. To my mind everyone should start with basic rights, but beyond that should have to prove their value, not be born into such privilege that they are above question. I still have a hope, though, that the Article 11 rights I wish for myself, namely innocent until proven guilty, only mean something if they apply to everyone. I have no worries about a robust criminal trial procedure if it is clearly fair, balanced and accountable, but too much of what I've read here is none of these things.


    We live in times when the main streams of media information are owned by billionaires who pressure their editorial staff into conformity to tell the corporate story, the one that advances a selfish agenda. Unfortunately this often bears little resemblance to anyone else's truth. However, whatever I think about the parasites or the perjured should be irrelevant until there has been full investigation and disclosure, the evidence has been properly aired and assessed and the probability of guilt firmly established. Maybe trial by keyboard is our way of trying to claw back a little power in an increasingly oppressive world.


    If I was depressed before, I feel worse now.

  • Innocent until proven guilty is correct Marshy BUT there are two laws in this country, one for the likes of celebs whether royal or actors and one for the common man like you and me .


    It's only when enough 'nobodys' stand up and peeps like us question whether there's fire as the rooms full of smoke does the powers that be extract their fingers and try to carry out the letter of our law so that justice can be at least seen to have done. Salmond was looked at by his own but walked away with £500k costs as he beat the system first time around.


    Saville, Harris and many more high profile peeps took a long long time to nail and had many high profile friends trying to protect them until the truth was clearly seen and they made a shrewd withdrawal.


    Trump is as corrupt as they come but he'll most likely die before they impeach him due to many barriers being put in the way of justice.


    It'll be the same with Andrew who cannot remember having that photo taken. The movements of the senior Royals are known at all times (Court lists or something similar) and recorded yet no records have been produced which would exonerate him.


    Trial by media is wrong unless it's the only way to finally obtain some justice.

  • Indeed Wulfie these twats are not worth our sympathy they are no friend of ours,lying parasites that would not think twice about shafting everyone on this alternative? website! Someone will be defending Thatchers regime next!

  • I still have a hope, though, that the Article 11 rights I wish for myself, namely innocent until proven guilty, only mean something if they apply to everyone.



    The problem is they don't apply to everyone and never really have. And the rule of law has never applied to this bunch and their toadying leech like followers. They are above the law in their own eyes. A view recently endorsed by BJ when he said the Royals were beyond reproach. Public opinion and public derision are the only weapons we have against them. Epstein had a massive 13 ways to contact him. 13. These people don't give out their private information to every Tom Dick and Harry. Epstein wasn't JUST an acquaintance he didn't know very well.

  • I can't help feeling slightly sickened by the way this thread has twisted about. I'm not a fan of the royals or of any elites. To my mind everyone should start with basic rights, but beyond that should have to prove their value, not be born into such privilege that they are above question. I still have a hope, though, that the Article 11 rights I wish for myself, namely innocent until proven guilty, only mean something if they apply to everyone. I have no worries about a robust criminal trial procedure if it is clearly fair, balanced and accountable, but too much of what I've read here is none of these things.


    We live in times when

    Times when we watch not only keyboard warriors, media, press, Police, Courts & otherwise “good “ sensible often well respected friends and family, watch on or turn a blind eye to fabricated evidence and the pursued agenda’s of the many to frame, silence, bankrupt individuals for far less than what the above is accused of. For example the Treatment of Tommy Robinson this past year should tell us how far we have moved from “innocent until proven guilty marshy.”


    This accusation regarding Alex is probably no more than a defamation of character, in light of his political position and the collective way we like to slander the political opposition.

    Christ I could accumulate that amount of charges in one night, pissed at a UK hippy gathering without trying. :D

  • Point taken H but I think what we need to remember is that these people in power have money and influence and as such when they commit these crimes they walk away innocent,us lower scum would without a doubt be serving time before you could say Jimmy Saville,as for keyboard warriors again true to a point but I would gladly leave my keyboard and pull the guillotine lever

  • Trial by keyboard or media is nothing more than a lynch mob,however you dress it up. People who are passing judgement and passing guilty verdicts do so mostly because of their personal prejudice toward the person involved,non of us actually knows the truth even if we may think we do or how we prefer the 'truth' to be.


    The media is only crawling all over the Epstein Andrew involvement because its a huge distraction from the more important issues facing us at the moment over Brexit and the general election and that it makes good circulation or clicks on websites.Do you all imagine any of them are truly interested in justice or the truth.? Theyve not been terribly interested in all the dubious goings on relating to the PM or involvement of senior Tories in acquiring huge financial advantage from state assets.


    As for Alex Salmond, he did not win the court case over whether he was guilty of wrong doing or not, he won the case over the fact the Scottish Government acted totally illegally in its dealing over the allegations made about him.

    Guilty or not of any wrong doing he will get his day in court,but prejudice towards him (and towards Sturgeon too) is mostly fuelled by English Unionism and the anti Scottish Independence agenda. The media wants Brexit and independence from the EU but does not want independence to work in favor of Scotland,the Scottish people or to work against the British (English) colonialist interests.


    The Scottish Herald (Unionist) front page screaming headlines on Salmond is a good illustration of balanced reporting! Kind of mirrors the balanced reporting on Corbyn and Robinson.

    And the endless offensive derision of Sturgeon (widely accepted across all parties as one of Britain's best and most articulate politicians) well illustrates Unionist bias. Were she fighting for English interests she'd be more popular than Churchill or Tommy Robinson.

    Hugely hypocritical,but thats nothing new about British (English)self interest.



    Bsck to the thread topic though, It would be refreshing if everyone, regardless of social stature, got a fair hearing and fair trial.

    Maybe thats unlikely or unrealistic because of how the system has worked historically, but contributing to the new system of trial by social media wont bring true justice or reveal the truth. Its as grossly unfair as the systemic cover ups and corruption of the established system.


    The media loves to build hero's and celebrity worship of individuals,it also loves to tear them down when it suits them.

    Social media is no different. People enjoy being part of both the adoration and lynching of public figures in equal measure.

    Its the nature of the beast.

    People arent very nice at times and the truth is rarely of as much interest to them as salacious gossip and reinforcing their iwn prejudice.

    Di occhi belli ne è pieno il mondo,ma di occhi che ti guardano con sincerità e amore, c'è ne sono pochi. :hippy:

    The post was edited 3 times, last by NomadicRT ().

  • I still think it’s wrong to put the names of the accused in the public arena “Until proven guilty.” The number of household names (celebrities) who have had to run the gauntlet of trial by media and the heartache it causes the accused and their family, long after they have been found not guilty.


    what is clear, many media organisation “deliberately” publish known fabricated stories regardless of the consequences.

  • Ok yes I hear what you are saying , but the papers talk the language of the owners,very rich people, and let's say for a moment that Andrew is guilty can you honestly see him pissing in a bucket in a crowded cell? It's never going to happen ,so why should we treat him with respect?

  • I still think it’s wrong to put the names of the accused in the public arena “Until proven guilty.”

    This is so true i think it's criminal that the media get away with it. An ex of mine got falsely accused of rape when he was a teenager and nearly ended his life over it. She withdrew the accusation before it reached court and the newspapers but even without that it still almost finished him.

  • and let's say for a moment that Andrew is guilty can you honestly see him pissing in a bucket in a crowded cell? It's never going to happen.

    I have to agree. I cant see Andrew serving time or “doing” community service for such a crime. Neither can I see the likes of Hillary Clinton being brought to book, regardless of how heinous her crimes might be. Some folk are just assumed to be “above” laws or the system is massaged further in their favour at the point of political crisis.


    Regarding respect ~ In My view it’s the role of Royal family members to represent the UK to the wider world. Promoting our highest values through best practice of virtue and morality. We afford them that respect conditionally.

  • Because we have to start somewhere?

    Respect has to be earned. I'm totally unaware of anything he's done to earn respect from ordinary people. What have any of them ever done? Stick them all in a council flat or better still with a Rhackman style landord who won't get the heating fixed or the damp mould on the walls for a year and let them get by on minimum wage or beg for benefits when the money won't stretch. None of what they have is earned. It was all stolen by their ancestors. God help us if they are the best we have to represent us abroad because we truly are in dire straits.