Brown bread. The plot thickens.

Don't know if this counts as a Yewtree thread or not.

Only about 30 ain't he??

A truly horrible man who covered up for his paedophile mates and the widespread abuse of civil liberties by the police during the miners strike. Actually he probably instigated a lot of that and then covered up for himself. One of the worst of Maggie's minions and while I wouldn't wish the way he went on anybody I can't say I'm sorry he's gone.

He once walked passed me on Darlington railway platform and smiled (in that way he had) I was 21 at the time and did consider the implications of my pushing him onto the track. The fleeting-smiling moment passed as did my 'murderous' thought. I wonder what might have been if I had.......apart from the 25 years I'd have got in a Thatcherite prison that is???????

As always, a bit of proof of any wrongdoings would be welcome before accusations are thrown about. RIP Leon Brittan. You were not the greatest politicians of all times but there were far worse too.

...though not many.

Oh I don't know. Lets start with all Labour cabinet ministers.

Just wait for the avalanche of stuff coming up on Brittan now he's gone.

...just as it did on Savile.

Ah, when...... if it comes I will join you in condemnation. If it does not then I take it you will join me.

Without a single shred of proof other than the ramblings of a young damaged girl.

Oh come on. If you're even famous for opening a macdonalds on the headland you'll find someone wanting to have their photo taken with you. Whether that means you've nonced her is very much a different matter.

But not a hint of evidence in all of that. Don't let that stop you blackening his character mind you.

'Chip uses the Daily Mail as a reference shock'

They're giving it prominence because he's a name. You know this Chip. Why should he turn up in court? He's hasn't been subpoenaed.

Show me a reference to this.

Guessing this ain't about the Swansea midfielder then?

Whatever politicians etc did or didn't do to kids will never be made official because it might be far too damaging for the main parties to recover from.

I do find it odd that the Andrew stuff is getting so many wound up given that he could legally have married the girl he is alleged to have slept with if she lived in Britain.

People might be pissed off if it was true that some of their taxes that could have been spent on A&E services were used to jet a prince around the world to attend orgies with teenagers that were being pimped out by said member of the royal family's dodgy paedo mates. Whether this particular teen was 16 or 17 at the time of any particular shag wouldn't make that OK in my book.

Explain to me how that is a subpoena.

If, if, if, if, if!!


I happen to think that Andrew is not the sharpest knife in the box but he is extremely and sometimes misguidedly loyal to people he shouldn't be. That hardly makes him a nonce. Incidentally, neither would sleeping with a 17 year old.

True, all ifs at the moment and I only said that his mate was a paedo who pimped out kids. If he ever ends up in court we might stand a chance of finding out the truth but as it stands he can't be accused of anything worse than spending public money on jetting around the world in the comapny of a convicted paedophile in order to meet and shag teenagers. Nothing to disappoint or anger anybody there.

On the sub poena issue we don't know do we - he didn't open the envelope. Which is exactly what a lawyer would advise you to do to avoid a sub poena. Of course the envelope might have just been a letter saying hello from the lawyers but we'll never know because Andrew acted as if he had something to be scared of and had already taken legal advice on how to stay out of court.

Lets get a few things straight Chip because you're being very obtuse here and twisting facts and allegations.

As you know very well, a letter from an American Lawyer 'inviting' him to appear is hardly a subpoena. It's not a subpoena irrespective of which paper might publish the invitation. So stop referring to it as such intimating that he has somehow been summoned to a US court to give evidence - he hasn't and no amount of word twisting will make it so.

As for my attitude to grooming and rape; firstly, you can fuck right off with your assertions, thats well out of order. My whole attitude to this and the Ched Evans thing is that before you can call anyone guilty, they have to go through the legal process. Thats investigation, charge, trial, verdict and the appeals process. Prince Andrew has had no allegation put to him other than by the press. If that constitutes a conviction for you then go and give your head a very good shake.

You used to work in the courts so I find it incredulous that you are jumping on this bandwagon without it having gone through any legal process. You have him convicted and banged up based on the assertions of a girl who we know nothing about and the fact that Andrew has a dodgy mate.

As for him flying round the world, well thats another discussion on which I might even agree but its nothing to do with this subject.

I never mentioned subpoenas, you did.

Bollocks, I asked you where there was a reference to him being subpoened and you offered an invitation by a lawyer. Not the same thing at all.

2) Ched Evans has been through the entire process including the Court of Appeal. They all found him guilty. As it stands he's a convicted rapist. So yeah, I can call him guilty, because thats what he is.

In terms of the court appeals, yes you're right but it may well be back there. His case is going through the miscarriages of justice system right now.

3) I'm not saying Prince Andrew is guilty of an offence, yes you are

I'm saying he's alleged to have committed a crime, he's associated with a convicted paedophile, and he's lied about meeting the lass in question. Im also saying he lobbied for a plea bargain on behalf of the convicted peadophile so as to prevent a trial taking place. None of which strikes me as the actions of a bloke with nothing to hide.

No charges have been made whatsoever. There is a believable suggestion that Andrew had sex with the girl when she was 17.

4) Whats actually out of order is you stating the girl shouldnt be believed because she is damaged and rambling. If she is damaged that is probably as a result of being pimped out at the age of 14-15 by paedophiles, which again is a fact that does not appear to be in dispute. Are you suggesting the evidence of anyone who claims to have been sexually abused at that age should be dismissed ? You seem to have assumed she is lying, but then have a go at me for pointing out your Royal mate has lied ?

She has admitted in court that she is mentally damage FFS!

At the end of the day if you are in a high profile position receiving enormous amounts of taxpayers money, and you are being paid to represent this country, then at the very least I would expect you not to fraternise with a convicted paedophile. As you say, the bloke is either incredibly stupid, or he has done something incredibly stupid and is now desperately lying to cover his tracks.

Slightly retrospective but when it became apparent that the bloke was a paedo, andrew should have ran a mile. That makes him guilty of nothing but very misplaced loyalty. Or maybe his just believed his mate. I'm met him (Andrew) at reunions and he's very 'nice but dim'.

The woman in question may well be lying through her teeth, but I'm not going to automatically assume she is, just because shes a woman.[/quote]

I do believe that this is built up for a payout, probably by the lawyer. The fact that the girl gave evidence about toe sucking points to that. Why the fuck mention it? except that its well known that it was Fergie's thing so it becomes believable.

Chip's a bit like a comedian without a punchline.

Rambles on but doesn't have a point.

For similar entertainment just read the Guardian comments.