You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I assume this is aimed at the old age readership that struggles to get in to a bath these days? It can't possible be aimed at anyone who's had sexy time anywhere other than a bed?
That bath looks bigger than the back seat of an old mini! 😀 😉
Picture showing two people in a bath to demonstrate that two people couldn’t fit in that bath.
Literally. The lady on the left could quite easily put her feet in the mouth of the guy on the right. I've heard there are actually lots of videos of this kind of thing (between consenting adults) online.
The Daily Telegraph has long been a stranger to the truth.
I've managed to get two in a bath before, never with a photographer in tow though.
Maybe Prince Andrew has be sponsored by Only fans as a means of repaying the £12million and this is the opening film.
And everybody knows that people who don't sweat don't have baths.
To find that on the front page of the Telegraph is, totally bizarre. And the logic is also backwards. Surely if you wish to bath communally and avoid "sex frolicking" you would want a big bath? And vice-versa.
That bath looks bigger than the back seat of an old mini!
Most places have more space than the back seat of an old Mini, but I was 18 and didn't worry about such things.....
I don't get why the defense of the Andrew from the Torygraph? Surely even their die hard readership are sick of him? Whats in it for the torygraph?
Were the barclays in Epsteins little black book?
I don’t get why the defense of the Andrew from the Torygraph? Surely even their die hard readership are sick of him? Whats in it for the torygraph?
Not talking about Zahawi being a tax cheat and Rishi knowing about it and still appointing him?
theotherjonv
But they could run some rubbish about immigrants, leftie lawyers or all those public servants shirking work if its supposed to be a dead cat!
MSP might be closer
I dunno - just seems weird
To find that on the front page of the Telegraph is, totally bizarre
Honestly thought the front page was a Photoshop job.
Bizarre.
<p class="dcr-h26idz">Prince Andrew has been urged to challenge his legal settlement with a woman with whom he is accused of having sex when she was a teenager.</p>
<p class="dcr-h26idz">Alan Dershowitz, an American lawyer who himself was previously accused by Virginia Giuffre of sexual abuse, told the Guardian that the Duke of York should attempt to revisit an out-of-court settlement he agreed with Giuffre a year ago.</p>
I wonder of anyone will educated him on the "Streisand effect"
I wonder of anyone will educated him on the “Streisand effect"
Come on baby let's close the door<br aria-hidden="true" />Come on baby let us sweat some more
Let the good times roll
Honestly thought the front page was a Photoshop job
I think the people in the bath are genuine (and bizzare) but the picture has been photoshopped, badly, to hide the photographer who would otherwise be visible in the multiple mirrors around the bath.
And everybody knows that people who don’t sweat don’t have baths.
My dog doesn't sweat. Phisically incapable... But he sure does need a bath from time to time!
To readers of the Telegraph, sex is something only ever done lying down, (usually in the dark)..There is no way two people could lie down in that bath. Ergo, sex in that bath is impossible.
I don’t get why the defense of the Andrew from the Torygraph? Surely even their die hard readership are sick of him? Whats in it for the torygraph?
You see when I saw the twitter storm about it I assumed that the Telegraph saw just how ridiculous it was and were undermining him like this:
I wonder of anyone will educated him on the “Streisand effect”
rather than suggesting the picture was helpful to his cause? On the other hand, one way or another its got them clicks and so will be seen as a success in the Monday morning review meeting!
To readers of the Telegraph, sex is something only ever done lying down, (usually in the dark)..There is no way two people could lie down in that bath. Ergo, sex in that bath is impossible.
Only sex with your spouse. I'm sure quite a few telegraph readers have been more adventurous with the au pair or the tennis coach 😉
Perverts.
Wow.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64812549
Allegedly the Royal family are evicting Harry and Megan* so they can house a money poor pedo* in luxury.
Monarchy. A force for good.
The place is called Frogmore Cottage but needs a rename?
Pedo Palace?
*That doesn't really concern me, they are doing ok for themselves.
** I know cougar, I know.😉
Keeps him close, they can keep a better eye on him! And save money!
And H&M - the gift that keeps on giving. Being evicted from a house you don’t live in. Notified 24hrs after Waaagh went on sale too (if the tabloids are to be believed).
#NiceOneCharlie
🤣
Comes as no surprise that Charles wants to protect his paedo brother as his illigitimate kid committs the far greater sin of marrying a non white woman
And the cap offers lap it up 🤷
his illigitimate kid committs the far greater sin of marrying a non white woman
I don't believe there is any evidence that Charlie Windsor's son is illigitimate or that Charlie has a problem with his daughter-in-law's skin colour.
But since I have next to zero interest in the Royal Family I am happy to accept that I might be completely wrong.
So is there any actual evidence of Harry's illegitimacy and Charlie Windsor's alledged racist attitude towards his daughter-in-law?
They should interview Andrew under full studio lights, just to make him perspire a bit.... that'd make a better story.
Oh I thought the thread bump was going to be this story:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/king-charles-blocks-prince-andrew-yoga/
Apparently the privy purse has been funding a £32,000/year full time live-in yoga tutor for Prince Andrew and now Charles has told him he needs to pay for it himself.
How the other half live, eh?
Up to his neck in it again. Wonder how much it'll cost the tax payer this time?
I wonder how many more sick and twisted serial sex offenders they need to befriend/protect before the penny drops with all those thick as two short planks royal family "fans"?
I wonder how many more sick and twisted serial sex offenders they need to befriend/protect before the penny drops with all those thick as two short planks royal family “fans”?
Im fairly sure that megan markel will remain the target of their hatred because being brown is a far worse crime than sex trafficking children
Guardian story with court docs... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/03/jeffrey-epstein-documents-list-pdf
He's been reported to the UK Police, which I guess will be quietly brushed under the carpet/No case to answer.
Perhaps even more important to her role in Epstein’s sexual abuse ring, Maxwell had
direct connections to other powerful individuals with whom she could connect Epstein. For
instance, one such powerful individual Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with
was a member of the British Royal Family, Prince Andrew (a/k/a Duke of York). Jane Doe #3
was forced to have sexual relations with this Prince when she was a minor in three separate
geographical locations: in London (at Ghislaine Maxwell’s apartment), in New York, and on
Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (in an orgy with numerous other under-aged
girls). Epstein instructed Jane Doe #3 that she was to give the Prince whatever he demanded and
required Jane Doe #3 to report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse. Maxwell
facilitated Prince Andrew’s acts of sexual abuse by acting as a “madame” for Epstein, thereby
assisting in internationally trafficking Jane Doe #3 (and numerous other young girls) for sexual
purposes.
This is from page 129 of the documents ( https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24253264/epstein-documents-943-pages.pdf), it's from a document under a subheading named "Jane Doe #3 Circumstances" within a document named Exhibit C and a heading called 'Factual background'.
Does anyone know if this means this is the 'factual background' as Jane Doe 3 sees it or whether this is background agreed by all parties (ie. no one is disputing it happened who is party to the case - i'm sure Prince Andrew would state it didn't happen).
Oh the Grand Old Duke of York
He had 10,000 men
He had some underage women too but he doesn't remember them
The upper classes have incredibly selective memories don't they?! Sunak can't recollect much, if anything, about what he was doing during a major public health crisis. Johnson can't remember attending any parties or even remembering much about the definition of a party. And ol' Andrew can remember exactly when he ate a pizza but not anything about hanging out with a billionaire on a private island.
Remarkable.
Nice one @Klunk, I was about to post that. You’ve got to admire Republic’s tenacity (although how far it’s going to get them is debatable).
There. Are. Tapes.
That's not what I take from the article?
Sarah Ransome, who says she was a victim of Epstein, wrote in emails to a reporter in 2016 outlining claims the Duke of York, the ex-US president and the billionaire businessman were filmed having sex
A New Yorker article in 2019 reported Ms Ransome admitted "she had invented the tapes to draw attention to Epstein's behaviour, and to make him believe that she had 'evidence that would come out if he harmed me'".
the Duke of York, the ex-US president and the billionaire businessman were filmed having sex
That's quite the threesome.
the Duke of York, the ex-US president and the billionaire businessman were filmed having sex
Could they not just walk into a bar, like a normal joke?
A New Yorker article in 2019 reported Ms Ransome admitted “she had invented the tapes to draw attention to Epstein’s behaviour, and to make him believe that she had ‘evidence that would come out if he harmed me'”.
For that threat to work Epstein would need to know there were tapes? If he knew there were no tapes surely he would have just had her killed off?
For that threat to work Epstein would need to know there were tapes? If he knew there were no tapes surely he would have just had her killed off?
Someone got to him before he got to her. Allegedly.
I am hoping for another interview "nah he's just a mate , totally not a spy"
I wonder if the spy has any tapes?
After seeing the news about Andrew and China, I tried finding a photo of Charles doing a facepalm, but couldn’t find one anywhere, sadly.
Got this one, though…
Heard an interview with an ex MI5 bod last night, he commented “…Andrew wouldn’t have much intelligence…”
sounds about right!
Presumably as the brother of the monarch the security services keep an eye on who he develops friendships with? I also am struggling to understand what secrets he would know that could be used. Why would he need to be told any secrets in the first place? I can’t come up with a reason the monarch needs to know any secrets let alone good brother
Still given that is brother is happy taking brown bags of cash and his mum would cosy up to any despot who was into racing horses it’s no wonder he is what he is
Guy must be a nightmare to manage. Entitled prick, poor judgement, now skint. Outside of the aristocracy he’d be nobody now but his status maintains his entitlement. Not even his big brother can sort him out…
I've been wandering for a while if the "firm " could get shot of him like an embarrassing in-law....
Is he a kind of lightning conductor? Has no power or access to any important information or people (just spongers like himself), yet agents of hostile powers waste their time on him.
yet agents of hostile powers waste their time on him.
clearly they think he is worth the effort. This makes me wonder why and what would he know to be worth the effort and why would he need to know it
where they blackmailing him?
we know he lies young women....
I also am struggling to understand what secrets he would know that could be used.
Well he used to be a trade envoy, which I think involved various arms deals etc. He certainly had influence and the ability to make introductions, and perhaps any introduction he made would be trusted more than ordinary foreign parties. All people with dodgy histories they don’t want out in public are liable to be manipulated (explicitly with blackmail, or more subtlely by those in an inner sanctum who seem to be helpful) - Andrew apparently brought the spy to the palace without following the official protocols. That might be as much MI5 signalling to Andy that he’s not trusted to pick his friends as much as signalling to the Chinese that we know who you are.
Why would he need to be told any secrets in the first place?
presumably even if nothing else - he is aware of various royal movements and security arrangements, is likely (when he was a working royal) to have known when the PM was likely to be somewhere and also other visiting foreign heads of states.
I can’t come up with a reason the monarch needs to know any secrets let alone good brother
You don’t think Charles and Keir have discussed Syria, South Korea, Israel, Russia, or possibly Chinese involvement in damage to undersea cables in the Baltic? IF we were considering an escalation, or indeed a softening of our position you don’t think Charles would know before the BBC? That’s just the military type stuff. Plenty of environmental, industrial type issues that might be of interest to the King and also to random other parties.
It's pretty difficult not to categorise Randy Andy as a security risk now, surely?
But, I'm sure they'll find a way not to. Publicly, at least.
Get rid of the lot of them - arcane, pompous nonsense that is increasingly embarrassing to the UK.
The royal family also have access to all legislation while it is going thru parliament and the chance ti change it.
That is public information.
Andy really is last decades problem. There are far more current issues to be sweating* about.
* or not
and have the right to change them and they use this right
Makes you think
Guy must be a nightmare to manage. Entitled prick, poor judgement, now skint.
This really. Plus of course he probably has the personal contact details of all sorts of folks, I would've thought any foreign govt would be pleased to have. What an eejit
If this is an issue, and it probably isn't, then this would be a good time to further examine the Tory and B.Johnson links to the Lebedevs.
I would expect more Chinese business leaders to have links to the ruling party, just as many business leaders in the UK have links to our political parties.
I believe the right is to make their views known to the minister, I don't think they can force any changes they want. Though it appears their views are generally taken into account.
I believe the right is to make their views known to the minister, I don’t think they can force any changes they want. Though it appears their views are generally taken into account.
But not necessarily acted upon. I would imagine that most things that Andy had knowledge of were relatively old or not especially important, plus I’d expect that Andy and the monarch would be ‘air-gapped’, specifically to avoid the sort of person he was known to frolic with getting even the slightest hint of anything of consequence.
I think it was Andy’s list of contacts and people he could put others in contact with were of greatest interest to other nations like China.
I would expect more Chinese business leaders to have links to the ruling party, just as many business leaders in the UK have links to our political parties.
To go further.
.
Is there now a risk that any UK businessmen, who have links to any of our political parties, are now at risk of being arrested in China, under the same 'spying' pretext ?
China using this case as an excuse for political gain.
Is there now a risk that any UK businessmen, who have links to any of our political parties, are now at risk of being arrested in China, under the same ‘spying’ pretext ?
possibly, but since those relationships work the other way round here it’s entirely at the British businesssperson’s discretion not to have strong links to politicians to reduce their conflicts.
Is there now a risk that any UK businessmen, who have links to any of our political parties, are now at risk of being arrested in China, under the same ‘spying’ pretext ?
I think that's probably been the case for some time, not just because of this recent revelation. It's how authoritarian regimes generally behave; they act with impunity against whoever they want for often obscure (and politically internal) reasons that they create.
I’ve been wandering for a while if the “firm ” could get shot of him like an embarrassing in-law….
Shirley they only need to tell the royal household that he's to be treated like any visiting member of public, which is effectively what he is. Sign-in. No guests. Escorted. No mobile phones, etc.
Then offer him the post of Duke of Adelaide, with a house (and forget to mention the Island suffix) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_Island
I think that’s probably been the case for some time, not just because of this recent revelation
A couple of Canadians were arrested for "spying" back in 2018 after the Canadian government arrested Meng Wanzhou who is (maybe was) a Huawei senior exec. They got released when she did.
So very definite threat if it suits Chinese interests.
I’ve been wondering for a while if the “firm ” could get shot of him
You mean like Webley MK Vl and a bottle of Whisky ?
You mean like Webley MK Vl and a bottle of Whisky ?
Probably more likely to be a fiat uno
Just what do we think went wrong with Andrew, compared to his siblings? Seems to never miss an opportunity to be a massive idiot.
I thought with his position in the royal family he would have had some kind of assistant, perhaps what was more needed was a minder or babysitter to keep him out of trouble.
Just what do we think went wrong with Andrew, compared to his siblings? Seems to never miss an opportunity to be a massive idiot.
Most families have one like that. Money and a sense of entitlement just make it easier to go big.
Just what do we think went wrong with Andrew
He didn't change. He was consistently a self serving idiot who always thought he could do what he liked. Thought he was protected by "the firm". The world changed around him. The TV presenter scandals, MeToo movement, Weinstien. It all caught up and overtook him. Dim Andrew wasn't sharp enough to change his behavior when it was obviously well on its way when the Saville scandal broke in 2011.
To be clear, I wasn't implying that he was ok to begin with - i.e. what went wrong for this child, rather than it was all going so well what went wrong.