FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > prince andrew
prince andrew
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im sure this has been posted before but my serch dosnt show it " What were you searching ? There are ten threads about Prince Andrew | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im sure this has been posted before but my serch dosnt show it bt should he go to court, personaly i would like him to, it would end all the talk , if hes is not guilty he gets to go home with a clear name, if not then he goes to prison" This is a civil case so no chance of prison.. I would wager a hefty sum the outcome will run something like this. Andrew's team will make lots of noise, which they already have started doing. They will make out he will be fighting this all the way. He will then make a deal out of court and he will say, the only reason he did this was to stop the press intrusions and distractions that are blighting the Queen's platinum jubilee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im sure this has been posted before but my serch dosnt show it bt should he go to court, personaly i would like him to, it would end all the talk , if hes is not guilty he gets to go home with a clear name, if not then he goes to prison This is a civil case so no chance of prison.. I would wager a hefty sum the outcome will run something like this. Andrew's team will make lots of noise, which they already have started doing. They will make out he will be fighting this all the way. He will then make a deal out of court and he will say, the only reason he did this was to stop the press intrusions and distractions that are blighting the Queen's platinum jubilee. " He will want to do it this way I think, too. She seems to want court attendance as much, if not more than compensation. And a public apology and recognition of the harms done. Will he be willing to pay so much more than it could have otherwise been? His filings this week still show his contempt for victims. He's filth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"both sides want to go to jury trial. that would be a criminal case and would have a jail term associated with it. from his side of it he then does not need to do anything. its all on her to provide enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt his guilt to the jury. " It's a civil case by jury this involves no jail term | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im sure this has been posted before but my serch dosnt show it bt should he go to court, personaly i would like him to, it would end all the talk , if hes is not guilty he gets to go home with a clear name, if not then he goes to prison This is a civil case so no chance of prison.. I would wager a hefty sum the outcome will run something like this. Andrew's team will make lots of noise, which they already have started doing. They will make out he will be fighting this all the way. He will then make a deal out of court and he will say, the only reason he did this was to stop the press intrusions and distractions that are blighting the Queen's platinum jubilee. He will want to do it this way I think, too. She seems to want court attendance as much, if not more than compensation. And a public apology and recognition of the harms done. Will he be willing to pay so much more than it could have otherwise been? His filings this week still show his contempt for victims. He's filth. " I agree she really wants the court case and she wants the apology, she is a smart one for sure. The compensation will be high but the rights to the story could be even higher and with everything signed sealed and delivered there will be no room for legal proceedings to stop or block any film or books to come out of the back of this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im sure this has been posted before but my serch dosnt show it bt should he go to court, personaly i would like him to, it would end all the talk , if hes is not guilty he gets to go home with a clear name, if not then he goes to prison" The only thing Andrew is guilty of is reputation by association. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apperently he's given up some golf club honorary membership. Some go to prison, some have to find a new golf club. It's all justice, eh? " Lol poor guy, he's suffered enough | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the backhander won so no dirty washing aired in public domain" I'm actually shocked, thought way all the females were talking it was time to make everyone get punished even saying wasn't going to take a settlement if offered it was more about getting justice.the rest whom were going to be under investigation.cases get dropped as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the backhander won so no dirty washing aired in public domain I'm actually shocked, thought way all the females were talking it was time to make everyone get punished even saying wasn't going to take a settlement if offered it was more about getting justice.the rest whom were going to be under investigation.cases get dropped as well." It was always gong to be about the money as there was no real proof 
Even the original photo seems to have disappeared   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why doesn't he just admit he shagged her She knew exactly what she was there for " Sounds like victim blaming 
Andrew may now have done the 1st decent thing in a long, long while. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the backhander won so no dirty washing aired in public domain I'm actually shocked, thought way all the females were talking it was time to make everyone get punished even saying wasn't going to take a settlement if offered it was more about getting justice.the rest whom were going to be under investigation.cases get dropped as well. It was always gong to be about the money as there was no real proof
Even the original photo seems to have disappeared "But flight records and randy Andy letting a young girl out Epstein apartment and giving a wave fact or fiction  I don't think it's over I believe others will come forward | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the backhander won so no dirty washing aired in public domain" Reading about the settlement (as much as is in the public domain), it looks like they had him over a barrel, with the occasional fig leaf term to try to make him look like a good guy or at least a reformed character. IS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Should take it all the way to court
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well if she’s accepted the payout, then it proves beyond any doubt that she was only in it for the payout. Otherwise she wouldn’t have accepted it." of course she took the money, who would turn down a huge setlment, i dont blame her for that, but it should have been brought to trial regardles, i hate that rich people can buy out of trouble, but thats the way of the world, but i bet we havnt heard the last of this, and i hope not. And having his mum foot the bill is even worse, how in his life as a royal with his conections, hasnt he made enough to pay for it himself, he has always used other peoples money, a compleat toad and a disgrace to the royal family, bet the queen is seathing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well if she’s accepted the payout, then it proves beyond any doubt that she was only in it for the payout. Otherwise she wouldn’t have accepted it. of course she took the money, who would turn down a huge setlment, i dont blame her for that, but it should have been brought to trial regardles, i hate that rich people can buy out of trouble, but thats the way of the world, but i bet we havnt heard the last of this, and i hope not. And having his mum foot the bill is even worse, how in his life as a royal with his conections, hasnt he made enough to pay for it himself, he has always used other peoples money, a compleat toad and a disgrace to the royal family, bet the queen is seathing" The thing is, she claimed that she wasn’t in it for the money. She wanted justice, but chose the money instead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well if she’s accepted the payout, then it proves beyond any doubt that she was only in it for the payout. Otherwise she wouldn’t have accepted it." You do realise that it's a civil trial and should she win the remedy would just be money anyway? Albeit possibly more or less depending on the jury's decision. It would be an odd decision to go through with the trial, especially as the settlement was almost definitely above $10mil | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well if she’s accepted the payout, then it proves beyond any doubt that she was only in it for the payout. Otherwise she wouldn’t have accepted it. You do realise that it's a civil trial and should she win the remedy would just be money anyway? Albeit possibly more or less depending on the jury's decision. It would be an odd decision to go through with the trial, especially as the settlement was almost definitely above $10mil" Agreed, she was never in it for the justice as was claimed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agreed, she was never in it for the justice as was claimed." I think you might be misunderstanding. She doesn't have the ability to bring a criminal charge against Andrew herself, only a civil case. To which the 'punishment' is almost always just financial. There's no other option for her. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agreed, she was never in it for the justice as was claimed. I think you might be misunderstanding. She doesn't have the ability to bring a criminal charge against Andrew herself, only a civil case. To which the 'punishment' is almost always just financial. There's no other option for her." I do understand. It was the fact that she claimed that she wasn’t in it for money and then went straight for the money. She didn’t have to bring a civil trial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agreed, she was never in it for the justice as was claimed. I think you might be misunderstanding. She doesn't have the ability to bring a criminal charge against Andrew herself, only a civil case. To which the 'punishment' is almost always just financial. There's no other option for her. I do understand. It was the fact that she claimed that she wasn’t in it for money and then went straight for the money. She didn’t have to bring a civil trial." But obviously you would? I can't imagine I wouldn't do the same in her situation, if I knew he wasn't going to prison. The settlement in most people's eyes is an admission of guilt. It certainly damages his image. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agreed, she was never in it for the justice as was claimed. I think you might be misunderstanding. She doesn't have the ability to bring a criminal charge against Andrew herself, only a civil case. To which the 'punishment' is almost always just financial. There's no other option for her. I do understand. It was the fact that she claimed that she wasn’t in it for money and then went straight for the money. She didn’t have to bring a civil trial. But obviously you would? I can't imagine I wouldn't do the same in her situation, if I knew he wasn't going to prison. The settlement in most people's eyes is an admission of guilt. It certainly damages his image." But would you make a statement saying that it’s not about the money, then when you see a decent bid grab it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But would you make a statement saying that it’s not about the money, then when you see a decent bid grab it? " The reality is you'd be mad not to take it. Why spend months on a trial you've already won? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The settlement in most people's eyes is an admission of guilt. It certainly damages his image." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But would you make a statement saying that it’s not about the money, then when you see a decent bid grab it? The reality is you'd be mad not to take it. Why spend months on a trial you've already won?" But she hasn’t had her justice. I’m guessing the the payment is “without prejudice”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The settlement in most people's eyes is an admission of guilt. It certainly damages his image. "I don’t think there’s much left to damage… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But would you make a statement saying that it’s not about the money, then when you see a decent bid grab it? The reality is you'd be mad not to take it. Why spend months on a trial you've already won? But she hasn’t had her justice. I’m guessing the the payment is “without prejudice”." the fact he paid does mean she wone, it just was a quicker way of doing it, if andrew thought he would win he would have forced the trial and cleared his name, in a civil trial in the us money is really the only outcome, so take the cheque early and save yourself alot of agro, no brainer really, and now the hole world know hes guilty, i call that a win for her. personaly i would have liked to see him in prison, but that was never going to happen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"both sides want to go to jury trial. that would be a criminal case and would have a jail term associated with it. from his side of it he then does not need to do anything. its all on her to provide enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt his guilt to the jury. It's a civil case by jury this involves no jail term " No jail, but we the public, can see the outcome of a trial by jury. VG insisted she would continue the trial to its conclusion and this not about the money, it was about the truth. Very disappointed as now, we'll never know, although my mind is made up in the way he's behaved. I hope never to see him again in public life.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just hope Maxwell cuts a deal and brings everyone down or other victims come forward since the Ireland was full of young females" thats it im off to ireland for my next holiday then lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just hope Maxwell cuts a deal and brings everyone down or other victims come forward since the Ireland was full of young females thats it im off to ireland for my next holiday then lol" Island I'm in bed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im sure this has been posted before but my serch dosnt show it bt should he go to court, personaly i would like him to, it would end all the talk , if hes is not guilty he gets to go home with a clear name, if not then he goes to prison This is a civil case so no chance of prison.. I would wager a hefty sum the outcome will run something like this. Andrew's team will make lots of noise, which they already have started doing. They will make out he will be fighting this all the way. He will then make a deal out of court and he will say, the only reason he did this was to stop the press intrusions and distractions that are blighting the Queen's platinum jubilee. " This post was bang on the money | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The case has been settled he’s paying her off, whatever the legal jargon states." The money is going to a victims' charity | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agreed, she was never in it for the justice as was claimed. I think you might be misunderstanding. She doesn't have the ability to bring a criminal charge against Andrew herself, only a civil case. To which the 'punishment' is almost always just financial. There's no other option for her. I do understand. It was the fact that she claimed that she wasn’t in it for money and then went straight for the money. She didn’t have to bring a civil trial." She was doing it for the victims. All the money is going to a victims' charity | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" All the money is going to a victims' charity " There is a settlement and what appears to be a separate agreement to make a donation to Ms. Guiffre's charity. A settlement and a donation are typically two disparate things. I just hope we can all afford it now the prices of gas and petrol are going through the roof... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well if she’s accepted the payout, then it proves beyond any doubt that she was only in it for the payout. Otherwise she wouldn’t have accepted it." Nice little pay day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" All the money is going to a victims' charity There is a settlement and what appears to be a separate agreement to make a donation to Ms. Guiffre's charity. A settlement and a donation are typically two disparate things. I just hope we can all afford it now the prices of gas and petrol are going through the roof..." We? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful "Was he convicted in the eyes of the law as one... Or is it guilty until proven innocent now... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful "Well he isn't. At worst he is a pedarast, but to be honest I dont think he is one. He is just part of the wealthy elite that really fucked up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
Was he convicted in the eyes of the law as one...
Or is it guilty until proven innocent now..."This is why it was soooooo important for him to go to trial and not get out from under the spotlight via a payout. I'm disappointed but do understand that it must be very difficult for Virginia to process. The statement released by Andrew makes my blood boil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agreed, she was never in it for the justice as was claimed. I think you might be misunderstanding. She doesn't have the ability to bring a criminal charge against Andrew herself, only a civil case. To which the 'punishment' is almost always just financial. There's no other option for her." She always said she wouldn’t settle out of court as she wanted justice. She wanted to hear him ‘admit what he did’. That was obviously a pack of lies - she wanted the money in the same way she settled with Epstein albeit for ’only’ $500,000. She could have gone for justice then but didn’t. The money was more important then - same as it is now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently, there's now a zero chance he'll ever get his royal titles back. So, what we do we call him now? The (alleged) sex offender formerly known as Prince?" I imagine you would call him by his name Andrew Windsor, or is that too complicated to work out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agreed, she was never in it for the justice as was claimed. I think you might be misunderstanding. She doesn't have the ability to bring a criminal charge against Andrew herself, only a civil case. To which the 'punishment' is almost always just financial. There's no other option for her. She always said she wouldn’t settle out of court as she wanted justice. She wanted to hear him ‘admit what he did’. That was obviously a pack of lies - she wanted the money in the same way she settled with Epstein albeit for ’only’ $500,000. She could have gone for justice then but didn’t. The money was more important then - same as it is now. " By taking this way out, although he hasn't admitted any liability, the judgement of public opinion will be very damaging for Andrew. I don't think she would have had a much better outcome had she had her day in court. She would have also burnt a huge amount of cash on legal fees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Victim blaming is not the way forward, truth is she took the money because there would be no other outcome. Money is power, he would never have faced any justice or even made it to trial. Instead of trying to work out her motives, focus your attention on the corruption that goes on in this world. Too many people who are rich and powerful use their status to abuse other's with no consequence. So in June when your all celebrating how wonderful the Queen is, remember who paid this woman to end this. It certainly didn't come out of Andrew's pocket. If this was a normal person like you and I, everyone would be saying lock him up. It wouldn't even come into question what the woman's motives were." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Victim blaming is not the way forward, truth is she took the money because there would be no other outcome. Money is power, he would never have faced any justice or even made it to trial. Instead of trying to work out her motives, focus your attention on the corruption that goes on in this world. Too many people who are rich and powerful use their status to abuse other's with no consequence. So in June when your all celebrating how wonderful the Queen is, remember who paid this woman to end this. It certainly didn't come out of Andrew's pocket. If this was a normal person like you and I, everyone would be saying lock him up. It wouldn't even come into question what the woman's motives were." Summed up perfectly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Victim blaming is not the way forward, truth is she took the money because there would be no other outcome. Money is power, he would never have faced any justice or even made it to trial. Instead of trying to work out her motives, focus your attention on the corruption that goes on in this world. Too many people who are rich and powerful use their status to abuse other's with no consequence. So in June when your all celebrating how wonderful the Queen is, remember who paid this woman to end this. It certainly didn't come out of Andrew's pocket. If this was a normal person like you and I, everyone would be saying lock him up. It wouldn't even come into question what the woman's motives were." It's amazing that you have personal insight into their financial situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agreed, she was never in it for the justice as was claimed. I think you might be misunderstanding. She doesn't have the ability to bring a criminal charge against Andrew herself, only a civil case. To which the 'punishment' is almost always just financial. There's no other option for her. She always said she wouldn’t settle out of court as she wanted justice. She wanted to hear him ‘admit what he did’. That was obviously a pack of lies - she wanted the money in the same way she settled with Epstein albeit for ’only’ $500,000. She could have gone for justice then but didn’t. The money was more important then - same as it is now. " Isn't the money going to a charity, not directly to her? Isn't it funny how he'd give (I assume) thousands of pounds to someone he never met  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
Well he isn't. At worst he is a pedarast, but to be honest I dont think he is one. He is just part of the wealthy elite that really fucked up."A pederast ? That would probably shock Giuffre .... she's a woman. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful "No he isn't. Not even if he had sex with a 17 year old every day of his life. He is not a paedophile. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
Well he isn't. At worst he is a pedarast, but to be honest I dont think he is one. He is just part of the wealthy elite that really fucked up.
A pederast ? That would probably shock Giuffre .... she's a woman."Then I clearly have a wrong definition... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From seeing further evidence and the background history of this person, IMHO I believe Prince Andrew is innocent. " Background history of who ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From seeing further evidence and the background history of this person, IMHO I believe Prince Andrew is innocent. Background history of who ?" Andrew Windsor or Giuffre ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im sure this has been posted before but my serch dosnt show it bt should he go to court, personaly i would like him to, it would end all the talk , if hes is not guilty he gets to go home with a clear name, if not then he goes to prison This is a civil case so no chance of prison.. I would wager a hefty sum the outcome will run something like this. Andrew's team will make lots of noise, which they already have started doing. They will make out he will be fighting this all the way. He will then make a deal out of court and he will say, the only reason he did this was to stop the press intrusions and distractions that are blighting the Queen's platinum jubilee. " Spot on! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently, there's now a zero chance he'll ever get his royal titles back. So, what we do we call him now? The (alleged) sex offender formerly known as Prince?" He will still be Prince Andrew, won’t he? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From seeing further evidence and the background history of this person, IMHO I believe Prince Andrew is innocent. " Why would an innocent man pay £12 million compensation ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From seeing further evidence and the background history of this person, IMHO I believe Prince Andrew is innocent. Why would an innocent man pay £12 million compensation ?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well if she’s accepted the payout, then it proves beyond any doubt that she was only in it for the payout. Otherwise she wouldn’t have accepted it. Nice little pay day " So much for wanting her day in court, it's nothing to with the money! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
No he isn't. Not even if he had sex with a 17 year old every day of his life.
He is not a paedophile. "Given he allegedly had sex with a young woman who was under the legal age of consent (based on the country the alleged act took place) but post puberty then I guess ephebophilia / an ephebophile would be the most appropriate term for Andrew. Feels like he has bought his way out of it though. Hopefully the public won't forget and will push bsck against any future rehabilitation of aandrews name. KJ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given the amount of damaging evidence that the FBI recovered why isn't the federal judge letting everything out in the open he's either been bought or he's part of the elite" That’s not how the legal system works. A plaintiff sued someone and settled out of court, there ends the involvement of the judge | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"His teddies wouldn't survive prison" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess only two people know the truth in all this, Andrew has probably had that much young pussy he may not even be sure himself, ultimately can only do good if the disgusting ways of the wealthy and privileged are exposed. With things that have come out I personally think Andrew would be hard pressed to call himself a man let alone anything else." It’s a bit of a cop-out blaming rich people in general for this sort of behaviour. There are creeps with poor moral compasses in all corners of society. No point trying to kid ourselves that it’s just corrupt powerful people who behave in bad ways. But it’s usually only rich people who get sued ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
No he isn't. Not even if he had sex with a 17 year old every day of his life.
He is not a paedophile.
Given he allegedly had sex with a young woman who was under the legal age of consent (based on the country the alleged act took place) but post puberty then I guess ephebophilia / an ephebophile would be the most appropriate term for Andrew.
Feels like he has bought his way out of it though.
Hopefully the public won't forget and will push bsck against any future rehabilitation of aandrews name.
KJ"I can’t see any possibility of attempts to rehabilitate his image, so wouldn’t worry too much about mustering a push/back against this imaginary outcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given the amount of damaging evidence that the FBI recovered why isn't the federal judge letting everything out in the open he's either been bought or he's part of the elite That’s not how the legal system works. A plaintiff sued someone and settled out of court, there ends the involvement of the judge " Their are guidelines the law itself must follow and regardless how defendants are if the evidence over weighs.... Just like if a person doesn't want to proceed the law itself can when their is overwhelming evidence like so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well if she’s accepted the payout, then it proves beyond any doubt that she was only in it for the payout. Otherwise she wouldn’t have accepted it. Nice little pay day So much for wanting her day in court, it's nothing to with the money!" If does seem to go against the entire message that had been coming out of her camp, that this was all about getting it all out in the open and having her day in court. For the second time, she has taken a payoff instead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given the amount of damaging evidence that the FBI recovered why isn't the federal judge letting everything out in the open he's either been bought or he's part of the elite That’s not how the legal system works. A plaintiff sued someone and settled out of court, there ends the involvement of the judge Their are guidelines the law itself must follow and regardless how defendants are if the evidence over weighs.... Just like if a person doesn't want to proceed the law itself can when their is overwhelming evidence like so " This was a civil case, not a criminal one. If the plaintiff drops a civil case that’s the end of the matter as far as the judge is concerned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"she is a disgrace to all victims" Ridiculous notion, this wasn't a criminal case. Andrew wouldn't have faced any jail time. It would have always resulted in a cash settlement and yes some would probably come back and say but he might've been found liable and that maybe true but it wouldn't be a criminal conviction. He'd still be free and does any right thinking person now think he wasn't liable, she took action, exposed him without a criminal trial, if that's not an example to other victims in lieu of criminal proceedings I don't know what is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Andrew went to court, what is the most severe punishment he could be given ?" As it was a civil case, the worst outcome would have been a large compensation payment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apperently he's given up some golf club honorary membership. Some go to prison, some have to find a new golf club. It's all justice, eh? " He wouldn't have gone to prison whatever the outcome of the civil case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apperently he's given up some golf club honorary membership. Some go to prison, some have to find a new golf club. It's all justice, eh? He wouldn't have gone to prison whatever the outcome of the civil case." I can’t believe that some people still think that prison time was a possible outcome for this civil case ... do people just read headlines and then make the rest up themselves? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
some how | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Either way we the tax payers are going to pay another increase topping up the treasury of the royal family" No. The money will come from the vast piles of our cash that the royal family have already stashed away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how"Very very unlikely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how
Very very unlikely. "Anything is possible no body expected she would accept the offer things get leaked and people are most likely on it already as we speak | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how
Very very unlikely.
Anything is possible no body expected she would accept the offer things get leaked and people are most likely on it already as we speak"Numbers will be kicked around, 10 and 12 million have already been published in today’s papers. The post I was replying to was suggesting that the exact figure would come out at some stage “for tax purposes”. It is highly unlikely that this will happen. He won’t publish the figure and she will legally be prohibited from publishing it. The amount of her previous payout was only published when a judge unsealed the agreement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how
Very very unlikely.
Anything is possible no body expected she would accept the offer things get leaked and people are most likely on it already as we speak"Publishing details of a settlement agreement is illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well if she’s accepted the payout, then it proves beyond any doubt that she was only in it for the payout. Otherwise she wouldn’t have accepted it." She also had a payout years ago from Epstein. She was definitely in it for the money. He without doubt had sex with her but my guess he didn’t know or even think she was underage. Very grey area and you do feel sorry for her and those who suffered the same fate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
No he isn't. Not even if he had sex with a 17 year old every day of his life.
He is not a paedophile.
Given he allegedly had sex with a young woman who was under the legal age of consent (based on the country the alleged act took place) but post puberty then I guess ephebophilia / an ephebophile would be the most appropriate term for Andrew.
Feels like he has bought his way out of it though.
Hopefully the public won't forget and will push bsck against any future rehabilitation of aandrews name.
KJ"If we are looking for terms i'd put him in the teleiophile ( full grown woman ) category. If I can use my own words instead of a Greek accurate I'd say .... Ignorant, Narcissistic, Privileged , Entitled cunt of a Mummy's boy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really really don't like the guy at all, but I don't believe he slept with her against her will. The girl in question wanted to sleep with him so she could say she had slept with a prince. She got $500000 from Epstein and now £12 million from the Royals. I think all of that £12million should go to charities not a gold digging girl. The world has gone mad" Some have gone mad. She was underage in American Law....... The money IS going to charity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
No he isn't. Not even if he had sex with a 17 year old every day of his life.
He is not a paedophile.
Given he allegedly had sex with a young woman who was under the legal age of consent (based on the country the alleged act took place) but post puberty then I guess ephebophilia / an ephebophile would be the most appropriate term for Andrew.
Feels like he has bought his way out of it though.
Hopefully the public won't forget and will push bsck against any future rehabilitation of aandrews name.
KJ
If we are looking for terms i'd put him in the teleiophile ( full grown woman ) category.
If I can use my own words instead of a Greek accurate I'd say .... Ignorant, Narcissistic, Privileged , Entitled cunt of a Mummy's boy. "I forgot STUPID ...... so fucking thick he'd have been like a child in a sweety shop thinking Nanny would be very cross.... but NEVER being able to comprehend the gravity and consequences of his actions... TWAT | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how
Very very unlikely.
Anything is possible no body expected she would accept the offer things get leaked and people are most likely on it already as we speak
Publishing details of a settlement agreement is illegal. "I never mentioned being published things get leaked same as the phoning hacking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really really don't like the guy at all, but I don't believe he slept with her against her will. The girl in question wanted to sleep with him so she could say she had slept with a prince. She got $500000 from Epstein and now £12 million from the Royals. I think all of that £12million should go to charities not a gold digging girl. The world has gone mad" News papers always tell the truth they say what they like as a story which people run to buy and start believing everything | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But would you make a statement saying that it’s not about the money, then when you see a decent bid grab it? The reality is you'd be mad not to take it. Why spend months on a trial you've already won? But she hasn’t had her justice. I’m guessing the the payment is “without prejudice”. the fact he paid does mean she wone, it just was a quicker way of doing it, if andrew thought he would win he would have forced the trial and cleared his name, in a civil trial in the us money is really the only outcome, so take the cheque early and save yourself alot of agro, no brainer really, and now the hole world know hes guilty, i call that a win for her. personaly i would have liked to see him in prison, but that was never going to happen" You don't get jail time for shagging a 17 year old prostitute in the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful "Shagging a 17 year old prostitute doesn't make anyone a paedophile | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Victim blaming is not the way forward, truth is she took the money because there would be no other outcome. Money is power, he would never have faced any justice or even made it to trial. Instead of trying to work out her motives, focus your attention on the corruption that goes on in this world. Too many people who are rich and powerful use their status to abuse other's with no consequence. So in June when your all celebrating how wonderful the Queen is, remember who paid this woman to end this. It certainly didn't come out of Andrew's pocket. If this was a normal person like you and I, everyone would be saying lock him up. It wouldn't even come into question what the woman's motives were." Please educate us on the crime he's comitted. He certainly didn't break any UK law by shagging a 17 year old prostitute | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given the amount of damaging evidence that the FBI recovered why isn't the federal judge letting everything out in the open he's either been bought or he's part of the elite" Ahhhhhh...............yet another FBI employee posting in here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Please educate us on the crime he's comitted. He certainly didn't break any UK law by shagging a 17 year old prostitute" Literally Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really really don't like the guy at all, but I don't believe he slept with her against her will. The girl in question wanted to sleep with him so she could say she had slept with a prince. She got $500000 from Epstein and now £12 million from the Royals. I think all of that £12million should go to charities not a gold digging girl. The world has gone mad Some have gone mad. She was underage in American Law....... The money IS going to charity." He shagged her in the UK. USA law does not apply in the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Please educate us on the crime he's comitted. He certainly didn't break any UK law by shagging a 17 year old prostitute Literally Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003" Which says ?????????? It certainly doesn't say it's a crime to shag a 17 year old prostitute | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given the amount of damaging evidence that the FBI recovered why isn't the federal judge letting everything out in the open he's either been bought or he's part of the elite Ahhhhhh...............yet another FBI employee posting in here "Don't need to be I watched amount of things taken by them I'm Guessing that was edited | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really really don't like the guy at all, but I don't believe he slept with her against her will. The girl in question wanted to sleep with him so she could say she had slept with a prince. She got $500000 from Epstein and now £12 million from the Royals. I think all of that £12million should go to charities not a gold digging girl. The world has gone mad Some have gone mad. She was underage in American Law....... The money IS going to charity. He shagged her in the UK. USA law does not apply in the UK" But was it just UK she was trafficked all over USA | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Please educate us on the crime he's comitted. He certainly didn't break any UK law by shagging a 17 year old prostitute Literally Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 Which says ?????????? It certainly doesn't say it's a crime to shag a 17 year old prostitute" why do I bother | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am sure that Andrew, formerly known as 'Prince' Andrew, would deny having met or had sex with my partner. To save time and any expense I'm sure she would settle for £1million. On a more serious note if he had sex with the woman in question, it was a huge error of judgement. Depending on the country they had sex in he may have broken the law of that country. What we don't or will ever know is if he was aware of her being coercised. I suspect he wasn't and either believed Epstein/Maxwell had made financial arrangements or she wanted to sleep with him as he was a Prince. " But Andrew already knew Epstein was a nonce by the 18 months he had already served in prison yet still hung around with him it's on the interview | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Huge queues are forming outside Buckingham Palace as news spreads that Prince Andrew is giving money away to people he has never met" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am sure that Andrew, formerly known as 'Prince' Andrew, would deny having met or had sex with my partner. To save time and any expense I'm sure she would settle for £1million. On a more serious note if he had sex with the woman in question, it was a huge error of judgement. Depending on the country they had sex in he may have broken the law of that country. What we don't or will ever know is if he was aware of her being coercised. I suspect he wasn't and either believed Epstein/Maxwell had made financial arrangements or she wanted to sleep with him as he was a Prince. But Andrew already knew Epstein was a nonce by the 18 months he had already served in prison yet still hung around with him it's on the interview "Ah yes but he decided to stop seeing him in the end. He flew over and spent 5 days in Epstein’s swanky New York apartment so he could tell him he couldn’t see him anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really really don't like the guy at all, but I don't believe he slept with her against her will. The girl in question wanted to sleep with him so she could say she had slept with a prince. She got $500000 from Epstein and now £12 million from the Royals. I think all of that £12million should go to charities not a gold digging girl. The world has gone mad Some have gone mad. She was underage in American Law....... The money IS going to charity. He shagged her in the UK. USA law does not apply in the UK" But it applies to a US juvenile. Why do you keep calling her a prostitute ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Victim blaming is not the way forward, truth is she took the money because there would be no other outcome. Money is power, he would never have faced any justice or even made it to trial. Instead of trying to work out her motives, focus your attention on the corruption that goes on in this world. Too many people who are rich and powerful use their status to abuse other's with no consequence. So in June when your all celebrating how wonderful the Queen is, remember who paid this woman to end this. It certainly didn't come out of Andrew's pocket. If this was a normal person like you and I, everyone would be saying lock him up. It wouldn't even come into question what the woman's motives were. It's amazing that you have personal insight into their financial situation. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
No he isn't. Not even if he had sex with a 17 year old every day of his life.
He is not a paedophile.
Given he allegedly had sex with a young woman who was under the legal age of consent (based on the country the alleged act took place) but post puberty then I guess ephebophilia / an ephebophile would be the most appropriate term for Andrew.
Feels like he has bought his way out of it though.
Hopefully the public won't forget and will push bsck against any future rehabilitation of aandrews name.
KJ
If we are looking for terms i'd put him in the teleiophile ( full grown woman ) category.
If I can use my own words instead of a Greek accurate I'd say .... Ignorant, Narcissistic, Privileged , Entitled cunt of a Mummy's boy. "I thought a teleiophile referred to the following - "A person who is attracted primarily to mature adults" "An adolescent or young adult who is sexually attracted only to mature adults; someone who wishes for age disparity in the relationship, usually in favor of a young female and older male. This differs from Gerontophilia" Given that she was only 17 at the time so not an adult in the eyes of most countries, still a teenager and under the legal age for consentual sex (18 in the location it took place) I genuinely can't see how you could class Andrew as a teleiophile? Totally agree with all of your 2nd paragraph though.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really really don't like the guy at all, but I don't believe he slept with her against her will. The girl in question wanted to sleep with him so she could say she had slept with a prince. She got $500000 from Epstein and now £12 million from the Royals. I think all of that £12million should go to charities not a gold digging girl. The world has gone mad Some have gone mad. She was underage in American Law....... The money IS going to charity. He shagged her in the UK. USA law does not apply in the UK But it applies to a US juvenile. Why do you keep calling her a prostitute ?" Perhaps because she shags for money. $500,000 from Epstein plus whatever from Andrew Windsor may have something to do with it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
No he isn't. Not even if he had sex with a 17 year old every day of his life.
He is not a paedophile.
Given he allegedly had sex with a young woman who was under the legal age of consent (based on the country the alleged act took place) but post puberty then I guess ephebophilia / an ephebophile would be the most appropriate term for Andrew.
Feels like he has bought his way out of it though.
Hopefully the public won't forget and will push bsck against any future rehabilitation of aandrews name.
KJ
If we are looking for terms i'd put him in the teleiophile ( full grown woman ) category.
If I can use my own words instead of a Greek accurate I'd say .... Ignorant, Narcissistic, Privileged , Entitled cunt of a Mummy's boy.
I thought a teleiophile referred to the following -
"A person who is attracted primarily to mature adults"
"An adolescent or young adult who is sexually attracted only to mature adults; someone who wishes for age disparity in the relationship, usually in favor of a young female and older male. This differs from Gerontophilia"
Given that she was only 17 at the time so not an adult in the eyes of most countries, still a teenager and under the legal age for consentual sex (18 in the location it took place) I genuinely can't see how you could class Andrew as a teleiophile?
Totally agree with all of your 2nd paragraph though. "16 is the age of consent in UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a paedo that's it disgraceful
No he isn't. Not even if he had sex with a 17 year old every day of his life.
He is not a paedophile.
Given he allegedly had sex with a young woman who was under the legal age of consent (based on the country the alleged act took place) but post puberty then I guess ephebophilia / an ephebophile would be the most appropriate term for Andrew.
Feels like he has bought his way out of it though.
Hopefully the public won't forget and will push bsck against any future rehabilitation of aandrews name.
KJ
If we are looking for terms i'd put him in the teleiophile ( full grown woman ) category.
If I can use my own words instead of a Greek accurate I'd say .... Ignorant, Narcissistic, Privileged , Entitled cunt of a Mummy's boy.
I thought a teleiophile referred to the following -
"A person who is attracted primarily to mature adults"
"An adolescent or young adult who is sexually attracted only to mature adults; someone who wishes for age disparity in the relationship, usually in favor of a young female and older male. This differs from Gerontophilia"
Given that she was only 17 at the time so not an adult in the eyes of most countries, still a teenager and under the legal age for consentual sex (18 in the location it took place) I genuinely can't see how you could class Andrew as a teleiophile?
Totally agree with all of your 2nd paragraph though. "I don't make these classifications up .......... Anyone over the age of 16 e.g 17 if supposedly a full grown adult of their gender..... no one is talking experienced here. Just age. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really really don't like the guy at all, but I don't believe he slept with her against her will. The girl in question wanted to sleep with him so she could say she had slept with a prince. She got $500000 from Epstein and now £12 million from the Royals. I think all of that £12million should go to charities not a gold digging girl. The world has gone mad" The world has gone mad? If so, it wasn’t a recent turn of events. It always was mad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how
Very very unlikely.
Anything is possible no body expected she would accept the offer things get leaked and people are most likely on it already as we speak
Publishing details of a settlement agreement is illegal.
I never mentioned being published things get leaked same as the phoning hacking "Ok I will rephrase. If anyone reveals the details of the agreement, in any way; they would be breaking the law. Someone and said it would “come out” “for tax purposes”. No it won’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really really don't like the guy at all, but I don't believe he slept with her against her will. The girl in question wanted to sleep with him so she could say she had slept with a prince. She got $500000 from Epstein and now £12 million from the Royals. I think all of that £12million should go to charities not a gold digging girl. The world has gone mad News papers always tell the truth they say what they like as a story which people run to buy and start believing everything "Which bit of what had been published by newspapers are you saying that you don’t believe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless it's the worst scandal in royal history" Recent royal history you mean, as there have been many beheadings of royals throughout history | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a peado. End of. Used and abused a child. No different from Jimmy saville, Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris. Duke of Nonce" Careful! Not sure it is legal for you to openly state that. Wasn’t she 17? Over Uk age of consent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless it's the worst scandal in royal history" Really? Worse than a bloke having his wife’s head chopped off so he could marry again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless it's the worst scandal in royal history Recent royal history you mean, as there have been many beheadings of royals throughout history " The worst since Hello magazine came into circulation ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how
Very very unlikely.
Anything is possible no body expected she would accept the offer things get leaked and people are most likely on it already as we speak
Publishing details of a settlement agreement is illegal.
I never mentioned being published things get leaked same as the phoning hacking
Ok I will rephrase. If anyone reveals the details of the agreement, in any way; they would be breaking the law.
Someone and said it would “come out” “for tax purposes”. No it won’t "But you or I have nothing to back this up and whether it is breaking the law or not things seem to just pop up then an investigation of how..... Why does everyone think it's 12 million when it's undisclosed Karen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should give him the noose along with the rest of them. £12m of tax payers mo ey is no punishment at all, the fact i have contributed even 1p to this is a discgrace. Kick him and the rest of them out." The payment is being funded by the tax payers? I thought it more likely to be funded from the vast sums of money that the royals already have stashed away. If it is being funded by the tax payer please let me know your source for that info. Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless it's the worst scandal in royal history Recent royal history you mean, as there have been many beheadings of royals throughout history The worst since Hello magazine came into circulation ... " The worst since the late deceased Diana  tinfoil | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how
Very very unlikely.
Anything is possible no body expected she would accept the offer things get leaked and people are most likely on it already as we speak
Publishing details of a settlement agreement is illegal.
I never mentioned being published things get leaked same as the phoning hacking
Ok I will rephrase. If anyone reveals the details of the agreement, in any way; they would be breaking the law.
Someone and said it would “come out” “for tax purposes”. No it won’t
But you or I have nothing to back this up and whether it is breaking the law or not things seem to just pop up then an investigation of how..... Why does everyone think it's 12 million when it's undisclosed Karen "Probably FB news | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how
Very very unlikely.
Anything is possible no body expected she would accept the offer things get leaked and people are most likely on it already as we speak
Publishing details of a settlement agreement is illegal.
I never mentioned being published things get leaked same as the phoning hacking
Ok I will rephrase. If anyone reveals the details of the agreement, in any way; they would be breaking the law.
Someone and said it would “come out” “for tax purposes”. No it won’t
But you or I have nothing to back this up and whether it is breaking the law or not things seem to just pop up then an investigation of how..... Why does everyone think it's 12 million when it's undisclosed Karen "I don’t know where the 12m figure came from , or the 10m figure that some other media are using. Both are clearly guesses, as the amount would be in dollars anyway. But I do know that if anyone reveals the actual figure or terms of the agreement, they are breaking the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless it's the worst scandal in royal history Recent royal history you mean, as there have been many beheadings of royals throughout history The worst since Hello magazine came into circulation ... The worst since the late deceased Diana tinfoil"Fair point. Unlikely then to be the worst case in royal history, as had been suggested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since it's a payout the amount will come out for tax purposes some how
Very very unlikely.
Anything is possible no body expected she would accept the offer things get leaked and people are most likely on it already as we speak
Publishing details of a settlement agreement is illegal.
I never mentioned being published things get leaked same as the phoning hacking
Ok I will rephrase. If anyone reveals the details of the agreement, in any way; they would be breaking the law.
Someone and said it would “come out” “for tax purposes”. No it won’t
But you or I have nothing to back this up and whether it is breaking the law or not things seem to just pop up then an investigation of how..... Why does everyone think it's 12 million when it's undisclosed Karen
Probably FB news "Even the general news doesn't even have this information so be quick you might get a payment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should give him the noose along with the rest of them. £12m of tax payers mo ey is no punishment at all, the fact i have contributed even 1p to this is a discgrace. Kick him and the rest of them out. The payment is being funded by the tax payers? I thought it more likely to be funded from the vast sums of money that the royals already have stashed away. If it is being funded by the tax payer please let me know your source for that info. Thanks " The Royals are funded by the tax payer for god sake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should give him the noose along with the rest of them. £12m of tax payers mo ey is no punishment at all, the fact i have contributed even 1p to this is a discgrace. Kick him and the rest of them out. The payment is being funded by the tax payers? I thought it more likely to be funded from the vast sums of money that the royals already have stashed away. If it is being funded by the tax payer please let me know your source for that info. Thanks The Royals are funded by the tax payer for god sake." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless it's the worst scandal in royal history Really? Worse than a bloke having his wife’s head chopped off so he could marry again? " poor old Henry could not arrange a car accident ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless it's the worst scandal in royal history Really? Worse than a bloke having his wife’s head chopped off so he could marry again? poor old Henry could not arrange a car accident ? " Nope but I'm sure his military father James could teach him a trick or two | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it is stated as £12m in a few places online MsM so probably BS" That figure also seems to be an estimate of the total costs (including legal costs), rather than the amount of the settlement. Not sure I understand the msm jibe ... you have a better more reliable source do you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The royalties property isn't all owned by them some is owned by the public sector and them were just the ones who pay tax on it "I’m confused ... can this try that one again please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it is stated as £12m in a few places online MsM so probably BS That figure also seems to be an estimate of the total costs (including legal costs), rather than the amount of the settlement. Not sure I understand the msm jibe ... you have a better more reliable source do you? " You believe everything the MsM tells you? OK then x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The royalties property isn't all owned by them some is owned by the public sector and them were just the ones who pay tax on it
I’m confused ... can this try that one again please? "Please don't feel confused the law of the land | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it is stated as £12m in a few places online MsM so probably BS That figure also seems to be an estimate of the total costs (including legal costs), rather than the amount of the settlement. Not sure I understand the msm jibe ... you have a better more reliable source do you? You believe everything the MsM tells you? OK then x " Did I say I believe everything msm tells me? No. I use multiple sources plus my own judgment , but the more reliable msm sources have proved the best over time. I see that you ignored my question re better sources. If you have better more reliable sources than msm, please share. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The royalties property isn't all owned by them some is owned by the public sector and them were just the ones who pay tax on it
I’m confused ... can this try that one again please?
Please don't feel confused the law of the land "Apologies. I just couldn’t figure out what it was you were trying to convey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it is stated as £12m in a few places online MsM so probably BS That figure also seems to be an estimate of the total costs (including legal costs), rather than the amount of the settlement. Not sure I understand the msm jibe ... you have a better more reliable source do you? You believe everything the MsM tells you? OK then x Did I say I believe everything msm tells me? No. I use multiple sources plus my own judgment , but the more reliable msm sources have proved the best over time. I see that you ignored my question re better sources. If you have better more reliable sources than msm, please share. " Which reliable Msm sources are these? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He wouldn't get a fair trial in the U.S. its to left wing. He has already been found guilty by the press. I won't be popular but think it was wrong to take his titles and stuff before he was found guilty. If he is found guilty throw the book at him but of he's not does he get everything back. Trial by pres is wrong." You think the US is more left win than here? Having lived in both countries (and come from a third one), that is not my experience. The level of state support etc that all parties here are comfortable with would be seen as close to communism in the US. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The royalties property isn't all owned by them some is owned by the public sector and them were just the ones who pay tax on it
I’m confused ... can this try that one again please?
Please don't feel confused the law of the land
Apologies. I just couldn’t figure out what it was you were trying to convey. "Seeing the item discussed for myself, either in realife or by video. using my brain to see what the MSM agenda may be and who is benefitting. I gave up on tv w few years ago and will never pay the BBC tv tac again, as for newspapers.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it is stated as £12m in a few places online MsM so probably BS That figure also seems to be an estimate of the total costs (including legal costs), rather than the amount of the settlement. Not sure I understand the msm jibe ... you have a better more reliable source do you? You believe everything the MsM tells you? OK then x Did I say I believe everything msm tells me? No. I use multiple sources plus my own judgment , but the more reliable msm sources have proved the best over time. I see that you ignored my question re better sources. If you have better more reliable sources than msm, please share. Which reliable Msm sources are these? " Another deflection! Hilarious! Be honest, you’ve got nothing have you, just attack “MSM”, but can’t offer a better, more reliable alternative. I’ll give you one provider. The Irish Times. Brilliant journalism, excellent reputation, robust editorials, and outsiders view of the US and UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He wouldn't get a fair trial in the U.S. its to left wing. He has already been found guilty by the press. I won't be popular but think it was wrong to take his titles and stuff before he was found guilty. If he is found guilty throw the book at him but of he's not does he get everything back. Trial by pres is wrong." Knowing that he was hanging around with a convicted sex offender who has served a sentence and admitted his crime is also a very good choice as the interview goes he stayed several nights and yes was ok his own words but he learned something don't get caught | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it is stated as £12m in a few places online MsM so probably BS That figure also seems to be an estimate of the total costs (including legal costs), rather than the amount of the settlement. Not sure I understand the msm jibe ... you have a better more reliable source do you? You believe everything the MsM tells you? OK then x Did I say I believe everything msm tells me? No. I use multiple sources plus my own judgment , but the more reliable msm sources have proved the best over time. I see that you ignored my question re better sources. If you have better more reliable sources than msm, please share. Which reliable Msm sources are these? Another deflection! Hilarious! Be honest, you’ve got nothing have you, just attack “MSM”, but can’t offer a better, more reliable alternative. I’ll give you one provider. The Irish Times. Brilliant journalism, excellent reputation, robust editorials, and outsiders view of the US and UK. " How rude, no it isnt a deflection. i grew up reading Bs in papers and watching Bs on the news so much so i have long quit MsM oher than for sports chat, unfortuenatley i am still subjected to their crap via family, friends and colleagues I have never read the irish times, why would I, I dont live there. What about UK based MsM sources tbat are reliable. challenge, list 3. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He wouldn't get a fair trial in the U.S. its to left wing. He has already been found guilty by the press. I won't be popular but think it was wrong to take his titles and stuff before he was found guilty. If he is found guilty throw the book at him but of he's not does he get everything back. Trial by pres is wrong. Knowing that he was hanging around with a convicted sex offender who has served a sentence and admitted his crime is also a very good choice as the interview goes he stayed several nights and yes was ok his own words but he learned something don't get caught "Royals whos friends included Saville and Harris... hmmmm. seems to be a pattern here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He wouldn't get a fair trial in the U.S. its to left wing. He has already been found guilty by the press. I won't be popular but think it was wrong to take his titles and stuff before he was found guilty. If he is found guilty throw the book at him but of he's not does he get everything back. Trial by pres is wrong." I quite agree trial by press is wrong. I mean you shag one sheep and the press never let you forget it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He wouldn't get a fair trial in the U.S. its to left wing. He has already been found guilty by the press. I won't be popular but think it was wrong to take his titles and stuff before he was found guilty. If he is found guilty throw the book at him but of he's not does he get everything back. Trial by pres is wrong. Knowing that he was hanging around with a convicted sex offender who has served a sentence and admitted his crime is also a very good choice as the interview goes he stayed several nights and yes was ok his own words but he learned something don't get caught
Royals whos friends included Saville and Harris... hmmmm. seems to be a pattern here"Exactly and he doesn't sweat or go to parties yet everyone has pointed out the sum of money and it's not even been paid yet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He wouldn't get a fair trial in the U.S. its to left wing. He has already been found guilty by the press. I won't be popular but think it was wrong to take his titles and stuff before he was found guilty. If he is found guilty throw the book at him but of he's not does he get everything back. Trial by pres is wrong. Knowing that he was hanging around with a convicted sex offender who has served a sentence and admitted his crime is also a very good choice as the interview goes he stayed several nights and yes was ok his own words but he learned something don't get caught
Royals whos friends included Saville and Harris... hmmmm. seems to be a pattern here
Exactly and he doesn't sweat or go to parties yet everyone has pointed out the sum of money and it's not even been paid yet "And nobody really know the amount or the split between what she gets and her charity gets | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it is stated as £12m in a few places online MsM so probably BS That figure also seems to be an estimate of the total costs (including legal costs), rather than the amount of the settlement. Not sure I understand the msm jibe ... you have a better more reliable source do you? You believe everything the MsM tells you? OK then x Did I say I believe everything msm tells me? No. I use multiple sources plus my own judgment , but the more reliable msm sources have proved the best over time. I see that you ignored my question re better sources. If you have better more reliable sources than msm, please share. Which reliable Msm sources are these? Another deflection! Hilarious! Be honest, you’ve got nothing have you, just attack “MSM”, but can’t offer a better, more reliable alternative. I’ll give you one provider. The Irish Times. Brilliant journalism, excellent reputation, robust editorials, and outsiders view of the US and UK. How rude, no it isnt a deflection. i grew up reading Bs in papers and watching Bs on the news so much so i have long quit MsM oher than for sports chat, unfortuenatley i am still subjected to their crap via family, friends and colleagues I have never read the irish times, why would I, I dont live there. What about UK based MsM sources tbat are reliable. challenge, list 3. " I never suggested you should read the Irish times. You asked me for a reliable man source and I gave one. I asked several times for you to provide alternative , better, non-MSM sources and you keep ducking the question. That tells me all I need to know. Is MSM perfect? No. Do I believe everything I read in MSM? No. Do I know of a better source? No. So MSM is the best of a bad lot ... qualified, named journalists who are accountable for what they produce and on the hook if it proves to be wrong (retractions / apologies / being sued all dent confidence). Proper robust journalism, worth paying for. What are your sources? Or are you going to deflect again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
