cleopatra2 Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said: He may have said that, I don't know, but his legal team would never have advised him to "co-operate with the FBI". There was no reason for his legal team to want him to sign a tolling agreement. Of course there are advantages to tolling agreement. It provides the opportunity to settle out of court away from public gaze. It would have provided an opportunity to assess the case merits. If has Andrew claims he never met Giuffre it would have given opportunity to provide details 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleopatra2 Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said: The legal case is over, it has gone away, legally, because it is being settled. Who said that "it never happened"? Public opinion has s0d all to do with it, the public has no idea what happened between the two parties even though they may want to speculate from now till kingdom come. But the record will show Andrew paid a settlement in a case where Andrew was accused of sexuall assualt and battery 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said: So you live according to: he is guilty until he can prove that he didn't do it. And how can he prove it? Basically he can't. Interesting concept. If you care to look up French law, that's the way it operates. So does Australian tax law. He had his chance to stand up in court and testify, he declined. Probably because he either would have been torn to shreds by any competent barrister, or had to perjure himself. That is not the action of an innocent man. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunglom Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 23 hours ago, Fab5BKK said: Having sex with minors... it's already bad. Now, we're not talking about "Joe the commoner". We're talking about Andrew Windsor (Windsor, formally Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), Duke of York, ninth in the line of succession to the British Throne and Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy. If these words have still any sense, even remotely, one could expect some ethics and an exemplary conduct from this kind of person. Don't you agree? I think your judgement is clouded by an acceptance of royalty as something special. They aren't - it is the constitutional body - the Crown, that is important. He has been sued, and should be sacked. We don't pay out of the public purse and we don't need him as prt of the Crown as an institution. He really is only important as ammunition for republicans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Thunglom said: I think your judgement is clouded by an acceptance of royalty as something special. They aren't - it is the constitutional body - the Crown, that is important. He has been sued, and should be sacked. We don't pay out of the public purse and we don't need him as prt of the Crown as an institution. He really is only important as ammunition for republicans. He can't be sacked that's the real ammunition for republicans. Anyway, it's too late, he failed to live up to the standards expected by a spoiled brat of the Crown. He's still a prince. lol Edited February 17, 2022 by ozimoron 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreFarang Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, ozimoron said: and they will because he failed to defend himself. And she failed to prove that he is guilty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreFarang Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said: The optics make it almost certain Andrew will not regain any public duties. He must be pleased that he doesn't have to do that work anymore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJRS1301 Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 6 hours ago, Lacessit said: If you care to look up French law, that's the way it operates. So does Australian tax law. He had his chance to stand up in court and testify, he declined. Probably because he either would have been torn to shreds by any competent barrister, or had to perjure himself. That is not the action of an innocent man. However this had nothing to do with French law or the Australian tax laws. Comparing apples with oranges there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said: And she failed to prove that he is guilty. not many will believe that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said: However this had nothing to do with French law or the Australian tax laws. Comparing apples with oranges there. Guilty, run me out of town on a rail, and bring the tar and feathers. Slow day? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritManToo Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 7 hours ago, ozimoron said: Anyway, it's too late, he failed to live up to the standards expected by a spoiled brat of the Crown. He's still a prince. lol I always expected princes to bang anything that moves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted February 18, 2022 Author Share Posted February 18, 2022 11 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: There are no such criminal charges against him. And the civil case is now over so there are no allegations now! She was over the age of consent in the UK (and the US) when she was, allegedly, involved with Prince Andrew. You can continue to bang on about her "being a minor" at the time for as long as you like but she was a "minor" (your choice of word) above the age of consent for sex and fully capable to give that consent. I never stated criminal charges were brought. She was trafficked to Andrew at the age of 17, which under YS law is a crime and is below the age at which she was legally competent to consent. Stay classy Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted February 18, 2022 Author Share Posted February 18, 2022 11 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said: How many guys do you know who (possibly) had sex with a 17 year old girl maybe 20 years ago? And how many of them were ever prosecuted for that? My answers are: many and 0 Whataboutary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted February 18, 2022 Author Share Posted February 18, 2022 10 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: B0ll0cks. All the questions were in the petition to the court. The original case was her case against Prince Andrew, the jurisdiction argument came after her case was filed. Obviously! There cannot be a discussion about a case's jurisdiction if the case hasn't already been filed with the court. And there cannot be an examination of the case until the court has determined if it has jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted February 18, 2022 Author Share Posted February 18, 2022 8 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said: And she failed to prove that he is guilty. Which is why he’s handing over £millions 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinBoy2 Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 So to add some gas on to the flames, as one uppity American ex colonist. Who's gonna pay for it? Is the Queen gonna sell off a few trinkets, or are all the 'subjects' have a few of their tax $(pounds) siphoned off to pay for your 'randy andy' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted February 18, 2022 Author Share Posted February 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said: So to add some gas on to the flames, as one uppity American ex colonist. Who's gonna pay for it? Is the Queen gonna sell off a few trinkets, or are all the 'subjects' have a few of their tax $(pounds) siphoned off to pay for your 'randy andy' The matter is to be raised in the House of Commons: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/16/duke-of-yorks-sexual-abuse-case-settlement-to-be-raised-in-parliament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VocalNeal Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 On 2/16/2022 at 2:39 PM, PremiumLane said: Do you know where the money is going? Guess not Lawyers? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VocalNeal Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said: Who's gonna pay for it? 12 million quid? Peanuts. I don't think he is short of a few bob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreFarang Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 3 hours ago, ozimoron said: 9 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said: And she failed to prove that he is guilty. not many will believe that It's interesting what people believe. A women who received lots of money from rich men and want to receive even more money from rich men claims she had sex with a guy. Evidence: A picture of both together (with clothes and other people around). Wow, is that evidence enough these days? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreFarang Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said: Which is why he’s handing over £millions No, he and/or his family is handling over millions to end this. They have tons of money, a couple of million less won't change their lifestyle in any way. The money doesn't prove if he is guilty or not. Maybe yes, maybe no. It seem most of the public thinks he is guilty - without any evidence. Strange times! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said: It's interesting what people believe. A women who received lots of money from rich men and want to receive even more money from rich men claims she had sex with a guy. Evidence: A picture of both together (with clothes and other people around). Wow, is that evidence enough these days? The photo is not the sum of the evidence provided. It is deceptive to imply that is is. Ex prince Andrew refused to give a deposition to the FBI and refused to confront the evidence in court, preferring to cough up a king's ransom in exchange. Edited February 18, 2022 by ozimoron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said: No, he and/or his family is handling over millions to end this. They have tons of money, a couple of million less won't change their lifestyle in any way. The money doesn't prove if he is guilty or not. Maybe yes, maybe no. It seem most of the public thinks he is guilty - without any evidence. Strange times! The evidence would have been provided but for P. Andrews lack of cohones. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreFarang Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said: The matter is to be raised in the House of Commons: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/16/duke-of-yorks-sexual-abuse-case-settlement-to-be-raised-in-parliament So now Boris, with so many kids that he doesn't even remember all of them, will argue about sex hungry Andrew. It's almost funny. Good that I am not from the UK and that I don't have to pay for this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VocalNeal Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 9 minutes ago, ozimoron said: Ex prince Andrew refused to give a deposition to the FBI Are they now the de facto world police? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 1 minute ago, VocalNeal said: Are they now the de facto world police? They had jusrisdiction since Guiffre is an American citizen and they exert jurisdiction internationally for human trafficking offenses.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 A defamatory post has been removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted February 18, 2022 Author Share Posted February 18, 2022 11 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: The legal case is over, it has gone away, legally, because it is being settled. Who said that "it never happened"? Public opinion has s0d all to do with it, the public has no idea what happened between the two parties even though they may want to speculate from now till kingdom come. Public opinion has everything to do with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted February 18, 2022 Author Share Posted February 18, 2022 33 minutes ago, VocalNeal said: 12 million quid? Peanuts. I don't think he is short of a few bob? He’s short by at least £12million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VocalNeal Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 Just now, Chomper Higgot said: He’s short by at least £12million. Again. Not a huge amount. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.a649cacedeeccbc218adc073bf668ef2.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now