Jump to content

Disgraced Prince Andrew heckled at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral procession


Scott

Recommended Posts

Just now, transam said:

Not really bright.......????

 

Hey, what he does is his business, not someone who seems to envy those with money....

Now what was he charged with by the Law....?

Oh Trans, again, he was charged with nothing, how many times do I need to reiterate! He borrowed money to pay for his indiscretion! Please, do some research! 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 2baht said:

Oh Trans, again, he was charged with nothing, how many times do I need to reiterate! He borrowed money to pay for his indiscretion! Please, do some research! 

Why was he not charged............?

 

I don't need to do any research, I am not the slightest bit interested in how much money he paid out to not have his laundry aired on the TV...., you are..????

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2baht said:

Disgraced Prince Andrew

Why Trans, why? Not my words!

For fooling around with a 17 year old young lady, and her trying to weasel money out of him in later life....That's it.....

 

I did the same, but I am not a Royal that doesn't need the publicity...

SIMPLE stuff....

He was not charged with anything, get over it and how he spends his money to get some peace...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2022 at 9:56 AM, JonnyF said:

There is a time and a place for everything.

 

Heckling a man who is attending his mother's funeral is an incredibly low thing to do.

 

Besides, the money grabber Guiffre was of legal age when she claims to have had consenual sex with Andrew for money, and herself admitted to help traffick other girls for sexual purposes. 

Correct. I bet the heckler isnt sin free. Probably a grub in real life himself.

 

Glass houses anyone?????

 

If I was Andrew I'd go live in Asia. Get a nice gf enjoy life. Take 2 bodyguards if you have to.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, roo860 said:

bit off topic but how will all these by royal appointment go, it was the Queens thing? HP sauce etc?

 

They re-apply for a warrant if they supply goods and or services to King Charles 111.

The present "warrants" are still valid as they state they were suppliers to HM QE 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Knocking your Santa and a 17 year old playmate. You are starting to sound like 17. And to answer your question. No, I have never had a 17 year old playmate, as I see and treat women with a little bit more respect than seeing them as a playmate. But, I assume you are one of the old guard, that looks at the female race as a lower one. Luckily that kind of behavior is looking at extinction, when the last dinosaur goes to rest.

????................Sooooo funny, but a bit boring, are you a Vicar, by any chance.................????

PS. Respect can be given at any age, ol' chap.....????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 2baht said:
6 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What's your question got to do with the assertion that "he's not facing justice"?   Are you under the impression that there are criminal charges against him?

No, I am under the impression that he admitted guilt for his actions by paying such an exorbitant price for it to go away,

That's where you're wrong, he, very specifically, did not make any admission of guilt, that was part of the settlement.  You're interpretation of the settlement is an opinion that you're entitled to but you're opinion is not fact in that case.

Edited by Liverpool Lou
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, transam said:

Credibly Accused.............

.Many folk are, and are found innocent, so why wasn't he charged by "your" Federal Law.........?

There are many reasons why people are not charged under Federal Law, especially rich, powerful, well connected people.

 

This has no bearing on ‘credible accusation’.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, transam said:

Because he faced no charges in the UK or USA.

Plus I am British, I also had 17 year old playmates, a few never, by the sound of it...

PS. Near forgot, I am not an anti-Royalist, as some here are..????

What you do/have done is a matter for British law.

 

Have sex with a trafficked 17 year old American and it becomes a matter for US law, I have already provided you one of the applicable statutes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...