Jump to content

Disgraced Prince Andrew heckled at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral procession


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, 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....?

I wouldn’t describe someone who had to go begging £15,000 of a guy running a brothel in order to pay off his ex-wife’s debts as ‘someone with money’.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-fergusons-money-troubles-prince-andrews-jeffrey-epstein-1473562

 

Edited by Chomper Higgot
Posted
3 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

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.

 

 

Asia is a possibility he could choose.

 

The United States is not.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No I have not.

 

But I’m not sure how that relates to him being bright, unless of course you are suggesting his family name had no bearing.

 

I will put this in very simple English for you.

 

If you are not bright , by which I assume you are relating to intelligence and not light bulb illumination, then you would not be bright enough, or in my language, intelligent enough to fly a helicopter.

 

It might help your "discussion points" if you stuck to facts in the public domain rather than conjecture and made up psychoanalysis!

 

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, DezLez said:

I will put this in very simple English for you.

 

If you are not bright , by which I assume you are relating to intelligence and not light bulb illumination, then you would not be bright enough, or in my language, intelligent enough to fly a helicopter.

 

It might help your "discussion points" if you stuck to facts in the public domain rather than conjecture and made up psychoanalysis!

 

Again, I’m not sure flying a helicopter is evidence of intellect.

 

Hand eye coordination, spatial awareness maybe, I suspect having the right family name helps with being given the opportunity.

 

Sorry, I’m not buying helicopter flying as an indication of intelligence.

 

You need to look-up the meaning of ‘psychoanalysis’.

 

 

Edited by Chomper Higgot
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, transam said:

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

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

Vicar? What does religion have to do with this? Are you muslim by any chance? They usually drag religion, as an excuse, into all they do or say.

Yes, respect has nothing to do with age. But, it has to do with what you call people, what name you put on them and how that refers to how you look upon them. Something you clearly failed. So, no respect here. By the way, seen any more dinos lately?

Posted
2 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Vicar? What does religion have to do with this?

I think he means you sound prudish. Now, not all vicars are prudish and some are women. But I believe that is the sentiment. Nothing to do with religion.

Please feel free to waffle on.

Posted
8 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

I think he means you sound prudish. Now, not all vicars are prudish and some are women. But I believe that is the sentiment. Nothing to do with religion.

Please feel free to waffle on.

vicar
[ˈvɪkə]
 
NOUN
  1. (in the Church of England) an incumbent of a parish where tithes formerly passed to a chapter or religious house or layperson. Compare with rector.
    • (in other Anglican Churches) a member of the clergy deputizing for another
    • (in the Roman Catholic Church) a representative or deputy of a bishop.
    • (in the US Episcopal Church) a member of the clergy in charge of a chapel.
    • a cleric or choir member appointed to sing certain parts of a cathedral service.
     
    And Please feel free to make the word mean something that you just made up. So, who is holding the waffle now?
Posted
12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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.

Why then was a settlement necessary, for what?

  • Like 1
Posted
14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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’.

Sounds like Salem in 1692.

 

No need for proof, no need for due process -  just tarnish their name and punish because "he looks guilty".

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Sounds like Salem in 1692.

 

No need for proof, no need for due process -  just tarnish their name and punish because "he looks guilty".

Sounds more like some rich guy with connections buying his way out of having to face ‘Discovery’ and provide a ‘Deposition under oath’.

Which is what it was.


 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sounds more like some rich guy with connections buying his way out of having to face ‘Discovery’ and provide a ‘Deposition under oath’.

Which is what it was.


 

 

Indeed, and where did he even find the money to pay for this settlement?  He didn't have the money himself so it must have come via the Queen via the grant she receives from the UK treasury, which in turn comes from the taxpayer, which is a particularly nauseating aspect of this whole thing.  

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

People settle out of court all the times, for various reasons.

 

He made no admission of guilt.

 

Maybe you are a tad biased against the British Monarchy? I know it's a bugbear for some that not every country can have such rich history and traditions...

I have a bugbear about the British monarchy.   Normally I don't care about them but since the media has seen fit to ignore every single other important issue going on right now in favour of devoting almost 100% of coverage on a story about a 96 year old dying of natural causes I am struggling not to be irritated by them.   In a presidential system if a 96 year old ex-president dies, the country doesn't need to grind to a halt, the football can still go ahead and there isn't 24 hour coverage of the event for 2 weeks straight.   Also, if the law of the land states that inheritance tax needs to be paid over a certain amount then the presidents kids would have to pay it, just like everyone else.    

 

I just don't get how people can idolise these people.   What talent do they even have that earns this idolisation?  It's all a bit of a mystery to me.    History doesn't go anywhere, it will still be there.   Tourists will still come to see the palaces and castles, just as they do in France.  I cannot think of a single good reason why the monarchy system should continue.  

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I should imagine that prosecutor is very dismayed that his attempt to drag Prince Andrew in front of him in. New York court did not come off. Prosecuting high profile cases in the American judicial system is often the gateway to judicial eminence or a political career.

 

Firstly blaming the British establishment for that failure would be better received in New York (and in the Guardian for that matter) than would admitting that there wasn't really any evidence.

 

Secondly, given Epstein's somewhat suspicious demise whilst in custody, is anyone surprised that there was a reluctance to deliver Prince Andrew to the New York judicial process?

 

Incidentally I note that he was subsequently sacked as a prosecutor...

Edited by herfiehandbag
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

If we were a Republic there's every chance we'd end up with someone like Blair as President. Look at France with Macron. The US with Biden for gods sake. Is that any better?

And if Charles turns out to be equivalent or worse than any of those you mentioned and brings embarrassment on the UK which then in turn affects tourism?  What system or law is there in place to remove him from office? 

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, James105 said:

And if Charles turns out to be equivalent or worse than any of those you mentioned and brings embarrassment on the UK which then in turn affects tourism?  What system or law is there in place to remove him from office? 

Like I said, it's an imperfect system. One of the imperfections is that you are beholden to luck in some ways as to the nature of who gets the number 1 spot. I mean, if Harry had been first born he may have been next. Fortunately it will be William and I suspect his sons will be raised to be decent human beings as well.

 

But again, look at the alternative. Biden was elected and look at the embarrassment he has become. Just because they are voted in and can be removed, doesn't mean you get decent people. Look at Blair and his war crimes. Using another system he could well end up as our Head of State. Canada would probably have Trudeau and his WEF tripe. 

  • Like 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Firstly blaming the British establishment for that failure would be better received in New York (and in the Guardian for that matter) than would admitting that there wasn't really any evidence.

Nonsense.

 

20 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Secondly, given Epstein's somewhat suspicious demise whilst in custody, is anyone surprised that there was a reluctance to deliver Prince Andrew to the New York judicial process?

Only if you indulge in conspiracy theories.

 

20 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Incidentally I note that he was subsequently sacked as a prosecutor...

Irrelevant. 

Posted
24 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

I should imagine that prosecutor is very dismayed that his attempt to drag Prince Andrew in front of him in. New York court did not come off. Prosecuting high profile cases in the American judicial system is often the gateway to judicial eminence or a political career.

 

If this were true, would you not expect that more of the ultra VIP men using Epstein's young captives get arrested and have their day in court too? It's not as if their identity is a mystery. I still never heard an explanation for the only people guilty in Epstein's sordid sex trafficking ring are 2 Brits, Ms Maxell and Prince Andrew. Most peculiar.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Only if you indulge in conspiracy theories.

It's not a conspiracy theory. He died in custody. That is an indisptable fact.

 

Even if you believe he comitted suicide that is a huge red flag against the New York authorities. Why would we have confidence to send a Prince over to a system that has proved itself utterly incompetent in keeping alive high profile defendants awaiting trial in the very same case?

  • Thanks 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...