herfiehandbag Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 1/7/2024 at 4:32 AM, thaibeachlovers said: Oh, that'll do it. Let's just take Andrew out and hang him! That's like saying every farang that ever stayed in Pattaya had sex with bar girls, which would be a nonsense. Is Alessi charged with managing a residence in which nefarious activities have been reported to have taken place? I think the correct term is "poncing". Still the more they bang on about Prince Andrew, the more it thickens the smokescreen which helps conceal some very high ranking US individuals, from both sides of the political divide. By the way, any success with discovering how Epstein died, any missing paperwork turned up yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bday Prang Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 13 minutes ago, JonnyF said: I agree with most of that. Except the part where you somehow try to link the crimes of Saville to the Royal Family. It was primarily the BBC that covered up Savilles crimes but they have long had links to Paedophiles so it comes of no surprise that they would do such a thing. I wasn't really trying to link his crimes to the royals, but I was suggesting that maybe his royal connections were not a disadvantage at the time he was active 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 47 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Plenty of people on this forum have. Just as Kevin Spacey did. There are so many examples of these false accusations that I'm amazed people still believe every single one of them before they are even proven. Or should I say, pretend to believe them so they have a stick with which to beat the British Royal Family. There are far more examples of rapists, sexual abusers and pedophiles getting away with their crimes and never facing justice. Oh and off you go once again with your ‘beat the British Royal Family’, your hypocrisy on the matter has already been explained. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 33 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Obfuscation? It's the law. If the age of consent is 16 and she is 17 then it's legal. No matter how much you hate the royals. Once again you omit the fact that the allegations against Prince Andrew are not restricted to his behaviour in the UK. That Epstein’s home, refer title of thread, was in the U.S. ought to be a clue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 25 minutes ago, JonnyF said: I agree with most of that. Except the part where you somehow try to link the crimes of Saville to the Royal Family. It was primarily the BBC that covered up Savilles crimes but they have long had links to Paedophiles so it comes of no surprise that they would do such a thing. It was a bit more complicated than that: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/28/outrageous-libel-laws-protected-jimmy-savile-lawsuits 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Once again you omit the fact that the allegations against Prince Andrew are not restricted to his behaviour in the UK. That Epstein’s home, refer title of thread, was in the U.S. ought to be a clue. The reason I focus on the UK is because that is where there is a tiny shred of evidence (a likely doctored photo). In the US there is literally nothing other than the words of a self confessed prostitute on the make. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 28 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Purely circumstantial. There is no credible evidence against him. You better hope some self confessed prostitute (and acquirer of girls for sex) doesn't accuse you of something one day, and everyone simply believes her with no credible evidence to back it up. I'm sure your tune would change if that happened. Except the court records record corroborating testimonies. But maybe you are letting a car out of the bag… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: It was a bit more complicated than that: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/28/outrageous-libel-laws-protected-jimmy-savile-lawsuits I'm not surprised The Guardian defend it. You should read the Dame Janet Smith review. Everyone knew about him bieng a kiddy fiddler. Jonny Rotten spoke about it and was banned by the BBC. The legendary band The Smiths wrote the song Panic about it but never admitted it was about Saville as they knew they would be banned as well. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Just now, JonnyF said: The reason I focus on the UK is because that is where there is a tiny shred of evidence (a likely doctored photo). In the US there is literally nothing other than the words of a self confessed prostitute on the make. There’s a great deal more than simply one persons sworn testimony. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Just now, JonnyF said: I'm not surprised The Guardian defend it. You should read the Dame Janet Smith review. Everyone knew about him bieng a kiddy fiddler. Jonny Rotten spoke about it and was banned by the BBC. The legendary band The Smiths wrote the song Panic about it but never admitted it was about Saville as they knew they would be banned as well. The Guardian don’t defend anything, they have simply reported the part the UK’s libel laws played in helping Saville cover up his crimes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Just now, Chomper Higgot said: There’s a great deal more than simply one persons sworn testimony. No there isn't. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Just now, Chomper Higgot said: The Guardian don’t defend anything, they have simply reported the part the UK’s libel laws played in helping Saville cover up his crimes. In order to take responsibility away from their Woke brethren The BBC. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bday Prang Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 19 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said: Still the more they bang on about Prince Andrew, the more it thickens the smokescreen which helps conceal some very high ranking US individuals, from both sides of the political divide Not just high ranking US elites, believe it or not even Steven Hawking's name has been mentioned ...OMG ! https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew-bill-clinton-donald-trump-385ccf8d49d337ae4866022877aa9a90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 23 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said: Still the more they bang on about Prince Andrew, the more it thickens the smokescreen which helps conceal some very high ranking US individuals, from both sides of the political divide. Exactly. "Hey everyone look over there at the British Royal Family". Meanwhile Clinton and Gates go under the radar. Classic diversionary tactics. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herfiehandbag Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) On 1/8/2024 at 11:10 AM, Chomper Higgot said: Your sympathies clearly lie with the credibly accused rapist. I doubt you’d be so stupid as to accuse me of anything under oath. "Credibly accused" is not, by a very long way, the same as convicted. No (UK) court would touch a bickering spat between you and @JonnyF, other perhaps than, if the judge were in a convivial mood, issue a friendly warning about riding on very high horses. The central point of course is that, amidst the maelstrom of allegations, claims for money from victims who are very happy to take cash to drop allegations, copies of pilot's notebooks from twenty years ago, and sudden clear recollections of memories from "Mansion managers"; the one person whose evidence would be central to any conviction is dead. Found hanging from a cell in a New York remand prison; which no doubt led to some big sighs of relief from some very, very important figures within the USA! Edited January 10 by herfiehandbag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bday Prang Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 16 minutes ago, JonnyF said: In order to take responsibility away from their Woke brethren The BBC. The libel laws may well have protected Saville, but the BBC could have done a lot more to rein him in, they could have shut down "jim'll fix it " and used any other excuse 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bday Prang Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 3 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said: Found hanging from a cell in a New York remand prison; which no doubt lead to some big sighs of relief from some very, very important figures within the USA! Absolutely correct, is there actually a single person on this planet that believes it was suicide? If there is, I bet they are active on this thread 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 5 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said: "Credibly accused" is not, by a very long way, the same as convicted. No (UK) court would touch a bickering spat between you and @JonnyF, other perhaps than, if the judge were in a convivial mood, issue a friendly warning about riding on very high horses. The central point of course is that, amidst the maelstrom of allegations, claims for money from victims who are very happy to take cash to drop allegations, copies of pilot's notebooks from twenty years ago, and sudden clear recollections of memories from "Mansion managers"; the one person whose evidence would be central to any conviction is dead. Found hanging from a cell in a New York remand prison; which no doubt lead to some big sighs of relief from some very, very important figures within the USA! The central point is Prince Andrew paid out millions of his mummy’s money to avoid having to go to court. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Just now, Bday Prang said: Absolutely correct, is there actually a single person on this planet that believes it was suicide? If there is, I bet they are active on this thread There isn't. But there's only a few who believe that it wasn't. I think most people are waiting for further developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herfiehandbag Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ozimoron said: There isn't. But there's only a few who believe that it wasn't. I think most people are waiting for further developments. Unfortunately, I doubt that there will be any, not on that front, some jolly important paperwork went missing don't you know! I hope, for Ghislaine Maxwell's sake, the British Consular services are keeping a very close eye on her circumstances! Edited January 10 by herfiehandbag 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bday Prang Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, ozimoron said: There isn't. But there's only a few who believe that it wasn't. I think most people are waiting for further developments. I have a strong suspicion that silence will now prevail concerning Epsteins death. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said: Absolutely correct, is there actually a single person on this planet that believes it was suicide? If there is, I bet they are active on this thread As in, take allegations of sexual abuse seriously and not defend an alleged abuser regardless of whether or not the allegations have been proven in a court of law. The right course of action is to investigate and act in the outcome of investigations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritManToo Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: As in, take allegations of sexual abuse seriously and not defend an alleged abuser regardless of whether or not the allegations have been proven in a court of law. The right course of action is to investigate and act in the outcome of investigations. The right course of action is to consider the accused innocent until convicted in a court of law. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Just now, BritManToo said: The right course of action is to consider the accused innocent until convicted in a court of law. Even when he refuses to speak to the FBI? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritManToo Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, ozimoron said: Even when he refuses to speak to the FBI? If they have evidence, they should arrest him and question him under caution. No person in their right mind would voluntarily agree to participate in a witch hunt of this type. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 hours ago, Bday Prang said: I know that but I couldnt be bothered finding links for the lazy disbelieving wokei You would think that some people would have some knowledge about certain events and wouldn't have to keep asking for links to stories that had World wide publicity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 5 minutes ago, BritManToo said: If they have evidence, they should arrest him and question him under caution. No person in their right mind would voluntarily agree to participate in a witch hunt of this type. The FBI can't arrest him, he won't voluntarily go to the US. They won't extradite him because of who he is. How can you defend a coward who won't front the police? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said: You would think that some people would have some knowledge about certain events and wouldn't have to keep asking for links to stories that had World wide publicity Too bad you don't agree with the rules here. Why do you post at all? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritManToo Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 minutes ago, ozimoron said: The FBI can't arrest him, he won't voluntarily go to the US. They won't extradite him because of who he is. How can you defend a coward who won't front the police? My brief always advises to never voluntarily talk with the police. And if they do arrest and question you, to never admit you were there, and be as vague as possible with no factual content in your answers. "I don't remember her, that was 20 years ago, I don't remember being there" ............. etc. This isn't cowardly, this is simple self preservation for anyone, accused of anything, guilty or innocent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayC Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 hour ago, BritManToo said: The payment was a big mistake, the wokes view any payments or apologies as an admission of guilt and will never stop. Rolf was convicted because he wrote an apology to his accuser. Harris was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault (one later overturned) against 4 different women. I can't be sure - and can't be bothered to look into the cases - but I doubt that a jury would have considered a letter to one of the victims sufficient evidence to convict Harris on all counts. A number of other women (some well known) subsequently alleged that Harris had assaulted them. Everything points to Harris' guilt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
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