January 10, 20242 yr 6 hours ago, ozimoron said: I said there's no difference between attacking prince charming's detractors and defending prince charming. No, you didn't.
January 10, 20242 yr 8 minutes ago, Bday Prang said: Ok I'll accept what you are saying as I'm sure you have researched the matter, But surely,if arrested, and therefore cautioned in the UK. the caution you are obliged to receive should mention that specifically, It not really fair for them to tell you that you have the right to remain silent, if there are specific circumstances where exercising that right would automatically render you liable to prosecution. It only states that "it may harm your defence....." I don’t disagree and I don’t support the ‘it may harm your defense’ bit either. Either way, sworn testimony exists, at the very least the MET ought to question Prince Andrew under caution.
January 10, 20242 yr 10 minutes ago, Bday Prang said: Ok I'll accept what you are saying as I'm sure you have researched the matter, But surely,if arrested, and therefore cautioned in the UK. the caution you are obliged to receive should mention that specifically, It not really fair for them to tell you that you have the right to remain silent, if there are specific circumstances where exercising that right would automatically render you liable to prosecution. It only states that "it may harm your defense....." ‘A court, in determining whether the defendant is guilty of the offence charged may draw such inferences as appear proper from evidence of silence in certain circumstances.’ From this link. https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/witness-inferences.htm This link is from the HSE, as in the UK, not only the police are trained and use The PACE Act 1984, which determines when and how a warning verbal caution is used. It will be up to the judge, magistrate or jury (depending on which court the case is heard) to determined what to make of a silent/no comment response. Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The chances of silence/no comment helping the case is going to be rare, it will just make the officer doing the questioning work harder on the evidence. Some evidence will have already pointed to the offender, or the verbal caution is not required for a witness statement. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is only relevant to Uk. PACE Act 1984 is only relevant to England and Wales.
January 10, 20242 yr 4 hours ago, The Cyclist said: And then needs backed up with some form of evidence, go to trial and a jury normally decides the innocence or guilt of the accused. The normal course of justice in most Countries that are considered civilised. Not in Thailand, where only a judge decides, as they don't have jury trials. Do you consider Thailand uncivilised?
January 10, 20242 yr 1 hour ago, pacovl46 said: The private Island is part of the US Virgin Islands territory and therefore part of their jurisdiction. Just because one owns an island doesn't make that island a sovereign nation. So it is an island colony of the US, as I alluded to earlier.
January 10, 20242 yr Popular Post 2 hours ago, JonnyF said: So you don't actually believe in innocent until proven guilty then. You wish death on a man before he has been proven guilty of a crime. What a lovely attitude. Let me guess, you're a 'liberal' . Oh please! Enough of the pearl clutching. Of course I believe in innocent until proven guilty (I actually said that in my post along with 'a pay-off isn't an admission of guilt') but I also believe that if you are innocent then you have an opportunity to prove that in a court of law. Andy had that chance but chose to pay-off his accuser to the tune of $12 million and to this day still refuses to make a statement to the FBI. He must have known how much damage to his already awful reputation these actions would do so you have to ask how much MORE damage would have been done if he had gone to court? I would argue, a great deal more. And FYI I'm not a liberal but equally I'm not a brown-nosing, doff my cap, servile pleb who thinks the Royals shouldn't be held accountable for their actions and/or are above the law. I also don't believe people should be allowed to pay their way out of trouble. But that's just me I guess.
January 10, 20242 yr Popular Post 5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said: Oh please! Enough of the pearl clutching. Of course I believe in innocent until proven guilty (I actually said that in my post along with 'a pay-off isn't an admission of guilt') but I also believe that if you are innocent then you have an opportunity to prove that in a court of law. Andy had that chance but chose to pay-off his accuser to the tune of $12 million and to this day still refuses to make a statement to the FBI. He must have known how much damage to his already awful reputation these actions would do so you have to ask how much MORE damage would have been done if he had gone to court? I would argue, a great deal more. And FYI I'm not a liberal but equally I'm not a brown-nosing, doff my cap, servile pleb who thinks the Royals shouldn't be held accountable for their actions and/or are above the law. I also don't believe people should be allowed to pay their way out of trouble. But that's just me I guess. Yes you stated that you believed in innocent until proven gulity and then immediately exposed yourself by admitting you wished the same fate as Epstein on him (i.e. a violent death). So don't pretend you are not a liberal (and I mean in the political, not the classic sense of the word). Your hypocrisy, virtue signalling and spiteful, vitriolic nature exposes you as such. If we all wished death upon someone based on the words of a gold digging, self confessed child procuring prostitute then the world would be a very nasty place to live in. I am not even a Royalist, I simply do not allow my envy of wealth and status to cloud my judgement as so many others do.
January 10, 20242 yr Popular Post 2 hours ago, The Cyclist said: Which has quadrupled the speculation, knicker twisting and trial by social media warriors. A pay off my imply guilt, it does not prove guilt. And just for the record, he is probably guilty of being a gullible <deleted>, probably did **** her, without knowing at the time that he was potentially breaking any laws. An accusation that could be levelled at hundreds of thousands of people in the public eye. From sports stars, pop stars to Politicians and even royals. It might not be ethical, it might not even be ethical, but it happens in just about every Country. Trying to whitewash that and scapegoat 1 individual is nothing short of bonkers. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. But you can't even argue ignorance in Andy's case as when Epstein was issued with an arrest warrant for sexual assault of a minor way back in 2006, Andy still thought it was a good idea to have him at his daughter Beatrice's 18th birthday. And in 2008 when Epstein was charged with procuring for prostitution a girl below the age of 18 (of which he was sentenced to eighteen months, serving 13 months under house arrest), Andy STILL visited him and kept in touch with him for years after. Now you may call that gullible or you may call it arrogance OR you could just say it for what it was; his good chum Epstein was a peodophile who trafficked young girls for his rich and famous friends and as far as ol' Randy Andy was concerned, not only was that just fine, but it was not bad enough for him to cut ties with Epstein until 2011, 3 YEARS after he was convicted. You can't call it a 'whitewash' or scapegoating when the person in question is quite as willing as Andy seems to have been to be involved.
January 10, 20242 yr Popular Post 23 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Yes you stated that you believed in innocent until proven gulity and then immediately exposed yourself by admitting you wished the same fate as Epstein on him (i.e. a violent death). So don't pretend you are not a liberal (and I mean in the political, not the classic sense of the word). Your hypocrisy, virtue signalling and spiteful, vitriolic nature exposes you as such. If we all wished death upon someone based on the words of a gold digging, self confessed child procuring prostitute then the world would be a very nasty place to live in. I am not even a Royalist, I simply do not allow my envy of wealth and status to cloud my judgement as so many others do. And again with the strawman argument. I wrote 30 lines on the subject but you're obsessing over the 'following his best chum Epstein's ignominious demise' as if THAT'S the important part. Your winning 'gotcha' moment isn't really the point though but since it's upsetting your delicate sensibilities so much then I will retract that part and categorically say I don't wish a violent death on Prince Andrew (happy?). I do however think he should be held accountable for his actions and shouldn't be allowed to pay his way out of trouble. Now, any chance you can argue this or are you now physically attached to those pearls?
January 10, 20242 yr 3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said: First the U.S.: “If the judge and jury find a witness statement credible, they can charge or convict you of a crime based solely on witness testimony alone. The statement must be made under oath for eyewitness testimony to be used to charge someone with a crime. “ https://www.bergencriminalattorney.com/can-i-be-charged-with-a-crime-based-on-someone-elses-testimony-alone/#:~:text=If the judge and jury,charge someone with a crime. This US you mean Quote Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 6% of rapists ever serve a day in jail. If a rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of an arrest. If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution. If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of conviction. This UK you mean Quote 68,109 rapes. were recorded by police between July 2022 and June 2023. By the end of that 12-month period, charges had been brought in just 2.2% (1,498) of cases. In other words.. Not a great example you provided That is a lot of credible witness statements going absolutely nowhere. And guess what, some of those witness statements will also be lies.
January 10, 20242 yr 1 hour ago, Mr Meeseeks said: Not in Thailand, where only a judge decides, as they don't have jury trials. Do you consider Thailand uncivilised? Why did you even reply. Whether a Judge decides or a Jury decides is immaterial The same process occurs, accusations made, investigation and evidence gathering, a trial by jury or a judge, a decision made.
January 10, 20242 yr 55 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said: gnorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. You might have a point if I had said it would. It must be great up their on your pedestal, knowing that you are waiting on sainthood, for never having put a foot wrong.
January 10, 20242 yr 13 minutes ago, The Cyclist said: You might have a point if I had said it would. It must be great up their on your pedestal, knowing that you are waiting on sainthood, for never having put a foot wrong. Not true. I once put a foot wrong. It was 1987. I remember it well. It was a Tuesday.
January 10, 20242 yr 11 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said: Not true. I once put a foot wrong. It was 1987. I remember it well. It was a Tuesday. Yeah that was before they had doggy bags.
January 10, 20242 yr Popular Post For the intrepid gang of 4 or 5 who are so vocal of the rights of young females. The young females of Afghanistan need your assistance right now. The Taliban have started stoning them to death again. If you are struggling for the airfare, send me a Pm and I will set up a crowdfunding page for you. Otherwise you know where the airport is, it is a desperate situation and you are needed their tomorrow at the latest. Happy packing.
January 10, 20242 yr On 1/8/2024 at 9:43 PM, BritManToo said: Presumably Andy could have refused to attend or be extradited. He has committed no crimes in the UK. It was the publicity that they wished to avoid. Now that it's all out, I hope they get their money back.
January 10, 20242 yr 8 hours ago, The Cyclist said: For the intrepid gang of 4 or 5 who are so vocal of the rights of young females. The young females of Afghanistan need your assistance right now. The Taliban have started stoning them to death again. If you are struggling for the airfare, send me a Pm and I will set up a crowdfunding page for you. Otherwise you know where the airport is, it is a desperate situation and you are needed their tomorrow at the latest. Happy packing. One suspects that their "concern" for young women only happens when it's an excuse to attack someone they don't like. As for the unfortunate women of Afghanistan I doubt they give them as much as a thought.
January 10, 20242 yr 11 hours ago, JonnyF said: Yes you stated that you believed in innocent until proven gulity and then immediately exposed yourself by admitting you wished the same fate as Epstein on him (i.e. a violent death). So don't pretend you are not a liberal (and I mean in the political, not the classic sense of the word). Your hypocrisy, virtue signalling and spiteful, vitriolic nature exposes you as such. If we all wished death upon someone based on the words of a gold digging, self confessed child procuring prostitute then the world would be a very nasty place to live in. I am not even a Royalist, I simply do not allow my envy of wealth and status to cloud my judgement as so many others do. I gave you a thumbs up, but that post deserves more than just an emoji. Well said.
January 10, 20242 yr 13 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said: So it is an island colony of the US, as I alluded to earlier. No, you alluded to laws not being applicable on a private island, which isn’t true.
January 11, 20242 yr 15 hours ago, johnnybangkok said: And again with the strawman argument. I wrote 30 lines on the subject but you're obsessing over the 'following his best chum Epstein's ignominious demise' as if THAT'S the important part. Your winning 'gotcha' moment isn't really the point though but since it's upsetting your delicate sensibilities so much then I will retract that part and categorically say I don't wish a violent death on Prince Andrew (happy?). I do however think he should be held accountable for his actions and shouldn't be allowed to pay his way out of trouble. Now, any chance you can argue this or are you now physically attached to those pearls? Well at least you admitted that your "hardman" stance on the subject wasn't exactly in keeping with your public #bekind persona. Maybe virtue signalling isn't for you after all? As for Andrew, responsible for what actions? Sleeping with a 17 year old in the UK where the legal age of consent is 16? Even that is completely unproven, the only "evidence" if you can call it that, are the words of a self confessed child procuring prostitute with dollar signs in her greedy little eyes. Excuse me if I don't 'string him up' based on such a blatant money grab.
January 11, 20242 yr 14 hours ago, The Cyclist said: This US you mean This UK you mean Not a great example you provided That is a lot of credible witness statements going absolutely nowhere. And guess what, some of those witness statements will also be lies. Thank you for demonstrating the non sequitur. There are layers of reasons why sexual abuse cases in the UK and US are so infrequently brought to trial and conviction. That fact does not negate the factual legal principal that in both the U.S. and the UK judicial systems criminal convictions may and occasionally are based solely on a single witness statement. Refer links I provided above.
January 11, 20242 yr 15 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Well at least you admitted that your "hardman" stance on the subject wasn't exactly in keeping with your public #bekind persona. Maybe virtue signalling isn't for you after all? As for Andrew, responsible for what actions? Sleeping with a 17 year old in the UK where the legal age of consent is 16? Even that is completely unproven, the only "evidence" if you can call it that, are the words of a self confessed child procuring prostitute with dollar signs in her greedy little eyes. Excuse me if I don't 'string him up' based on such a blatant money grab. Once again dodging the allegations of what Andrew did in the U.S. and under U.S. jurisdiction. Odd given the subject of the thread.
January 11, 20242 yr 9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Once again dodging the allegations of what Andrew did in the U.S. and under U.S. jurisdiction. Odd given the subject of the thread. Because I see no credible evidence of any crime being committed. Some prostitute makes a cash grab and we're all supposed to throw him under the bus? No, that's one bandwagon I refuse to board.
January 11, 20242 yr Popular Post 13 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Because I see no credible evidence of any crime being committed. Some prostitute makes a cash grab and we're all supposed to throw him under the bus? No, that's one bandwagon I refuse to board. Regardless of whether you personally regard the evidence as credible, Prince Andrew was resident at Epstein’s home in NY for extended periods. Your attempts to avoid the fact his actions in the U.S. are subject to U.S. law are exposing the weakness of your arguments. You ignore that which you can’t deal with. That bucket of sand in the corner is for fighting fires Jonny, not hiding your head.
January 11, 20242 yr 11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Regardless of whether you personally regard the evidence as credible, Prince Andrew was resident at Epstein’s home in NY for extended periods. Is that a crime? Better lock up Clinton for sharing a plane and an island with him then... 11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Your attempts to avoid the fact his actions in the U.S. are subject to U.S. law are exposing the weakness of your arguments. You speak of his actions in the US but you have no credible evidence of such actions. You are trying to lead a witch hunt, unsuccessfully. 11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: You ignore that which you can’t deal with. There is nothing to ignore. It's a nothing burger. An allegation by a self confessed child procuring prostitute on a money grab. 11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: That bucket of sand in the corner is for fighting fires Jonny, not hiding your head. Very droll. Let me guess, you're here all week?
January 11, 20242 yr 2 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Is that a crime? Better lock up Clinton for sharing a plane and an island with him then... You speak of his actions in the US but you have no credible evidence of such actions. You are trying to lead a witch hunt, unsuccessfully. There is nothing to ignore. It's a nothing burger. An allegation by a self confessed child procuring prostitute on a money grab. Very droll. Let me guess, you're here all week? Funny how you believe the witness on something’s but not in others. I’ll be here as long as you are Jonny.
January 11, 20242 yr Popular Post 5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: It was the publicity that they wished to avoid. Now that it's all out, I hope they get their money back. Andrew thought that paying £12m in an out-of-court settlement would avoid publicity?
January 11, 20242 yr Popular Post 5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: One suspects that their "concern" for young women only happens when it's an excuse to attack someone they don't like. As for the unfortunate women of Afghanistan I doubt they give them as much as a thought. Well you've certainly got form yourself when it comes to faux concern, as anyone who has read your comments about the Ukraine war will know.
January 11, 20242 yr 6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: One suspects that their "concern" for young women only happens when it's an excuse to attack someone they don't like. Lets put that to the test. This should be good for another 12 pages of outrage Quote Why Mandelson’s links to Epstein could come back to haunt Starmer Public figure - Check Named in the Epstein saga - Check Nondescript photos - Check Must be guilty as sin, let the wailing commence, 12 pages worth should be appropriate.
Create an account or sign in to comment