Popular Post beautifulthailand99 Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 And all these deflections that somehow these woman were grubby money hustling teenage sluts says more about the person extolling that than the mores of the victims themselves. Besides which it is irrelevant the US law on statutory rape and sex trafficking is quite clear. All are supposedly equal under the law be they king or pauper or at least this is so in civilised countries. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 4 minutes ago, 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. You are gaslighting again. You're the one who said they sympathize with those who engaged in his crimes against minors, not me... Having consensual sex with a 17 year old in London is not illegal and certainly isn't rape (even if he did it, of which there is no proof). 1 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 14 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said: And all these deflections that somehow these woman were grubby money hustling teenage sluts says more about the person extolling that than the mores of the victims themselves. Besides which it is irrelevant the US law on statutory rape and sex trafficking is quite clear. All are supposedly equal under the law be they king or pauper or at least this is so in civilised countries. Who called them grubby or sluts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautifulthailand99 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 (edited) 6 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Who called them grubby or sluts? I'm am creatively setting the scene bases on inferences made in previous posts."opportunistic hustlers" that's as good as saying that. Edited January 8 by beautifulthailand99 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 2 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said: I'm am creatively setting the scene bases on inferences made in previous posts. No, you're making stuff up. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 30 minutes ago, JonnyF said: I have sympathy for the real victims, not opportunist hustlers who reject the chance of "justice" for cold hard cash. Once again you demonstrate how ill informed you are on the matters you choose to discuss. The case which Prince Andrew chose to settle with his mummy’s money was a civil suit, the purpose of which is to determine liability and award compensation. Cold hard cash settlements are a principle part of civil suit. It was not a matter of ‘justice’. Moreover, giving false testimony under oath is the criminal offense of Perjury, odd how Prince Andrew chose settle out of court with mummy’s money rather than file a complaint of perjury and see his accuser prosecuted. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thaibeachlovers Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 hour ago, JonnyF said: I have sympathy for the real victims, not opportunist hustlers who reject the chance of "justice" for cold hard cash. You can sympathize with those who engaged in his crimes against minors but I certainly won't. Yes accused. Not convicted. I could accuse you of the same thing, it means nothing. Andrew is innocent until proven guilty. A conviction has never been required for the AN kangaroo court to decide someone is actually guilty. Usually only requires an accusation against someone they don't like. 2 2 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RayC Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautifulthailand99 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 He guilty in the same way as Michael Jackson and OJSimpson are guilty and if he isn't let's test it in a court of law not run by his brother. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeranam Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 37 minutes ago, RayC said: Why did he give here that? She is not silenced, I saw the Netflix thing about Epstein yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautifulthailand99 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 The Queen paid 12 million for a gagging order to get her through the jubilee it lasted a year. That period is now up. The glorious 12th has opened up for open season on HRH. Tally ho ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotchilli Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 On 1/6/2024 at 2:40 PM, BritManToo said: Lots of my pals have daily massages, as far as I know, only against the law in some Arab countries if mixed sex. Perfectly legal in the UK and the USA. Maybe he got the "Royal massage" from an under-age girl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post BritManToo Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 (edited) 6 minutes ago, hotchilli said: Maybe he got the "Royal massage" from an under-age girl? I've never though of a 17yo girl as being under age. In the UK she could get married and have babies perfectly legally. As for Andy, I don't believe he's ever paid for sex. He just pays them not to take him to court 20 years later. Edited January 8 by BritManToo 4 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Morch Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: A conviction has never been required for the AN kangaroo court to decide someone is actually guilty. Usually only requires an accusation against someone they don't like. @thaibeachlovers Funny how that 'bothers' you just on some topics. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickcage49 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 This is my shocked face... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dogmatix Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 On 1/6/2024 at 2:58 PM, Chomper Higgot said: Settling out of court with mummy ‘s money before Discovery commenced was a smart move for a guy not known to be very smart. I think it was his US lawyer's advice. Andy and his British solicitor "Good News" Gary were utterly clueless. However, there was one weird part of the US defense strategy when Andy publicized that he applied for a jury trial which caused shock horror at the Firm and in the British media. This was weird because Virginia had already applied for a jury trial and the plaintiff's wishes for a jury trial take precedence. Therefore Andy was going to get a jury trial whether he wanted one or not. So this was probably also on the advice of his US attorney to throw sand in the eyes of Andy's mum and scare her into pay up which she did. Actually a jury trial would not necessarily have been worse than a bench trial but again Mum and the tabloids were not to know this and any kind of trial would have exposed Andy to a future US federal criminal trial for perjury , as he would testified under oath. So I guess there was no way Andy really wanted a trial at all. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacovl46 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 7 hours ago, JonnyF said: She was 17 and the age of consent in the UK is 16. No law was broken, even if he did sleep with her (which he denies and is completely unproven). You've got nothing. Yeah, well, the allegations didn't take place in the UK, though, now did they? Although the age of consent on his island is also 16, but according to the victim, she didn't consent and therefore the age of consent is irrelevant. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritManToo Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Just now, pacovl46 said: Yeah, well, the allegations didn't take place in the UK, though, now did they? Although the age of consent on his island is also 16, but according to the victim, she didn't consent and therefore the age of consent is irrelevant. You'd have thought his 24/7 armed police security detail would have noticed and stopped a rape. Surely they should also be questioned and facing possible charges? 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritManToo Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 4 minutes ago, Dogmatix said: I think it was his US lawyer's advice. Andy and his British solicitor "Good News" Gary were utterly clueless. However, there was one weird part of the US defense strategy when Andy publicized that he applied for a jury trial which caused shock horror at the Firm and in the British media. This was weird because Virginia had already applied for a jury trial and the plaintiff's wishes for a jury trial take precedence. Therefore Andy was going to get a jury trial whether he wanted one or not. So this was probably also on the advice of his US attorney to throw sand in the eyes of Andy's mum and scare her into pay up which she did. Actually a jury trial would not necessarily have been worse than a bench trial but again Mum and the tabloids were not to know this and any kind of trial would have exposed Andy to a future US federal criminal trial for perjury , as he would testified under oath. So I guess there was no way Andy really wanted a trial at all. Presumably Andy could have refused to attend or be extradited. He has committed no crimes in the UK. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 4 minutes ago, BritManToo said: Presumably Andy could have refused to attend or be extradited. He has committed no crimes in the UK. I think so. He couldn't be extradited for the civil case brought by Roberts but, if he committed perjury under oath, albeit in a zoom call, he could have been extradited. He refused to testify to the FBI by zoom in the Epstein case, while Epstein was still alive and before Roberts brought her case. The awful Cressida Dick of the Met protected Andy from criminal charges in the UK. Even though Roberts was over the UK age of consent (and was clearly a hardened hooker by then) she was 17 and criminal charges can be filed against those complicit in sex trafficking of minors under the age of 18 under English law. If he were not a royal, things might have gone differently in the UK. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyF Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 24 minutes ago, pacovl46 said: Yeah, well, the allegations didn't take place in the UK, though, now did they? Yes they did. London. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 24 minutes ago, BritManToo said: You'd have thought his 24/7 armed police security detail would have noticed and stopped a rape. Surely they should also be questioned and facing possible charges? Raped? Trafficked? It's ridiculous. Her own father drove her to the airport. Here she is, clearly kicking and screaming. Clearly distressed at having been paid lots of money to sleep with a handsome Prince (assuming it happened of course). And by her own admission 17 years old when the legal age in London is 16. It's all just another excuse to attack British royalty by Republicans and American leftists. What a disgusting thing to accuse someone of. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thingamabob Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Although it has resulted in Andrew being assumed guilty by a number of people he would be well advised to stay away from US courts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayC Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 2 hours ago, Neeranam said: Why did he give here that? She is not silenced, I saw the Netflix thing about Epstein yesterday. Sorry, can't help. Haven't really followed the case that closely. Just thought that it was a good joke😁 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bday Prang Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 27 minutes ago, RayC said: Sorry, can't help. Haven't really followed the case that closely. Just thought that it was a good joke😁 It was a good one, and one I hadn't heard before, got any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottiejohn Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 3 minutes ago, Bday Prang said: It was a good one, and one I hadn't heard before, got any more? I hope not! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 hour ago, JonnyF said: Raped? Trafficked? It's ridiculous. Her own father drove her to the airport. Here she is, clearly kicking and screaming. Clearly distressed at having been paid lots of money to sleep with a handsome Prince (assuming it happened of course). And by her own admission 17 years old when the legal age in London is 16. It's all just another excuse to attack British royalty by Republicans and American leftists. What a disgusting thing to accuse someone of. What’s this ‘attack British Royalty’ nonsense? You yourself frequently make disparaging remarks about a member of the British Royal Family and his wife. When you do so are you attacking British Royalty? Or is your eagerness to defend a credibly accused rapist blinding you to your own hypocrisy? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Bday Prang Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 not sure if that's a street sign or a warning 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tandor Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 On 1/6/2024 at 2:40 PM, BritManToo said: Lots of my pals have daily massages, as far as I know, only against the law in some Arab countries if mixed sex. Perfectly legal in the UK and the USA. Thailand is a massage table supported by 4 bull elephants..didn't you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuamRudy Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 2 hours ago, JonnyF said: Raped? Trafficked? It's ridiculous. Her own father drove her to the airport. Here she is, clearly kicking and screaming. Clearly distressed at having been paid lots of money to sleep with a handsome Prince (assuming it happened of course). And by her own admission 17 years old when the legal age in London is 16. It's all just another excuse to attack British royalty by Republicans and American leftists. What a disgusting thing to accuse someone of. She was paid to sleep with him. You, yourself, even called her a prostitute. The law in England is clear with regards to prostitution. Under 18s cannot willingly participate in it, either as buyers or sellers. The age of consent has zero relevance here, despite your failure to understand that. A dirty old man allegedly paid for sex with a child (as defined in the Sexual Offences Act). He needs to face the full scrutiny of the law. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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