With Kate playing the part of Margaret Beaufort?
The Royal Family
- tenchboy
- After Pie
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
- Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.
Re: The Royal Family
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: The Royal Family
Don't forget his great nieces as well, they're ahead of Andrew now in the list. Equal primogeniture and all that.
ETA: Actually, that said, they always would've been, but still.
ETA: Actually, that said, they always would've been, but still.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
Re: The Royal Family
Oops, i forgot that william and harry had girls too.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 3:39 pmDon't forget his great nieces as well, they're ahead of Andrew now in the list. Equal primogeniture and all that.
ETA: Actually, that said, they always would've been, but still.
Re: The Royal Family
Re: The Royal Family
Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60407806
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60407806
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: The Royal Family
That was never going to happen regardless of the evidence. Even if Andrew proved conclusively that he didn't meet Virginia Giuffre on one specific occasion, it was incontrovertible that he had met her at some time and if she alleges that he had sex with her there would be no way to prove that that was not true even if it wasn't. And, of course, even if the case was narrowed down to some specific occasion where he couldn't have been there, many people would have believed him guilty anyway and said he did it at some other time and Virgina merely made a mistake over the date. And, don't forget that the American legal system generally makes winners pay their own costs. Winning can be very expensive, so there is a huge incentive to settle. The only big danger in settling against a meritless opponent is that you risk someone else deciding you provide a good chance of them getting money too.
Re: The Royal Family
My god, Prince Charles is really f.cking up his reading out of the queen's speech!
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: The Royal Family
I know what he's done, he's confused it with Eurovision.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: The Royal Family
Never heard him sing before. Quite a good voice. But choosing Bucks Fizz as his classic Eurovision song? I suppose it's a message to the government to not let its indecision take it from behind.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: The Royal Family
Oops! Nearly a wardrobe malfunction there. Tore off Camila's dress and almost took the mini skirt with it!
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: The Royal Family
Nice segue into Waterloo. He seems to think it's literally about Waterloo though. Bringing on a regiment to reenact the battle is a bit silly.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: The Royal Family
Well that was good! Lays down the gauntlet to the rest of Europe for Saturday night's contest. Macron remains favourite to win of course, at least assuming Zelensky won't be able to make the show.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: The Royal Family
Listening to his giving of the speech
I'm reminded
"There are two great tragedies in life; one is not to get your heart's desire..."
I'm reminded
"There are two great tragedies in life; one is not to get your heart's desire..."
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
- Stranger Mouse
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2699
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: The Royal Family
Maxwell just got 20 yearsBird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:39 amHis response is bizarre. He's dropped his defences that he can't sweat and was eating pizza, presumably because he can't substantiate either part of the alibi.
Though he also seems to be suffering from terrible amnesia:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-lawsuitAmong the allegations from Giuffre’s complaint that Andrew said he could not admit or deny were that:
Andrew and convicted sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell have been photographed at numerous social events together.
Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to the charge of procuring a minor for prostitution.
Andrew had been on Epstein’s private plane and stayed at some of his homes.
The infamous photograph depicts Andrew, Giuffre and Maxwell at Maxwell’s home.
Andrew admitted in the disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview to having been on Epstein’s jet and having stayed at several of his properties, while Epstein’s conviction is a matter of public record. The prince’s court papers also raised eyebrows for their denial that Maxwell, whom Andrew met when she was at university, was a close friend.
I really hope they get to dig out all kinds of juice documents in front of a jury, oh boy. As long as he ends up paying the costs.
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The Royal Family
I'm sure the sentence will shortly be commuted to ~suicide~.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: The Royal Family
Her lawyers have been trying to argue down the sentence. So that's a kind of admission, at least that they don't hold much chance out for an appeal. She has acknowledged that there are victims, but not that their abuse was any of her fault, so in principle still leaving the way open for an appeal.
The remaining question is whether she has any actionable dirt on Epstein's numerous guests, such as Handy Andy, and whether therefore she might dish it in return for some sentence reduction. It seemed to me the chance of getting off was remote, so I would have thought this would come up earlier. Or maybe her potential evidence isn't very useful.
Re: The Royal Family
When we have a victim's testimony that Maxwell instigated some of the sexual assaults.IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:21 pmHer lawyers have been trying to argue down the sentence. So that's a kind of admission, at least that they don't hold much chance out for an appeal. She has acknowledged that there are victims, but not that their abuse was any of her fault, so in principle still leaving the way open for an appeal.
The remaining question is whether she has any actionable dirt on Epstein's numerous guests, such as Handy Andy, and whether therefore she might dish it in return for some sentence reduction. It seemed to me the chance of getting off was remote, so I would have thought this would come up earlier. Or maybe her potential evidence isn't very useful.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: The Royal Family
She was not charged with anything that related to any instigation or participation in sexual assault, at least as far as I can see from this CNN article. So, true or not, legally it wasn't at issue.jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:36 amWhen we have a victim's testimony that Maxwell instigated some of the sexual assaults.IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:21 pmHer lawyers have been trying to argue down the sentence. So that's a kind of admission, at least that they don't hold much chance out for an appeal. She has acknowledged that there are victims, but not that their abuse was any of her fault, so in principle still leaving the way open for an appeal.
The remaining question is whether she has any actionable dirt on Epstein's numerous guests, such as Handy Andy, and whether therefore she might dish it in return for some sentence reduction. It seemed to me the chance of getting off was remote, so I would have thought this would come up earlier. Or maybe her potential evidence isn't very useful.
"Maxwell, 60, was found guilty of five federal charges: sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three related counts of conspiracy. She was acquitted on the charge of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts."
None of those charges, even the one she was acquitted of, depend on any participation in or instigation of sexual acts, only trafficking and transporting. Further, the one charge she was acquitted of was based only on the evidence of "Jane", who appears to be the only witness who alleged Maxwell directly joining in assault. So it seems that the jury might not have accepted "Jane's" evidence - although there may be other reasons for the acquittal on that charge.
"Jane, testifying under a pseudonym, said Maxwell organized sexual massages with Epstein and sometimes joined in the abuse. The charges of enticing -- on which Maxwell was acquitted -- and transporting relate to testimony solely from her."
Another witness, "Kate" alleged more direct involvement in the form of sexual instruction. But this was also not relevant to the convictions, as all the offences charged were in relation to minors, and "Kate" was not a minor at the time.
""Kate" testified Maxwell invited her over and directed her how to give Epstein a sexual massage. She said Maxwell spoke often of sexual topics with her and asked Kate to invite other young girls for Epstein's sexual desires. The jury was instructed it could not convict Maxwell on any of the counts based solely on testimony from Kate as she was over the age of consent at the time of the events."
So she is convicted of trafficking and transporting of minors, and various related conspiracy charges. She certainly isn't going to admit to any more than that, especially if an admission is a requirement of negotiating a sentence reduction in return for giving evidence on others. And isn't going to admit anything very much until the issue of appeals is dealt with. There are various reports that she will still appeal, though some reports say appeal the sentence and others the verdict.
Meanwhile, Metro reports fresh calls to expand investigation of Andrew and other Epstein guests, from victims' lawyers. Who doubtless wouldn't mind more fees.
- tenchboy
- After Pie
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
- Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Meanwhile Megan's lawyers show Boris to be an amateur when it comes to the art of flim-flam...
[That's all I know cos that's all I can see]
[That's all I know cos that's all I can see]
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: The Royal Family
(Moved the above post from the 2020 Christmas Party thread)
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8428
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
"Don’t minimise others’ experiences - we believe in the value of robust evidence, but also respect the importance of individual experience. Importantly, if someone posts about their personal experiences, respond in a validating way to that first, before any other remarks. It is very important to be sensitive about this."
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- tenchboy
- After Pie
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
- Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
My apologies, I meant no harm.shpalman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:12 am"Don’t minimise others’ experiences - we believe in the value of robust evidence, but also respect the importance of individual experience. Importantly, if someone posts about their personal experiences, respond in a validating way to that first, before any other remarks. It is very important to be sensitive about this."
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...