The Royal Family
Re: The Royal Family
I read an article the other day suggesting that one of Maxwell's options for reducing her jail-time - indeed possibly reducing it to no more, or little more, than she will have ended up serving on remand - is to give evidence to dob in all the other offenders.
Re: The Royal Family
Think she’ll go for appeal first, still denying it.IvanV wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:34 amI read an article the other day suggesting that one of Maxwell's options for reducing her jail-time - indeed possibly reducing it to no more, or little more, than she will have ended up serving on remand - is to give evidence to dob in all the other offenders.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: The Royal Family
Man who says he doesn't remember meeting a teenager - when there's a photo of him with his arm around her waist (eugh!) - says she might be suffering from false memory syndrome.
Bastard
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... nd-husband
Bastard
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... nd-husband
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ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn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ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn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!
- Trinucleus
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm
Re: The Royal Family
Still got the same PR team thenGfamily wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:50 pmMan who says he doesn't remember meeting a teenager - when there's a photo of him with his arm around her waist (eugh!) - says she might be suffering from false memory syndrome.
Bastard
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... nd-husband
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The Royal Family
Not 100% implausible that a celeb might not remember every young woman whose waist he's had his arm around, tbf.
There's further evidence, though.
There's further evidence, though.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: The Royal Family
It's very easy to forget people one has met, and even been intimate with.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:01 pmNot 100% implausible that a celeb might not remember every young woman whose waist he's had his arm around, tbf.
There's further evidence, though.
I have forgotten over half the women I've had sex with in my life, and certainly a far greater proportion of the women I've kissed, danced with or had my arm around.
Re: The Royal Family
#NotSoHumbleBragtom p wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:18 pmIt's very easy to forget people one has met, and even been intimate with.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:01 pmNot 100% implausible that a celeb might not remember every young woman whose waist he's had his arm around, tbf.
There's further evidence, though.
I have forgotten over half the women I've had sex with in my life, and certainly a far greater proportion of the women I've kissed, danced with or had my arm around.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The Royal Family
Well, they can't remember him either.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: The Royal Family
I'd have thought that someone would remember their worst ever f.ck.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The Royal Family
Demanding a jury trial https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... yers-court
Wonder if that means he's gonna go for a populist "I'm just a normal princely bloke shagging teenage girls, you'd do it too you know you would" defence, rather than the previous "I was eating pizza in a wok" shambles.
Wonder if that means he's gonna go for a populist "I'm just a normal princely bloke shagging teenage girls, you'd do it too you know you would" defence, rather than the previous "I was eating pizza in a wok" shambles.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The Royal Family
His 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:
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.
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.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- Brightonian
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
- Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland
Re: The Royal Family
From a satirical account on Twitter:
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.
Re: The Royal Family
It was a civil case, which means the joke doesn't work. Paying is the way civil cases end.Brightonian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:31 pmFrom a satirical account on Twitter:
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.
Re: The Royal Family
Really?IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:58 pmIt was a civil case, which means the joke doesn't work. Paying is the way civil cases end.Brightonian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:31 pmFrom a satirical account on Twitter:
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.
If I ran into your car parked in a parking bay in a car park and I sued you for damage to my car, would you pay up?
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- Rich Scopie
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:21 pm
Re: The Royal Family
Nonsense."We hail Virginia's victory today. She has accomplished what no-one else could: getting Prince Andrew to stop his nonsense and side with sexual abuse victims. We salute Virginia's stunning courage.”
Nonce sense.
Surely that’s deliberate.
It first was a rumour dismissed as a lie, but then came the evidence none could deny:
a double page spread in the Sunday Express — the Russians are running the DHSS!
a double page spread in the Sunday Express — the Russians are running the DHSS!
Re: The Royal Family
I hope so. After all, Prince Andrew does have more genes in common with crabs than with you or I.Rich Scopie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:15 amNonsense."We hail Virginia's victory today. She has accomplished what no-one else could: getting Prince Andrew to stop his nonsense and side with sexual abuse victims. We salute Virginia's stunning courage.”
Nonce sense.
Surely that’s deliberate.
Re: The Royal Family
Paying is the only kind of outcome to a civil case, whoever wins, even if no one wins. There are also lawyers to be paid. Indeed, that's often most of the paying. The vast majority of civil cases settle early, to reduce the amount of paying, usually to reduce the amount of paying to lawyers. There can be other considerations, like not wanting the evidence to be heard. Like wanting to get on with your life. Though in Andrew's case, settling means not being able to get on with his life.jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:53 amReally?IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:58 pmIt was a civil case, which means the joke doesn't work. Paying is the way civil cases end.Brightonian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:31 pmFrom a satirical account on Twitter:
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.
If I ran into your car parked in a parking bay in a car park and I sued you for damage to my car, would you pay up?
Some people do sue without any merit at all to their case, because they reckon the other side will pay them to go away, for some reason. So, in relation to your question, would I pay someone who hit my car and sued, the answer is, maybe. Maybe there's a reason they've got me over a barrel. Maybe it's cheaper, all told, to pay them to go away. It is left to us to judge whether that is what happened in Andrew's case. Many of us will conclude it is not what happened. The plaintiff is smiling, the defendant is not.
Re: The Royal Family
I'm really disappointed tbh
Re: The Royal Family
And the bold is why that doesn't make sense in this case.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:46 amPaying is the only kind of outcome to a civil case, whoever wins, even if no one wins. There are also lawyers to be paid. Indeed, that's often most of the paying. The vast majority of civil cases settle early, to reduce the amount of paying, usually to reduce the amount of paying to lawyers. There can be other considerations, like not wanting the evidence to be heard. Like wanting to get on with your life. Though in Andrew's case, settling means not being able to get on with his life.
Some people do sue without any merit at all to their case, because they reckon the other side will pay them to go away, for some reason. So, in relation to your question, would I pay someone who hit my car and sued, the answer is, maybe. Maybe there's a reason they've got me over a barrel. Maybe it's cheaper, all told, to pay them to go away. It is left to us to judge whether that is what happened in Andrew's case. Many of us will conclude it is not what happened. The plaintiff is smiling, the defendant is not.
Andrew said he wanted to clear his name. Instead he folded. If he was confident that the evidence was in his favour, it would have been worth his while to go through court, and explain the evidence which seems so incriminating at first glance. It would have helped his income in the future, which would all be based on his reputation.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: The Royal Family
To be fair, the rest of us can answer "Yes, I have a one night stand with a different person almost every night" and nobody cares. But Andrew Windsor might prefer not to confirm this under oath, thanks to the scum tabloids.
And purchasing adult sex from exploited victims of abuse is legal in the UK and US, but probably nobody would want it revealed in a blaze of global publicity.
Perhaps other under age victims of this sexual predator will come forward and get justice. Plus his adult victims who did not consent - based on the stories, though, a hell of a lot of them did consent.
And purchasing adult sex from exploited victims of abuse is legal in the UK and US, but probably nobody would want it revealed in a blaze of global publicity.
Perhaps other under age victims of this sexual predator will come forward and get justice. Plus his adult victims who did not consent - based on the stories, though, a hell of a lot of them did consent.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: The Royal Family
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7144
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: The Royal Family
There's lots of reasons why important people make foolish decisions, to start with there's pride and over confidence, not having a long term strategy, being unable to grasp the seriousness of a situation, getting advice from people who only tell you what you want to hear.jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:15 amAnd the bold is why that doesn't make sense in this case.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:46 amPaying is the only kind of outcome to a civil case, whoever wins, even if no one wins. There are also lawyers to be paid. Indeed, that's often most of the paying. The vast majority of civil cases settle early, to reduce the amount of paying, usually to reduce the amount of paying to lawyers. There can be other considerations, like not wanting the evidence to be heard. Like wanting to get on with your life. Though in Andrew's case, settling means not being able to get on with his life.
Some people do sue without any merit at all to their case, because they reckon the other side will pay them to go away, for some reason. So, in relation to your question, would I pay someone who hit my car and sued, the answer is, maybe. Maybe there's a reason they've got me over a barrel. Maybe it's cheaper, all told, to pay them to go away. It is left to us to judge whether that is what happened in Andrew's case. Many of us will conclude it is not what happened. The plaintiff is smiling, the defendant is not.
Andrew said he wanted to clear his name. Instead he folded. If he was confident that the evidence was in his favour, it would have been worth his while to go through court, and explain the evidence which seems so incriminating at first glance. It would have helped his income in the future, which would all be based on his reputation.
Re: The Royal Family
I love the implication that he might, conceivably, have a long-term strategy. Unless it involves slowly poisoning his brother, nephews & great nephews, then it's one that's not going to get him anywhereWoodchopper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:27 pmThere's lots of reasons why important people make foolish decisions, to start with there's pride and over confidence, not having a long term strategy, being unable to grasp the seriousness of a situation, getting advice from people who only tell you what you want to hear.jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:15 amAnd the bold is why that doesn't make sense in this case.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:46 am
Paying is the only kind of outcome to a civil case, whoever wins, even if no one wins. There are also lawyers to be paid. Indeed, that's often most of the paying. The vast majority of civil cases settle early, to reduce the amount of paying, usually to reduce the amount of paying to lawyers. There can be other considerations, like not wanting the evidence to be heard. Like wanting to get on with your life. Though in Andrew's case, settling means not being able to get on with his life.
Some people do sue without any merit at all to their case, because they reckon the other side will pay them to go away, for some reason. So, in relation to your question, would I pay someone who hit my car and sued, the answer is, maybe. Maybe there's a reason they've got me over a barrel. Maybe it's cheaper, all told, to pay them to go away. It is left to us to judge whether that is what happened in Andrew's case. Many of us will conclude it is not what happened. The plaintiff is smiling, the defendant is not.
Andrew said he wanted to clear his name. Instead he folded. If he was confident that the evidence was in his favour, it would have been worth his while to go through court, and explain the evidence which seems so incriminating at first glance. It would have helped his income in the future, which would all be based on his reputation.