Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
kaz7 said:
Back at you, you were trying to slag the queen and that is not on
Click to expand...

Of course it's on.

I happen to be indifferent towards the royal family but, for example, a staunch republican will and absolutely should be allowed to slate the queen as much as they want, and they would probably have reason for doing so. Take your blinders off.

The facts that she's nominally in charge and you seem to like her absolutely do not make her immune to criticism.

And it's spelled subpoena.
 
feelymcfeel said:
Of course it's on.

I happen to be indifferent towards the royal family but, for example, a staunch republican will and absolutely should be allowed to slate the queen as much as they want, and they would probably have reason for doing so. Take your blinders off.

The facts that she's nominally in charge and you seem to like her absolutely do not make her immune to criticism.

And it's spelled subpoena.
Click to expand...
If you can prove she knows he is guilty and has shielded him then go for it
 
feelymcfeel said:
Of course it's on.

I happen to be indifferent towards the royal family but, for example, a staunch republican will and absolutely should be allowed to slate the queen as much as they want, and they would probably have reason for doing so. Take your blinders off.

The facts that she's nominally in charge and you seem to like her absolutely do not make her immune to criticism.

And it's spelled subpoena.
Click to expand...
We live in a free society so a staunch Republican can say what they want about the Queen, but I can call a staunch Republican a **** for presuming stuff they’ve got no evidence for.

Kaz can say what she wants and the other person can say what he/she wants - it’s how it works.
 
kaz7 said:
A yank legal guy on sky explaining what happens in a civil case

If randy is judged to lie under oath or ignore a sopeno ( sp) it would be perjuary and he would face a criminal trial

He may get away with not going over there , i am not sure i understood that as he might have some kind of royal immunity
Click to expand...

No such thing in the USA.

Might try to make the case for diplomatic immunity but then he no longer holds any formal positions for the Royal family, so if he committed perjury in any point from now onwards (and faced prospect of being tried for it) it doesn't seem like he could rely on that defence.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
No such thing in the USA.

Might try to make the case for diplomatic immunity but then he no longer holds any formal positions for the Royal family, so if he committed perjury in any point from now onwards (and faced prospect of being tried for it) it doesn't seem like he could rely on that defence.
Click to expand...
Thanks , he said he has no diplomatic immunity but might have royal immunity , he wont go in any case
 
kaz7 said:
Thanks , he said he has no diplomatic immunity but might have royal immunity , he wont go in any case
Click to expand...

No he won't go and even if he was compelled to testify it seems appropriate (considering global pandemic) that it could be done by videolink.

And he could always plead the 5th and avoid perjuring himself.

Do You Have a Right to Remain Silent in a Civil Case?

You may have a right to remain silent in a civil case. An Irvine civil litigation lawyer explains Fifth Amendment protections in civil cases.
www.bc-llp.com www.bc-llp.com

I expect him to settle before it reaches the trial, it has gone on too long and become too embarrassing for the Queen.

Although I hope by doing so it unleashes as much contagion on the royal family as possible and damages the monarchy irreparably.
 
inchy14 said:
Bet you wouldn’t let anyone slag Saville off in the 80’s either with all his charity work.
Click to expand...

jimmy-savile-1-z.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top