You appear to have.....You appear to have something on your nose... looks like chocolate?
How the fuck does it look iffy?You appear to have.....
Whatever my fellow Blue. If, and it does look iffy, he has committed crimes that rank as the worst sort that one can commit, then he should indeed suffer the consequences. My point being that you have predetermined his guilt based upon prejudice.
Not the way the justice system should work.
As for myself, I will let things play out.
You appear to have.....
Whatever my fellow Blue. If, and it does look iffy, he has committed crimes that rank as the worst sort that one can commit, then he should indeed suffer the consequences. My point being that you have predetermined his guilt based upon prejudice.
Not the way the justice system should work.
As for myself, I will let things play out.
Ask @Fode N The Hole He has already made his mind up.How the fuck does it look iffy?
Ok, I'm watching the darts. Happy New Year.There is no system that will decide his guilt, as I've already explained the statute of limitations for any crimes he would have committed in the USA has already passed. This is a civil case that doesn't decide guilt.
I'm sure there are few people you would take seriously if they told you OJ Simpson was not guilty.
Do you think the Met are going to reinvestigate a senior royal after passing up the opportunity to investigate an illegal party where their own officers were present?
I've formed my opinion on the basis of his statements, information in the public domain and his efforts to weasel out of litigation, it is nothing to do with prejudice. There isn't anything to prejudge because there can never be a trial.
Relying on a settlement agreed by a convicted paedophile has got to be one of the most poncy things you can do. Particularly as his accuser was looking to settle and he could have paid off himself with his own money.
What sort of man goes to spend a few days at a convicted paedophile's house to break up their friendship?
A father of young girls at the time of the alleged attacks, a patron of the NSPCC.
What’s the point in having servants if you can’t get them to squeeze your toothpaste for you?I reserve the right to thank what I like of a family who have servants to squeeze their toothpaste for them and use the press to brief against other members of their own family.
Indeed.‘Prince’ Andrew or the ‘Duke’ of York. What an utterly bizarre country we live in.
Not sure it does scupper his claims. That highlighted part doesn’t make sense in terms of a civil claim for damages based on my reading of the material clause (or what I’ve seen of it) unless it’s referring to criminal proceedings which would make more sense as you cannot contract out of liability under criminal law, or fraud more generally (criminal or civil).From what I have heard tonight the agreement gave her $500k on the understanding that she would not pursue any of Epstein's friends with further accusation - but it also states that the agreement itself cannot be used by anyone as a defence against accusations that may be made against them. On the face of it contradictory but kind of scuppers Andrew's lawyers claims.
Either way getting off on a technicality be it a local scally accused of shoplifting or a footballer accused of D&D or a member of the Royal Family accused of sex with a minor still leaves a sense of guilt hanging in the air over the accused.