The Pandorica Opened
Well-Known Member
Some weird fuckers on here
Thanks
Thanks
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Epstein / Prince Andrew / Maxwell
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,248
It was a civil case. Money in the bank is literally the justice she'd have received had the jury found in her favour.Takes two to agree a deal though mate.
She should have made him testify as far as I am concerned and her demands for justice now seem a tad hollow as it seems she thinks justice is having money in the bank and not a sexual deviant prosecuted.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
It was a very carefully worded statement - as you would expect, the rates those cunts will be charging!
I'm going to speculate it works out at more than £25 a word!
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I wish I could charge £25 a word!I'm going to speculate it works out at more than £25 a word!
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
I have said you are maybe correct.It does in that jurisdiction, yes. Doesn’t make him a paedophile, or are you saying that a man who has sex with an 11 year old in Nigeria isn’t?
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
No. It wasnt a criminal case was it?Takes two to agree a deal though mate.
She should have made him testify as far as I am concerned and her demands for justice now seem a tad hollow as it seems she thinks justice is having money in the bank and not a sexual deviant prosecuted.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Ok. Fair enough.I have said you are maybe correct.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
It’s not just in the States where the vast majority of large claims settle.
A bird in the hand and avoiding the unpredictability and emotional turmoil of a contested hearing are enticing for even the most indignant and wounded of litigants, especially if they are being leaned on by those who advise them.
A bird in the hand and avoiding the unpredictability and emotional turmoil of a contested hearing are enticing for even the most indignant and wounded of litigants, especially if they are being leaned on by those who advise them.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
I wish I could charge £25 a word!
I used to get 20p a word from the News of the World.
Thankfully, the match reports were three, 900 word rewrites from both ends.
Those great issues of the monarchy and "paedo's", ones to always produce strong reactions.
I have to say that the way this has ended has left a sour taste in the mouth. Money winning over truth, justice and transparency.
I think everyone sees Andrew as cossetted and not really aware of the real world. Status and money giving him the right to do as he pleased and have people fawning over him. Who gives a toss about his friends and acquaintances as long as they get him nice holidays and access to women.
I have little doubt that he has enjoyed the benefits of being friendly with Epstein and therefore had "liaisons" with many women...BUT... None have accused him (as far as I am aware) of forcing them to engage in any acts. Surely if that was true then there would have been a criminal prosecution?
The fact that Giuffre was of legal age and has never claimed that she was underage when any act took place, the fact that (unless Ghislaine spills the beans) it is unlikely that there would be any categoric proof that he actually had any sexual relationship with her, does beg the question (IMO) as to what the civil action was actually out for.
Giuffre, or at least her lawyers, had said that this was all about the truth, about Andrew admitting his involvement and/or knowledge of the "trafficking", that it wasn't about the money. That seems a little hollow now.
I really would have liked to have seen him squirming under questioning.
His mum must be so proud of him!
Certainly makes Thomas Paine's argument though;
"We have heard the Rights of Man called a levelling system; but the only system to which the word levelling is truly applicable, is the hereditary monarchical system. It is a system of mental levelling. It indiscriminately admits every species of character to the same authority. Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every quality, good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each other, not as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their mental or moral characters are. Can we then be surprised at the abject state of the human mind in monarchical countries, when the government itself is formed on such an abject levelling system?—It has no fixed character. To-day it is one thing; to-morrow it is something else. It changes with the temper of every succeeding individual, and is subject to all the varieties of each. It is government through the medium of passions and accidents. It appears under all the various characters of childhood, decrepitude, dotage, a thing at nurse, in leading-strings, or in crutches. It reverses the wholesome order of nature. It occasionally puts children over men, and the conceits of non-age over wisdom and experience. In short, we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government, than hereditary succession, in all its cases, presents".
I have to say that the way this has ended has left a sour taste in the mouth. Money winning over truth, justice and transparency.
I think everyone sees Andrew as cossetted and not really aware of the real world. Status and money giving him the right to do as he pleased and have people fawning over him. Who gives a toss about his friends and acquaintances as long as they get him nice holidays and access to women.
I have little doubt that he has enjoyed the benefits of being friendly with Epstein and therefore had "liaisons" with many women...BUT... None have accused him (as far as I am aware) of forcing them to engage in any acts. Surely if that was true then there would have been a criminal prosecution?
The fact that Giuffre was of legal age and has never claimed that she was underage when any act took place, the fact that (unless Ghislaine spills the beans) it is unlikely that there would be any categoric proof that he actually had any sexual relationship with her, does beg the question (IMO) as to what the civil action was actually out for.
Giuffre, or at least her lawyers, had said that this was all about the truth, about Andrew admitting his involvement and/or knowledge of the "trafficking", that it wasn't about the money. That seems a little hollow now.
I really would have liked to have seen him squirming under questioning.
His mum must be so proud of him!
Certainly makes Thomas Paine's argument though;
"We have heard the Rights of Man called a levelling system; but the only system to which the word levelling is truly applicable, is the hereditary monarchical system. It is a system of mental levelling. It indiscriminately admits every species of character to the same authority. Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every quality, good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each other, not as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their mental or moral characters are. Can we then be surprised at the abject state of the human mind in monarchical countries, when the government itself is formed on such an abject levelling system?—It has no fixed character. To-day it is one thing; to-morrow it is something else. It changes with the temper of every succeeding individual, and is subject to all the varieties of each. It is government through the medium of passions and accidents. It appears under all the various characters of childhood, decrepitude, dotage, a thing at nurse, in leading-strings, or in crutches. It reverses the wholesome order of nature. It occasionally puts children over men, and the conceits of non-age over wisdom and experience. In short, we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government, than hereditary succession, in all its cases, presents".