Jump to content

Prince Andrew BBC


D.A.F.C

Recommended Posts



For me, it’s all a matter of timing and when the Queen passes away. Andrew will be desperate for her to be alive as long as possible to try put some time and distance between these current problems. If Queenie departs soon, there’ll be literally no protection and the rest of his family (excluding his ex wife/ friend with benefits Sarah maybe) will probably be happy to toss him on the bonfire. 


If Queenie departs soon, there’ll be literally no protection and the rest of his family (excluding his ex wife/ friend with benefits Sarah maybe) will probably be happy to toss him on the bonfire. 

Big Black Cock imminent after that for sure !!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

He should've said that at the outset, rather than denying meeting her. Neither is a good look, but one of them keeps him out the jail.

Anyone who can do the sort of interview he did obviously has very poor judgment.  The whole incident is probably the first time in his pampered, entitled life that he’s had to account for his actions on anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Anyone who can do the sort of interview he did obviously has very poor judgment.  The whole incident is probably the first time in his pampered, entitled life that he’s had to account for his actions on anything.

 

I got the impression with that interview he thought he would be able to use his sexual magnetism to charm the pants of our Emily.

Not a cat in hell's chance of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Anyone who can do the sort of interview he did obviously has very poor judgment.  The whole incident is probably the first time in his pampered, entitled life that he’s had to account for his actions on anything.

I posted at the time. He clearly has no experience of his words or action being scrutinised and thought such a flimsy alibi would stand up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

I got the impression with that interview he thought he would be able to use his sexual magnetism to charm the pants of our Emily.

Not a cat in hell's chance of that.

I suppose if you've spent your life shagging anything that moved due to your privilege, you're bound to develop the impression that you aren't a sweaty charmless bloater that nobody actually likes.

I should invite him to the support group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BFTD said:

I suppose if you've spent your life shagging anything that moved due to your privilege, you're bound to develop the impression that you aren't a sweaty charmless bloater that nobody actually likes.

I should invite him to the support group.

I read some of the State Department messages that were leaked by Assange and co, Andrew comes over as a drunken buffoon who was occasionally useful for breaking the ice. Huge stickler for protocol and due respect given to his royalness. Massive snob.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glorious, a genuine no win situation for the sweaty nonce. Either:

1) public humiliation in a cross examination, or

2) an out of court settlement costing millions and finishing what's left of his tawdry reputation.

Option 2 should also ensure plenty of hard questions about the future of the royal parasites given that the public will essentially be paying out millions to avoid the Queen being too embarrassed by her paedophile son.

[emoji23]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/12/prince-andrew-case-proceed-latest-ruling-virginia-giuffre

In explaining why he rejected Andrew’s motion to dismiss, Manhattan federal court judge Lewis Kaplan said it was premature to consider the prince’s efforts to cast doubt on Giuffre’s accusations.

He pointed out that this push for dismissal largely relied on the royal’s claims that Giuffre’s complaint was legally insufficient, which, in turn, were rooted in Andrew’s discussion of the 2009 agreement.

Kaplain said: “The law prohibits the court from considering, at this stage of the proceedings, the defendant’s efforts to cast doubt on the truth of Ms Giuffre’s allegations, even though his efforts would be permissible at trial.”

He continued: “In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant.

“The court’s job at this juncture is simply to determine whether there are two or more reasonable interpretations of that document. If there are, the determination of the ‘right’ or controlling interpretation must await further proceedings.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did anyone ever think we'd see a first tier member of Brenda's brood being described by a judge as 'the defendant' ?

Glorious.

Edited by Florentine_Pogen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the BBC offering advice to all viewers on how to approach an impending court case - "Now faced with a civil lawsuit in the US, Prince Andrew's best option is to settle, our royal correspondent Jonny Dymond "

what if your mummy doesnt happen to have a gold hat and lots of money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...