ChatterBank47 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by webbo3. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hymie - // Throughout this saga, Prince Andrew and his legal advisers have stated that they have been offering every assistance to the US authorities in their enquiries.
In contrast, the lawyers acting for Virginia Giuffre have said that Prince Andrews et al have obstructed their enquiries at every turn.
I wonder who is telling the truth. //
It rather depends on your understanding of what the term 'co-operation' means.
The FBI are insisting that they want to talk to the Duke face to face under formal interview conditions. Given how well it went last time, with a UK news journalist, his legal team are understandably not willing to let him open his mouth under the sort of questioning the FBI would be giving him, so they are not letting him within five thousand miles of them.
The FBI construe this as obstruction.
On the other hand, the Duke's legal team has continually offered a written statement from the Duke, which obviously they will write and he will sign.
The Duke's lawyers see this as co-operating.
So depending which side you are looking at, the Duke is either offering 'complete and frank co-opertation', or he is 'willfully obstructing due legal process'.
The end result is, whatever reason the Duke has for not responding to the charges, and now trying to get out of being legally served with court papers on a technicality, it further increases the overwhelming impression that he has something to hide.
His legal team's insisntance on keeping him as far away from a court room as possible is the only sensible one, since he can barely be trusted to tie his own shoes, so thinking on his feet in a court room is never going to be an option.
But the downside of that very necessary course of action, is that makes him look shifty, cunning, imoral, and arrogant.
Which is why his public profile continutes to freefall to a level where it is becoming doubtful he will ever be able to recover.
Tick tock ...
In contrast, the lawyers acting for Virginia Giuffre have said that Prince Andrews et al have obstructed their enquiries at every turn.
I wonder who is telling the truth. //
It rather depends on your understanding of what the term 'co-operation' means.
The FBI are insisting that they want to talk to the Duke face to face under formal interview conditions. Given how well it went last time, with a UK news journalist, his legal team are understandably not willing to let him open his mouth under the sort of questioning the FBI would be giving him, so they are not letting him within five thousand miles of them.
The FBI construe this as obstruction.
On the other hand, the Duke's legal team has continually offered a written statement from the Duke, which obviously they will write and he will sign.
The Duke's lawyers see this as co-operating.
So depending which side you are looking at, the Duke is either offering 'complete and frank co-opertation', or he is 'willfully obstructing due legal process'.
The end result is, whatever reason the Duke has for not responding to the charges, and now trying to get out of being legally served with court papers on a technicality, it further increases the overwhelming impression that he has something to hide.
His legal team's insisntance on keeping him as far away from a court room as possible is the only sensible one, since he can barely be trusted to tie his own shoes, so thinking on his feet in a court room is never going to be an option.
But the downside of that very necessary course of action, is that makes him look shifty, cunning, imoral, and arrogant.
Which is why his public profile continutes to freefall to a level where it is becoming doubtful he will ever be able to recover.
Tick tock ...
We’re in the position now where the default position is that the ‘victim’is to believed, and by extension of which there’s an assumption of guilt on tue accused.
Ignoring the Carl Beech case where that standpoint was 100% flawed, call me old fashioned, but I prefer corrobative evidence, and as much as I think Prince Andrew is sleazy, there’s no evidence against him.
Ignoring the Carl Beech case where that standpoint was 100% flawed, call me old fashioned, but I prefer corrobative evidence, and as much as I think Prince Andrew is sleazy, there’s no evidence against him.
Deskdiary - // Ignoring the Carl Beech case where that standpoint was 100% flawed, //
Why would you 'ignore' that case?
That was an instance where a prolonged trial by media was visited on a large number of innocent people who had their lives and reputations ruined and in some cases, died without being able to prove their innocence.
I think that case is a salutory lesson for everyone concerned, not least the police and the media who acted hand-in-hand to ensure trial-by-media was encouraged and sustained with absolutely no viable evidence whatsoever.
I think the name 'Carl Beech' should be engraved on plaques and placed in every office of every editor and Chief Constable in the UK, as a reminder of how important evidence and truth actually are.
Why would you 'ignore' that case?
That was an instance where a prolonged trial by media was visited on a large number of innocent people who had their lives and reputations ruined and in some cases, died without being able to prove their innocence.
I think that case is a salutory lesson for everyone concerned, not least the police and the media who acted hand-in-hand to ensure trial-by-media was encouraged and sustained with absolutely no viable evidence whatsoever.
I think the name 'Carl Beech' should be engraved on plaques and placed in every office of every editor and Chief Constable in the UK, as a reminder of how important evidence and truth actually are.
I made the point about Carl Beech Andy, for the very reason he was believed even though it was apparent he was a Walter Mitty.
Bernard-Hyphen-Hough believed him, even though there was no evidence to do so.
The Carl Beech case was an utter disgrace - it was a with hunt against innocent men; I still remember Rifkind being interviewed in the radio the day after Beech was found out, and he was in tears - his reputation was in ruins so we’re his finances.
Bernard-Hyphen-Hough believed him, even though there was no evidence to do so.
The Carl Beech case was an utter disgrace - it was a with hunt against innocent men; I still remember Rifkind being interviewed in the radio the day after Beech was found out, and he was in tears - his reputation was in ruins so we’re his finances.
I regret Gully you have been listening to the fluffies on the Beeb who think the American legal team is er telling the truth. I have been severely taking them to task ( in the style below)
This is NOT a criminal investigation, the Prince cannot be extradited ( as the 'act' - you know: 'it' was in a 16 yr old and therefore lawful ) Fluffy (pretty (*) Beeb hack that is!) SHOULD have said in her efforts to call to account - "Mr Expensive American lawyer - you KNOW this is a non starter and if you DIDN'T know that then I am available for £200/h for advice on the more obvious points of English law!" - she didnt. she said "foo I didnt know vat"
V Jauffre's team have said - oh there is someone else !
that it irrelevant to the interests of V Jauffre and her lawyers should know this
FBI's interest or not ( Fed interest) is irrelevant to the jauffre team and the lawyers should know this ( see above)
Lawyers dont go around saying - you are well and truly served
and the American lawyers should know this.
when you serve papers and certify you have - - you dont hand them to a police man and say - oh give these to the prince - any prince will do - - the lawyers who do "the well and truly served" bit - know this
apparently the lawyers want a "well and truly served" viddie-clip. The Prince is unwilling and this does not score as un-co-operative
The Been are not serving the public interest by their supine role in this and their pretence they are reporting 'news'
(*) hey did you see the girlie interview Ken Barlow the head of MI5? Bug eyed sweetie didnt do her justice - eyes like Tom ( or Jerry ) in Tom and Jerry. Mad Hatter eyes nowhere near
This is NOT a criminal investigation, the Prince cannot be extradited ( as the 'act' - you know: 'it' was in a 16 yr old and therefore lawful ) Fluffy (pretty (*) Beeb hack that is!) SHOULD have said in her efforts to call to account - "Mr Expensive American lawyer - you KNOW this is a non starter and if you DIDN'T know that then I am available for £200/h for advice on the more obvious points of English law!" - she didnt. she said "foo I didnt know vat"
V Jauffre's team have said - oh there is someone else !
that it irrelevant to the interests of V Jauffre and her lawyers should know this
FBI's interest or not ( Fed interest) is irrelevant to the jauffre team and the lawyers should know this ( see above)
Lawyers dont go around saying - you are well and truly served
and the American lawyers should know this.
when you serve papers and certify you have - - you dont hand them to a police man and say - oh give these to the prince - any prince will do - - the lawyers who do "the well and truly served" bit - know this
apparently the lawyers want a "well and truly served" viddie-clip. The Prince is unwilling and this does not score as un-co-operative
The Been are not serving the public interest by their supine role in this and their pretence they are reporting 'news'
(*) hey did you see the girlie interview Ken Barlow the head of MI5? Bug eyed sweetie didnt do her justice - eyes like Tom ( or Jerry ) in Tom and Jerry. Mad Hatter eyes nowhere near
// his reputation was in ruins so we’re his finances.//
Yeah Proctor just said - I dont have any money now
it can be hugely expensive - defending yourself - the waterloo station/game of throne allegation which went to trial, we thought was at least £35 000.
GP defending a patients allegations was told he wouldnt get any of the £135 000 he spent. I was told the glory was enough of being allowed to show I hadnt done narfin. I felt no gloire.
Yeah Proctor just said - I dont have any money now
it can be hugely expensive - defending yourself - the waterloo station/game of throne allegation which went to trial, we thought was at least £35 000.
GP defending a patients allegations was told he wouldnt get any of the £135 000 he spent. I was told the glory was enough of being allowed to show I hadnt done narfin. I felt no gloire.
I think Prince Andrew is out for the rest of his life
Fergie was behaving in a dignified fashion - - completely unexpected from the Crown series - - "mummaaaay - we need munnaaaay!"
and on Polish telly said: "I married one man and I stand by him !"
Golly, went down well in a Catholic country
do we have a ref on the 15 grand and only three times - or was that a night?
Fergie was behaving in a dignified fashion - - completely unexpected from the Crown series - - "mummaaaay - we need munnaaaay!"
and on Polish telly said: "I married one man and I stand by him !"
Golly, went down well in a Catholic country
do we have a ref on the 15 grand and only three times - or was that a night?
they also cavorted in the US virgin islands - allegedly
where the age of consent is 16
https:/
at page 5
where the age of consent is 16
https:/
at page 5
Latest Posts
Crosswords117 mins ago
Body & Soul127 mins ago
Connections #324 Tuesday 30 April
Quizzes & Puzzles141 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles149 mins ago
