mizfit Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 Didn't the MET either refuse to investigate Saville or drop the case?https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thenationalnews.com/world/europe/uk-police-knew-of-savile-abuse-from-early-1960s-inquiry-finds-1.296697%3foutputType=amp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 3 month ago the cover up was paid for. Ms Dick was made a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire by the Prince of Wales on Wednesday 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 People love to compare us to North Korea but they at least have to use massive repression and were near obliterated by bombs in living memory to get to that stage we’ve willingly come to this arrangement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Job Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 13 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said: "Some people are above the law" announces Police Force with a less than brilliant record on safeguarding women His mum is literally about the law, so absolutely no surprises her children won’t be hauled up in front of her courts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted October 17, 2021 Share Posted October 17, 2021 PRINCE Andrew is set to argue the sexual abuse case against him is invalid as his accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre made a settlement with paedo financier Jeffrey Epstein referencing "royalty", it was claimed today. Translates as "My mate's already paid the fine" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2021 Share Posted October 17, 2021 PRINCE Andrew is set to argue the sexual abuse case against him is invalid as his accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre made a settlement with paedo financier Jeffrey Epstein referencing "royalty", it was claimed today. Translates as "My mate's already paid the fine"Unbelievable that the media in this country will let it be swept under the carpet because he'll get off on a technicality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 Alexa, show me a nonce going thru increasingly desperate denial defences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 We've arrived at the "they were all sluts anyway" stage of the proceedings much quicker than I expected. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyAnchor Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 7 hours ago, BFTD said: We've arrived at the "they were all sluts anyway" stage of the proceedings much quicker than I expected. It was always either that or the old tried and true, bitch was asking for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 "I'm not a nonce, you are" is a tremendous defence from Andy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 Non-pay wall version of The Times article https://archive.ph/n82th Quote Prince Andrew has sought to turn the tables on the woman accusing him of teenage rape by claiming that she was involved in the “wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse”. In a controversial attempt to prove his innocence, lawyers for the Duke of York have painted Virginia Giuffre as an alleged criminal who worked to procure underage “slutty girls” for Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile billionaire. They also indicate that by making false allegations against the prince and using up court time, Giuffre is allowing real predators to get away with their crimes. Andrew’s decision to come out fighting marks a significant change in his legal strategy, but potentially leaves him at risk of accusations of “victim-blaming” from women’s rights groups. Giuffre, who is also known by her maiden name, Virginia Roberts, has accused the prince in a civil lawsuit in New York of “rape in the first degree” and sexual assault on three occasions when she was 17. The attacks are alleged to have taken place in 2001 in London, New York and on Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little St James. Giuffre, now 38, is seeking unspecified “punitive damages” that could run into millions of pounds. In a legal response filed late on Friday, Andrew, 61, sought to get the “baseless” claims thrown out of court for multiple reasons. One section is headed: “Giuffre’s role in Epstein’s criminal enterprise”. It alleges that Giuffre was involved in the procurement of underage girls for Epstein, the American financier who killed himself in 2019 while awaiting trial for child sex offences. The court papers quote Crystal Figueroa, the sister of one of Giuffre’s ex-boyfriends, who claims she was asked by Andrew’s accuser for help in recruiting minors: “She [Giuffre] would say to me, ‘Do you know any girls who are kind of slutty?’” The court filing continues: “It is a striking feature of this case that while lurid allegations are made against Prince Andrew by Giuffre, the only party to this claim whose conduct has involved the wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse is Giuffre herself, including while she was an adult.” The prince’s US-based lawyer, Andrew Brettler, also points out that Giuffre has profited from her allegations involving Epstein over a number of years and is now set on gaining “another payday” at the prince’s expense. Brettler suggests that Giuffre’s modus operandi may allow genuine paedophiles to escape justice. “Giuffre’s pattern of filing a series of lawsuits against numerous high-profile individuals should no longer be tolerated, as it continues to irreparably harm many innocent people and diverts already limited judicial resources from the adjudication of meritorious claims asserted against those who have actually perpetrated sexual offences against minors,” the document states. Giuffre’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley claimed today: “If Virginia Giuffre had stood silent in the face of outrageous statements like those Prince Andrew routinely churns out — his motion to dismiss the litigation being no exception — the decades-long sex-trafficking ring his friend Jeffrey Epstein operated and he participated in would have never been exposed. “On the subject of money, let’s be clear: the only party to this litigation using money to his benefit is Prince Andrew.” The prince’s lawyers argue that an out-of-court settlement reached between Giuffre and Epstein in 2009 protects Andrew from any liability. However, a copy of the settlement filed as an exhibit on Friday was completely blacked out. A pre-trial hearing is scheduled to take place before a judge in New York on Wednesday. If the case goes ahead, it is likely to rumble on for many months. In a separate development, McCawley told The Telegraph Magazine that Andrew’s disastrous interview with the BBC’s Newsnight programme in 2019 “was very helpful for us”. The prince argued at the time that Giuffre’s claims that she was forced to sleep with him at the Belgravia home of Ghislaine Maxwell in March 2001 could not be true because he had been collecting his daughter, Princess Beatrice, from a children’s party at a branch of Pizza Express in Woking. McCawley revealed that Beatrice and Sarah, Duchess of York, Andrew’s ex-wife, could be forced to give evidence about the alibi if Giuffre’s lawsuit goes to trial next year. @DipeshGadher 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 Even for this story that's so predictable and utterly vile. The equivalent of waving a pair of knickers in court and shouting "Look! Look! The slag wore sexy pants." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 12 hours ago, Boghead ranter said: Alexa, show me a nonce going thru increasingly desperate denial defences. If he knew this and didn't report her activities to the authorities then he should be punted from his role yet again. For a man in his position not to look after vulnerable people is completely shameful and not the slum dunk he appears to think it is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicate Flower Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 A khunt. A vile, despicable khunt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moomintroll Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 I wonder why he knew what she was up to? Much as I somehow like her, I can see mummy drinking the hemlock very soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 3 hours ago, Priti priti priti Patel said: Non-pay wall version of The Times article https://archive.ph/n82th That would be superb if Fergie and the two horse faced inbred c***s had to give evidence against their nonce dad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, 101 said: If he knew this and didn't report her activities to the authorities then he should be punted from his role yet again. For a man in his position not to look after vulnerable people is completely shameful and not the slum dunk he appears to think it is There's no implication he (PA) knew this back in the day but his new legal team seem to have taken the view that "the best form of defence is attack" and are dredging through Ms. Guiffre's backstory looking for mud to sling back. Any hope the Windsor's (sic) had of the case fading away quietly seem to be receding. Edited October 31, 2021 by btb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 (edited) That is quite the line of attack. Still behind "I can't sweat" and "travelled all the way to New York to tell Epstein I can't be friends with him in person", though. The man is a genuine moron. Not a chance the legal time have undertaken this without his authorisation either. Edited October 31, 2021 by Michael W 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 30 minutes ago, Michael W said: That is quite the line of attack. Still behind "I can't sweat" and "travelled all the way to New York to tell Epstein I can't be friends with him in person", though. The man is a genuine moron. Not a change the legal time have undertaken this without his authorisation either. I'm sure you're correct, just saying that it's "no holds barred" now... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 25 minutes ago, btb said: I'm sure you're correct, just saying that it's "no holds barred" now... Sounds like what American lawyers do when they know they're going to lose, so when they go to pick up their massive fee from their client they can say they tried everything including going medieval on the bi... young lady. Same as Weinstein's lawyers tried on his accusers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.