BFTD Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 12 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said: Welcome to an exclusive club, mate. Which, I suspect, is getting less and less exclusive! Bit out of character for Granny to be so irascible. Shockingly actionable answer from Day of the Lords, though. Just as well GD has him on ignore. I'd have thought the SSPCA would have prosecuted if that were true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, BFTD said: Bit out of character for Granny to be so irascible. Shockingly actionable answer from Day of the Lords, though. Just as well GD has him on ignore. I'd have thought the SSPCA would have prosecuted if that were true. I had to Google ‘irascible’. Every day’s a school day. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 19 hours ago, Soapy FFC said: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/01/prince-andrew-lawsuit-virginia-giuffre-effort-block-rejected I bet Andrew thought that coming up with not being able to sweat and going for a pizza in Woking was pure genius at the time. Now the prosecution are demanding proof which could be awkward. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 5 minutes ago, BFTD said: Bit out of character for Granny to be so irascible. Shockingly actionable answer from Day of the Lords, though. Just as well GD has him on ignore. I'd have thought the SSPCA would have prosecuted if that were true. Probably an age thing, and something I can readily relate to. Granny and Day of the Lords are 2 posters I've generally found to be worth reading. Even if Granny already has me on ignore! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 I don't know about irascible (I see this as a positive) but the c thread has led to all sorts of irrational from otherwise more measured contributors 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, sophia said: I don't know about irascible (I see this as a positive) but the c thread has led to all sorts of irrational from otherwise more measured contributors Whereas others just miss out words! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 8 minutes ago, welshbairn said: I bet Andrew thought that coming up with not being able to sweat and going for a pizza in Woking was pure genius at the time. Now the prosecution are demanding proof which could be awkward. Probably posted at the time, but worth repeating. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 7 hours ago, badgerthewitness said: What a fucking disgusting comment. He's a horrible c**t. IMO. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 So sorry I missed the infamous Biggie v Granny ding-dong that saw them both on the bench for a while. Some place, Dundee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 42 minutes ago, BFTD said: So sorry I missed the infamous Biggie v Granny ding-dong that saw them both on the bench for a while. Some place, Dundee. You didn't miss much Dave, not keen on people hiding behind keyboards branding other people racist/nazi though. I actually met him once, don't remember seig-heiling or goose-stepping up the road, but maybe I'm wrong. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/02/court-to-unseal-deal-between-jeffrey-epstein-and-virginia-giuffre My friend Jeff. No my close friend Ghislaine’s partner sorted out this kerfluffle. So let us all move on with our lives. I wasn’t friends with Jeff, nor was I with Ghislaine. In fact I never really knew either of them. So if I never was close to them then there’s no way I could have ever abused this girl that they both knew. But not me. So I won’t be mentioned in those papers. That’s why my lawyers want to have them unsealed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonD Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 Why would Giuffre sign an agreement never to sue Prince Andrew if they'd never met? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 4 minutes ago, GordonD said: Why would Giuffre sign an agreement never to sue Prince Andrew if they'd never met? Come on, we’ve all signed agreements not to sue people haven’t met. Haven’t we? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 1 hour ago, GordonD said: Why would Giuffre sign an agreement never to sue Prince Andrew if they'd never met? Unfortunately, I think in this case, this agreement will very likely get him off. Hopefully someone else will come forward with similar claims to Giuffre's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 12 hours ago, Lofarl said: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/02/court-to-unseal-deal-between-jeffrey-epstein-and-virginia-giuffre Quote [Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother Ian Maxwell] also said his sister was not a suicide risk as she awaits sentencing. I'm not sure that Ian understands how these things work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 There's still a taboo around suicide. Involuntary suicides even moreso. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 That’s the 2009 settlement been released, showing that Roberts (Giuffre) agreed not to sue anyone personally related to Epstein, who could be described as a potential defendant, in exchange for $500,000.Hard to see how the case can go on based on this, would be fantastic to see more young women coming out of the woodwork that haven’t made any previous settlements, but think the Royal Family may be breathing a big sigh of relief following this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 (edited) 1 minute ago, Adam said: That’s the 2009 settlement been released, showing that Roberts (Giuffre) agreed not to sue anyone personally related to Epstein, who could be described as a potential defendant, in exchange for $500,000. Hard to see how the case can go on based on this, would be fantastic to see more young women coming out of the woodwork that haven’t made any previous settlements, but think the Royal Family may be breathing a big sigh of relief following this. Not sure it will protect him. If it does he’s still tainted beyond repair. Edited January 3, 2022 by Granny Danger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 1 minute ago, Adam said: That’s the 2009 settlement been released, showing that Roberts (Giuffre) agreed not to sue anyone personally related to Epstein, who could be described as a potential defendant, in exchange for $500,000. Hard to see how the case can go on based on this, would be fantastic to see more young women coming out of the woodwork that haven’t made any previous settlements, but think the Royal Family may be breathing a big sigh of relief following this. The terms certainly look straightforward, but I think there will be scope to argue they don't apply, on purely technical grounds. One argument which immediately occurs is that the settlement is a contract, and contract terms which are too widely drawn and indefinite are not considered binding. Imagine, for example, a contract which said "X will sell Y such goods as are later specified" — this would be unenforceable as it's not possible to identify from this alone what the contract covers. Here, from what I've read, the settlement prevents lawsuits against anyone Giuffre might consider bringing a lawsuit against for any reason whatsoever. That certainly seems indefinite. Giuffre is represented by one of the largest and most impressive law firms in the world (Boies, Schiller & Flexner) and specifically their first named partner (David Boies). I suspect they will have assessed whether they can get around this obstacle before taking on the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 21 minutes ago, Priti priti priti Patel said: I suspect they will have assessed whether they can get around this obstacle before taking on the case. Unless they were hoping to settle before it got this far? Although I'd have thought the Royals would have paid anything to get her to shut up. 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.