Because Charles is 1st in line to the throne and his mother is head of state, he will become head of state and it’s their job to protect the state?You say Mi5 must have known, must they? how so?
Because Charles is 1st in line to the throne and his mother is head of state, he will become head of state and it’s their job to protect the state?You say Mi5 must have known, must they? how so?
Surely if they knew of Savile's crimes they would have told Charles, and Charles would have ... well what? Stopped seeing him perhaps, allowed a prosecution?Because Charles is 1st in line to the throne and his mother is head of state, he will become head of state and it’s their job to protect the state?
Or perhaps friends of the Royals become untouchable by association. If you think MI5 don’t take a keen interest in anyone closely related to power then I’m not sure what you imagine their purpose is. They’re the most protected people in the country.Surely if they knew of Savile's crimes they would have told Charles, and Charles would have ... well what? Stopped seeing him perhaps, allowed a prosecution?
Gates and his colleagues were playing the game of business, a game at which they proved to be very successful. I think I recall quite a lot of senior executives at Microsoft also did very well. In the end it seems it must have become at least a bit hollow, hence what he is doing now. It won't be his business prowess or philanthropy that might bring him down, but his time with Epstein could well do.Where did his wealth come from in the first place? Maybe if he had charged customers less, paid his employees more and paid his fucking tax, he wouldn't need to be so "philanthropic".
are you only now realising these are all very bad people?Surely if they knew of Savile's crimes they would have told Charles, and Charles would have ... well what? Stopped seeing him perhaps, allowed a prosecution?
Not at all.are you only now realising these are all very bad people?
You’re like my mother. So wedded to the PR of hierarchy that noncery is simply untrue. People of wealth and social standing don’t do things like that. Ignoring their terrible histories somehow.Not at all.
More like gone with him to Stoke Mandeville to hump some corpses.Surely if they knew of Savile's crimes they would have told Charles, and Charles would have ... well what? Stopped seeing him perhaps, allowed a prosecution?
The comment I referred to was talking about Andrew. I’m speculating that if the deal binds her to not pursue “anyone else” in connection with the events, then maybe Andy chipped into the kitty which paid her off. It could even have been what he was chatting to Epstein about in the park, when they got papped.I'm a bit confused by this, as the thread is now talking about Bill Gates as well as the DoY.
Are you actually suggesting that one of them was involved in financing Epstein's deal with Guiffre?
Thanks for clarifying.The comment I referred to was talking about Andrew. I’m speculating that if the deal binds her to not pursue “anyone else” in connection with the events, then maybe Andy chipped into the kitty which paid her off. It could even have been what he was chatting to Epstein about in the park, when they got papped.
But it’s just idle speculation based on nothing at all.
Interesting piece I saw last night with her lawyer being questioned about this. He couldn’t go into detail about the deal, as it’s confidential, but he basically said that to be party to the agreement Noncey Bollocks would have to admit that he was a co-conspirator, and therefore admit guilt. So can’t see that happening as it would obviously open up the possibility of criminal charges being filed!The comment I referred to was talking about Andrew. I’m speculating that if the deal binds her to not pursue “anyone else” in connection with the events, then maybe Andy chipped into the kitty which paid her off. It could even have been what he was chatting to Epstein about in the park, when they got papped.
But it’s just idle speculation based on nothing at all.
TBH, pretty much everything else he has done has at least strongly suggested his guilt, so I won't even put that past him.Interesting piece I saw last night with her lawyer being questioned about this. He couldn’t go into detail about the deal, as it’s confidential, but he basically said that to be party to the agreement Noncey Bollocks would have to admit that he was a co-conspirator, and therefore admit guilt. So can’t see that happening as it would obviously open up the possibility of criminal charges being filed!
I didn't see the piece, but it sounds unlikely to me, precisely because that would be the risk. In passing it would also blow away the stance he took in the Maitliss interview (don't know her, never met her). Same time, everything he's said and throughout has narrowed his options further and further.Interesting piece I saw last night with her lawyer being questioned about this. He couldn’t go into detail about the deal, as it’s confidential, but he basically said that to be party to the agreement Noncey Bollocks would have to admit that he was a co-conspirator, and therefore admit guilt. So can’t see that happening as it would obviously open up the possibility of criminal charges being filed!
That"s a really good point that i hadn't considered before, and maybe others hadn't either. If he's never met her why would he think it likely that he was covered by an agreement signed by the dead paedo? he's backed himself into a corner here big time!I didn't see the piece, but it sounds unlikely to me, precisely because that would be the risk. In passing it would also blow away the stance he took in the Maitliss interview (don't know her, never met her). Same time, everything he's said and throughout has narrowed his options further and further.
I think his main problem is, well, he's guilty as fucking sin.
So how can you still like someone who thinks it's ok to hang out with Trump, one of the most horrific men to exist on this planet, and Jeffrey Epstein, who sex trafficked underage girls?I like Bill Gates, I like that he is giving his wealth back even if he isn't doing it fast enough, but I think there is something to his friendship with Epstein and I expect it was a consideration in his divorce. Interesting that Trump seen in pictures with Epstein nearly always has his arm around Melania, I wonder how old she was at the time? Anyhow any rich male who was friends with Epstein has to be suspicious.
I liked Gates before I knew anything about these things, because of how successful he was in business. The other aspects are indeed dislikeable and if he gets into trouble for them on his own head be it.So how can you still like someone who thinks it's ok to hang out with Trump, one of the most horrific men to exist on this planet, and Jeffrey Epstein, who sex trafficked underage girls?
That's a reason for liking someone?I liked Gates before I knew anything about these things, because of how successful he was in business. The other aspects are indeed dislikeable and if he gets into trouble for them on his own head be it.
Sure, why not?That's a reason for liking someone?
Umm. Capitalism?Sure, why not?
Why would it be? Why does somebody achieving profit become likeable just because they achieved profit? At best that’s just a neutral thing irrelevant to how nice they are. (Even leaving side the fact that more realistically, it implies negative things about their character.)Sure, why not?
I think theres a difference between someone making a profit and the obscene wealth of Gates and Bezos etc.Why would it be? Why does somebody achieving profit become likeable just because they achieved profit? At best that’s just a neutral thing irrelevant to how nice they are. (Even leaving side the fact that more realistically, it implies negative things about their character.)
Making a profit is based on exploitation. How much exploitation is acceptable before you hold up your hand, palm out, and say thus far but no further?I think theres a difference between someone making a profit and the obscene wealth of Gates and Bezos etc.
Fair enough. I meant profit in this context, ie vast profit through the efforts of others.I think theres a difference between someone making a profit and the obscene wealth of Gates and Bezos etc.
Legalistically, it seems like it's sort of a Schrödinger's cat type defence, ie simultaneously not guilty and guilty at the same time, in the sense of DoY's saying he's not guilty, absolutely not, no way, no sirree, and also, just supposing DoY was guilty, then if he were, the agreement/settlement between Giuffre and Epstein would cover him.That"s a really good point that i hadn't considered before, and maybe others hadn't either. If he's never met her why would he think it likely that he was covered by an agreement signed by the dead paedo? he's backed himself into a corner here big time!