Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

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?
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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".
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.
 
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?
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.
 
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.
Thanks for clarifying.

Idle speculation is our meat and drink here, so as long as it's clear that's what it is, I don't think anyone can object.
 
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!
 
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!
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.

I think his main problem is, well, he's guilty as fucking sin.
 
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.
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 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.
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?
 
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 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.
 
106adz.jpg

"It looks like you're trying to justify liking Bill Gates. Do you want help with that?"
 
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.)
I think theres a difference between someone making a profit and the obscene wealth of Gates and Bezos etc.
 
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.

Mind you, even if somebody just makes a bit of small-scale profit, that is not something that inherently makes them likeable. As I said, at best it’s just neutral.
 
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!
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.

The argument that there's no case to answer because he's not guilty, or in the alternative, there's no case to answer because he's covered by the agreement, is very legalistic, covers all bases. But it does look dodgy as fuck.

To me, it seems like that's how desperate they are for this not to go trial. The stronger argument would be not guilty, full stop, but then if he was found guilty to say, well, he's covered by this agreement, so his guilt is irrelevant. The fact that they've gone with the Schrödinger's type defence is, erm, interesting. Makes me wonder whether it was more of a civil law lawyer rather than a criminal law lawyer who came up with that strategy, relying on the terms of a civil law agreement, and not thinking how that might look in terms of [perception of] guilt.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom