Most liked posts in thread: Prince Andrew

Err, maybe not sleep with 17 year old girls when you're a bloke in your 40s?

 

They have updated nursery rhymes to factor in modern day events.

Ohhhhhh
The grand old Duke of York
He borrowed 12 million Quid
He gave it all to someone he'd never even met
for something he never even did

 

I don't think the language in the agreement is as cut and dried as you're making out, from what I've seen the language used seems okay and was obviously intended to cover everybody who could possibly involved.

The judge is clearly trying to find technicalities to get around it as bringing people to some element of justice is obviously in the interest of everybody involved (excluding Prince Andrew of course!)

There's a bit of me that thinks it's sharp practice from Virginia Giuffre to sign that agreement, accept the settlement and then go against what it's clearly intending to do but in the grand scheme of the potential wrongdoing of the people involved it's very minor.

 

I think he would do well to steer clear of any Parisian tunnels for now!

 

So he's paying a wedge of cash over someone he claims he never met before.

Seems legit. Must be innocent.

 

Definitely not a nonce. No siree.

 

The figure being banded about is £12m.

Nothing cries I've never met this woman and I am innocent like a £12m pay off.

 

Jean-Luc Brunel found hanged in a French prison - quelle surprise!
#looseends

 

As bad as these alleged crimes are, as far as I am aware no-one actually died, so why should we allow a member of our Royal Family to travel to the "good ol USA to answer these allegations, whatever our view of him is.
The reason I make this point is because the United States is protecting one of their citizens from answering charges over here regarding causing death by dangerous driving (driving on the wrong side of the road).

RIP Harry Dunn

 

If it was as cut and dried as some commentators are saying the judge would have ruled on it there and then.

I have read and seen a number of reports about it and have read some saying it is obviously going one way and others saying the opposite all using different things that the judge said and what people think he implied by other things he said/did or didn’t do.

 

she could have negotiated a plea deal before hand and ended up with lower convictions carrying less time.

the time for that has gone now as sentencing is for the judge to decide rather than the prosecution

 

No. Otherwise her defence team wouldn’t be considering filing for a misstrial.

 

They did. The implication is the juror lied when answering the question that asked have you ever suffered sexual abuse.

 

she isn’t coming here or partaking in the trial though at the moment

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10308955/Ann-Saccolas-lawyers-say-NO-agreement-videolink-hearing-New-Year.html