advertisement


Andy's not sweating.

Well there’s linking and there’s linking. He has definite links to paedophilia inasmuch as he was happy to associate himself with a convicted sex offender and someone of whose behaviour, it’s difficult to imagine, he was unaware. And he’s not the first member of the royal family to attract allegations of this nature.
I was being gentle in response to a post 2 or 3 posts above mine where he was directly called a “paedo”. So, I’m talking very strong linking. Sex with a 17 year old isn’t regarded as paedophilia…it’s even legal in the U.K. though not parts of the US. I’m most certainly not remotely defending him, he’s extremely despicable at the very least…and indeed vile. I’m cautioning against inaccurate comments to protect those making them. I wouldn’t want this forum shut down. There’s plenty to have a go at Andrew about without making libellous statements.
 
I’m not a solicitor and I’m happy to be corrected, but my understanding of libel is that it is a published assertion that can be demonstrated to be untrue. Furthermore it must have the effect of seriously damaging the reputation of the person referred to. The fact that Andrew himself chose to settle out of court rather than risk being convicted when trying to prove the untruth of the accusations in court, and that his reputation has already been seriously and significantly eroded to the extent that he has been stripped of all royal and military responsibilities, minimises the chance that a libel conviction would result from activity on this forum. That said, I accept he has not been convicted of paedophilia, but there is a well established connection due to his association with Epstein.
 
I’m not a solicitor and I’m happy to be corrected, but my understanding of libel is that it is a published assertion that can be demonstrated to be untrue.
It’s the other way round; if you publish a potentially libellous comment the onus is on you to prove its truth if sued, which makes sense given the difficulty of proving a negative.
 
I was being gentle in response to a post 2 or 3 posts above mine where he was directly called a “paedo”. So, I’m talking very strong linking. Sex with a 17 year old isn’t regarded as paedophilia…it’s even legal in the U.K. though not parts of the US.

He obviously felt he’d done something so terrible it was worth finding $12,000,000 and losing a career of exceptional wealth and privilege to make it go away. I only hope not a single penny of this comes from the tax payer or that he rings-up any future costs at our expense, e.g. I don’t want to be paying for security details etc either. That money could be better used to fight homelessness, fix potholes etc. Let him live by his decisions alone, just as the rest of us have to.
 
It’s the other way round; if you publish a potentially libellous comment the onus is on you to prove its truth if sued, which makes sense given the difficulty of proving a negative.
In the States it’s the other way around.
 
In the States it’s the other way around.
The US also has freedom of speech as a constitutional right. The UK’s libel laws are amongst the strictest in the world, which, coupled with such laws as the Official Secrets Act, means that UK politicians banging on about free speech is always good for a laugh.
 
The US also has freedom of speech as a constitutional right. The UK’s libel laws are amongst the strictest in the world, which, coupled with such laws as the Official Secrets Act, means that UK politicians banging on about free speech is always good for a laugh.
But, as we have seen, unfettered free speech isn’t an unequivocally good thing.
 
Maybe not, but UK politicians who claim to be in favour of 'free speech' are invariably selective about who should have more freedom of speech than others (basically, anyone who's on 'their side').
 
In the States it’s the other way around.
Oh this is getting bloody confusing. The way I see it, if he was confident and arrogant enough (a trait I believe he possesses in abundance), and if his briefs truly believed she lacked any credible evidence to substantiate her accusations, he wouldn’t be shelling out millions.
 
I bet Maxwell`s a bit worried - the other two people in that picture were found hanged in prison - she`s in prison.......

She should insist on a camera.

"Brunel is thought to have been alone at the time of his death and there were no cameras to record his final hours, according to an investigating source at La Santé – one of the toughest jails in France."
 
58699.jpg
 


advertisement


Back
Top