Current Affairs Her majesty the Queen

[Bohemian Toffee]

Its times like this im glad I dont watch normal TV any more.

Most of it is footage of people getting their kids to leave flowers outside a castle.

I'll keep you updated.

 

[bluelife]

Grim. I am watching West Ham now. I suspect after this the telly will be off for a week

You even stick the footy on to hear Robbie Savage, clogged with tears, telling us how the game doesn’t matter anymore.
Tragic.

 

[longers]

 

[davek]

 

[Connor]

 

[summerisle]

 

[Papa Shango]

Far from it, but I do have an issue with people labelling people something and accepting it as true (guilt) without the correct due process.

I'll tell you why: I know of a case in a Liverpool school back in the 90s where a male caretaker was accused of a sexual assault (rape) on a young pupil.

Even when the legislation at the time required complete anonymity, it soon became known that he was a 'rapist' and was banished by his wife and family.

He, because of the colour of skin, received little legal support and Merpol were seeing an easy case. Only the support of one wealthy family member helped.

Only by the hard work of the defence, paid for by said family member, was it found that the allegations were complete fabrications and the case dropped.

This gentleman lost his job and lives with that slur to this day, so I have a strong belief that people shouldn't be judged without the correct procedures.

Was that family member vile, horrible and scum for defending their family member? If you think so, let's just go and have drumhead trials and lynchings.

But back to Andrew... It was as civil case looking for damages rather than criminal, which is subtly different. One wants damages (money) the other is the state.

To go to trial would have required evidence in public court, and maybe that's the reason they paid up. It may not have been, but we really do not know.

Virginia Wade was trafficked and Epstine and Maxwell have been criminally cried for that, and rightfully so. To the best of my knowledge, Andrew hasn't.*

You've decided he's guilt and that's your prerogative, however from experience dealing with numerous vile cases I feel it's important.

I have moral questions about the Queen's actions, yet settling out of court ≠ guilty.

*By the way, would I trust him around my daughters? No chance.

The issue with this is Andrew was never, ever, ever going to go to trial.

If he is innocent go to trial, not like he cant afford the best lawyers.

 

[widnesblue]

Ironic that the queen lived through 15 prime ministers, 14 US presidents, 7 Popes and 2 Rangers.

 

[davek]

Almost certain. FFS just as if they'll let working class people enjoying themselves when that lot want us all in enforced sackcloth and ashes for 10 days.

 

[davek]

Ironic that the queen lived through 15 prime ministers, 14 US presidents, 7 Popes and 2 Rangers.

lol lol lol

 

[Haydn]

She was a child who was trafficked. You sound like the worst sort of apologist for this behaviour.

God help us. The lengths people go to defend the Queen is astonishing. They will argue peadophilia is acceptable on a technicality.

They hosted events with Epstein and Maxwell. But that's fine as well no doubt.

Horrendous. As is paying off someone accusing your son of raping a minor, who had been trafficked for sex as a child. That you try to make any defence, is absolutely disgusting.

Ma, can I take my mates Jeffrey the Nonce and Ghislaine up to your gaff in Scotland for the weekend ?

Course you can luv. Have a nice time.

MI5, the Royal protection squad, GCHQ, government spooks and all the courtiers who know the back end of everyone’s business, must have all had a day off.

Or they knew.

 

[catcherintherye]

Far from it, but I do have an issue with people labelling people something and accepting it as true (guilt) without the correct due process.

I'll tell you why: I know of a case in a Liverpool school back in the 90s where a male caretaker was accused of a sexual assault (rape) on a young pupil.

Even when the legislation at the time required complete anonymity, it soon became known that he was a 'rapist' and was banished by his wife and family.

He, because of the colour of skin, received little legal support and Merpol were seeing an easy case. Only the support of one wealthy family member helped.

Only by the hard work of the defence, paid for by said family member, was it found that the allegations were complete fabrications and the case dropped.

This gentleman lost his job and lives with that slur to this day, so I have a strong belief that people shouldn't be judged without the correct procedures.

Was that family member vile, horrible and scum for defending their family member? If you think so, let's just go and have drumhead trials and lynchings.

But back to Andrew... It was as civil case looking for damages rather than criminal, which is subtly different. One wants damages (money) the other is the state.

To go to trial would have required evidence in public court, and maybe that's the reason they paid up. It may not have been, but we really do not know.

Virginia Wade was trafficked and Epstine and Maxwell have been criminally cried for that, and rightfully so. To the best of my knowledge, Andrew hasn't.*

You've decided he's guilty and that's your prerogative, however from experience dealing with numerous vile cases I feel it's important.

I have moral questions about the Queen's actions, yet settling out of court ≠ guilty.

*By the way, would I trust him around my daughters? No chance.

This sounds like apologism that allows nonces to get away with it to mate.

We all know what he is.

If people are comfortable and happy with that, good for them. I'm not.

 

[Papa Shango]

Ah come on, WWE performed the day after 9/11. Why cant we play football 2 days after the Queen dies?

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[tommye]