Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on November 16, 2019, 11:32:35 am
-
...went and spent a few days at the mansion of a convicted paedophile billionaire and child sex trafficker, did you defend that decision by saying you did it because you are sometimes "too honourable"?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50431163
What an utterly bizarre defence?
Thick?
So steeped in an air of entitlement that you didn't actually give a f**k?
Complicit in his crimes?
Any of those would have worked.
But "too honourable". Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
-
There have been rumours about Andrew as far back as I can remember. Weird little f**ker isn’t he.
-
There have been rumours about Andrew as far back as I can remember. Weird little f**ker isn’t he.
Phil the Greek was another according to rumour.
-
There have been rumours about Andrew as far back as I can remember. Weird little f**ker isn’t he.
i actually remember seeing a photo of him dating Lady Diana i think the phot was taken in a small boat or something the sun archives will have it
this backs me up
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1139892/princess-diana-news-royal-prince-andrew-prince-charles-sarah-ferguson-marry-spt
Diana, who was born on the Queen’s Sandringham estate and counted the Royal Family among her childhood friends, always talked about marrying Andrew, according to biographer Andrew Morton
In his 1984 book “Andrew: The Playboy Prince” he writes: “One of [Andrew’s] early chums was a certain Lady Diana Spencer whom he met when he was at Sandringham.
“As a youngster she always said she was going to marry Andrew.
“Right family, wrong name.”
-
Something else just hit me about that interview.
Prince Andrew said he had "no recollection" of meeting Victoria Roberts (the girl who was groomed into acting as a child prostitute for Epstein and his mates.)
Yet there's a photo of him at an Epstein party, with his arm around her waist. She was 17 at the time.
So...here's the thing. His lack of recollection means f**k all. That he DID meet her, when she was acting as a child prostitute, and had his arm around her waist is an established fact. If he were in court, him saying that he had no recollection of the meeting would not be a particularly effective defence.
-
Not really, even if the photo proves that he has met her, he is saying that he had no recollection of meeting her, not that he hadn’t met her.
-
''I let the side down'' fmd what a tw#t, no sympathy or apologies for the Kids that were abused then?
-
Yes Hound. I get that.
My point is that I'd have considered him to be far more credible had he said "Clearly I met her because there's a photo in the public domain of me with my arm around her bare midriff. But I have no recollection of that meeting."
The fact that he omits the first sentence outs an entirely different gloss on his words. It's a rhetorical device, intended to plant in the mind of the not-well-informed observer (i.e. the overwhelming majority of the country on this issue) the idea that the no meeting happened.
You can read what he said more favourably if you wish. But then you've got a second problem.
Because, if he said that he has no recollection of that meeting, why on earth did he release a press statement several months ago, categorically denying that the meeting existed, full stop?
Does your bullshit detector not start faintly humming?
-
No Sydney. None. That's telling isn't it?
Similarly telling were his comments earlier this year that "I am at a loss to be able to explain or understand Mr Epstein's lifestyle."
Lifestyle.
Not "bestial abuse of children for the gratification of him and his rich and powerful friends."
"Lifestyle".
-
Yes Hound. I get that.
My point is that I'd have considered him to be far more credible had he said "Clearly I met her because there's a photo in the public domain of me with my arm around her bare midriff. But I have no recollection of that meeting."
The fact that he omits the first sentence outs an entirely different gloss on his words. It's a rhetorical device, intended to plant in the mind of the not-well-informed observer (i.e. the overwhelming majority of the country on this issue) the idea that the no meeting happened.
You can read what he said more favourably if you wish. But then you've got a second problem.
Because, if he said that he has no recollection of that meeting, why on earth did he release a press statement several months ago, categorically denying that the meeting existed, full stop?
Does your bullshit detector not start faintly humming?
BST, I am not sticking up for him on the matter, merely commenting on the post that you made.
I doubt that the overwhelming majority of the country, as you put it, would doubt that he has met her given that the said photo is shown on every news bulletin that the interview is played.
-
So do you accept that there's something odd about him both claiming categorically that the meeting never occured, then, after a photo showing the meeting did occur emerges, him then claiming that he can't remember?
Just a bit...fishy?
-
fishmonger + stink
-
Yes, I agree with you that it appears to be dodgy.
I do object though to the crap that Sydney has written about The Queen.
-
Yes, I agree with you that it appears to be dodgy.
I do object though to the crap that Sydney has written about The Queen.
go to the correct thread and show where I got wrong hound :)
-
That's another issue altogether.
I'm glad we've come to an agreement on this one though.
-
Yes, I agree with you that it appears to be dodgy.
I do object though to the crap that Sydney has written about The Queen.
go to the correct thread and show where I got wrong hound :)
You know you are wrong Sydney.
-
Christ! I'm just watching that interview with Maitlis now.
It's a f**king car crash.
Prince Andrew has just said about the photo below (and I shit you not ..go and listen):
"That is...err that is what I would...what I would describe as 'me' in that photo, but it's not at all certain that that is actually MY hand on her...on her...left....hip."
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/82127c72254c2e281ad5d790c1e7a75ce923d26c/0_69_1056_633/master/1056.jpg?width=300&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=53608681b8fd7f0301d1e096a2d360f3)
What in the name of actual f**k?
-
Jesus.
Virginia Roberts said that on the night they had sex, Prince Andrew was sweating profusely.
He's responded, saying "Well there's a slight problem with, with, with, with the sweating because I, I, I ...have... a peculiar m-m-medical condition that means I don't sweat. Or, or I didn't sweat at the time. When was it? YES! I didn't sweat at the time." He then goes on to mumble something about how he now does sweat because of "having done a number of things in the recent past."
An utter car crash. This is supposed to be him setting the record straight.
-
It has I would think
-
So BST, now you've made your guilty decision in your capacity of the Viking Off-Topic Forum Leading Statesman, what shall we do with him?
-
Been a while since you had to drop back on the "How important this forum is" argument BB.
I'm sure you'd be equally blasé about a prima facie case of child abuse if it was, say, a head of the EU or a leading Labour politician in the frame.
-
It's very important to scores of people. So, what shall we do with him?
-
Been a while since you had to drop back on the "How important this forum is" argument BB.
I'm sure you'd be equally blasé about a prima facie case of child abuse if it was, say, a head of the EU or a leading Labour politician in the frame.
No BST, I wouldn't, but on past experience, you would.
-
Go on. Explain what you mean by "past experience".
-
I mean your past experience of blatant bias towards Tory members' misdemeanours and your eagerness to publish them, compared to your apparent ignorance of Labour members' wrongdoings. And, as in this case, your obvious enthusiasm in showing your dislike of the Royal family by your keenness to condemn one of them.
Now that I've answered your question, answer mine, for once. in your capacity of the Viking Off-Topic Forum Leading Statesman, what shall we do with Prince Andrew?
-
I didn't watch the programme last night, although I doubt I will miss hearing about it on today's news programmes, but according to this bloke a couple of months ago Prince Andrew has done a lot of good for the UK. Which he knows because he has worked with him.
I don't know which businesses he is referring to here, it doesn't say, but I do hope he is not suggesting that UK businessmen are involved in the sex-trafficking of under-age girls for the gratification of wealthy men which said Prince appears to have a connection too.
Do you trust this bloke's judgement? 3000 homes flooded in Yorkshire & the East Midlands is not a national emergency & Prince Andrew is 'good for business'. Hope you feel proud casting your vote for him.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-defends-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-comments-a9078171.html
-
Nope... Don’t remember a thing.
-
I mean your past experience of blatant bias towards Tory members' misdemeanours and your eagerness to publish them, compared to your apparent ignorance of Labour members' wrongdoings. And, as in this case, your obvious enthusiasm in showing your dislike of the Royal family by your keenness to condemn one of them.
Now that I've answered your question, answer mine, for once. in your capacity of the Viking Off-Topic Forum Leading Statesman, what shall we do with Prince Andrew?
You're behaving like an idiot. Stop and think about what you're implying and do some growing up.
You'd probably do well to have a break from this, given how difficult you are finding it to keep a sense of proportion.
-
Grow up.
-
Jesus.
Virginia Roberts said that on the night they had sex, Prince Andrew was sweating profusely.
He's responded, saying "Well there's a slight problem with, with, with, with the sweating because I, I, I ...have... a peculiar m-m-medical condition that means I don't sweat. Or, or I didn't sweat at the time. When was it? YES! I didn't sweat at the time." He then goes on to mumble something about how he now does sweat because of "having done a number of things in the recent past."
An utter car crash. This is supposed to be him setting the record straight.
I wonder who thought it was a good idea for him to do a televised interview? Quietly retiring from public life would have probably been a better option.
-
Negotiations with 'the palace' went for 6 months .............. to come up with the wrong answer
-
TRB.
I couldn't agree more. Going on TV to obfuscate, look very uncomfortable and mumble about stray hands and a temporary inability to sweat wasn't THE most convincing way of drawing a line under this, was it?
-
He did himself no favours doing the interview. The bit I saw looked disastrous. Even if he'd put on a faultless performance of absolutely convincing proportions, though, I'm quite sure he'd have got the same verdict of condemnation from those anti-royalists who would have made up their minds before watching it.
-
Seriously BB. You do need to think about a break.
-
BST. Why don't you take a little break, read what I wrote properly, and come back and tell me what is untrue about my post?
-
BB.
1) You are suggesting that I would use an issue like child sexual abuse to push a political agenda.
2) You have time and again ignored my regular criticisms of people on the Left (including Tom Watson this very week).
3) You've gone back into that (frankly, disturbing) obsession of yours with me being some sort of "spokesman" or head of a clique.
4) You are spending more and more time engaging in personal insults and spats, and virtually no time discussing anything substantive.
All those things suggest that you've lost a sense of perspective. I genuinely and honestly think this isn't good for your health.
-
Listen here owd lad. I never mentioned you. If anything I was in agreement with your post prior to mine.
I think it's you who should take a little break, then come back and apologise.
-
It seems that Andrew knows better than those in his employ
Someone described today that Tabloids Broadsheets and Audio and visual Media have been handed a HUGE Christmas present
What or who possessed him to do that ? I read earlier one of his advisors resigned immediately after he advised Andrew not to do it - and keep his head down instead
It seems Andrew is his own man and declined the advice seemingly (- I dont know him) preferring his own judgement to that of his paid advisors
From the amount of and status of those queueing up today to say this was a huge mistake I guess he was wrong and it may prove to BE wrong at a later date
-
I agree DW. By going on TV he was presenting himself in front of a jury of millions of people who recognise him. I put this into context with the fact that In a normal court of law a juror would have to stand down if they recognised the defendant.
It is with that in mind why I think Prince Andrew was wrong to go on TV, even if he is innocent because the 'jury' would be swayed by their opinion of him before hand.
-
BB.
I don't know why you do this, but pretty much every time you post on here these days, you turn it into a personal fight. Just stop and reflect. Go and look at your posts over the last few months. That's what I mean about this not being healthy for you.
This is how you got involved this time.
quote author=Bentley Bullet link=topic=274907.msg921760#msg921760 date=1573946995]
So BST, now you've made your guilty decision in your capacity of the Viking Off-Topic Forum Leading Statesman, what shall we do with him?
[/quote]
If you genuinely reckon that wasn't trying to provoke a spat, I'm even more worried for you.
-
So you're telling me that you never provoke a spat with me? you've just proved that you do with your response to my last two posts!
At the very least I don't provoke a spat with you when I agree with you. Can you say that regarding me?
-
I'm not saying I never do BB. I'm saying these days it's just about the only thing you do.
It's like an attention black hole and it's very boring. It adds nothing to the (often very insightful) discussions in here.
-
BST. Let's get one thing straight. You're the one who always wants to talk facts. Today I've had spats with two people. I've also agreed with around the same amount of people. To me, that's about the going rate in a debate. I think that's quite acceptable.
What exactly do you want? I dare say that loads of people have packed this forum in because they couldn't express their views without a backlash from the usual suspects. Do you want to continue with that trend until you all agree and can have a great big love in?
-
BST. Let's get one thing straight. You're the one who always wants to talk facts. Today I've had spats with two people. I've also agreed with around the same amount of people. To me, that's about the going rate in a debate. I think that's quite acceptable.
What exactly do you want? I dare say that loads of people have packed this forum in because they couldn't express their views without a backlash from the usual suspects. Do you want to continue with that trend until you all agree and can have a great big love in?
I think you need to take ownership of that issue, you must be one of the most argumentative on here
-
Jesus. I missed this gem.
(Source: BBC website).
He did not regret his friendship with Epstein because of "the opportunities I was given to learn" from him about trade and business.
It's like saying you don't regret being friends with Hannibal Lector because you learned from him how to choose the right beans and wine to go with meat.
As a long standing royal correspondent has said today, the massive take-home from this is that the idea of apologising, showing remorse or showing empathy for the kids that Epstein trafficked for the gratification of the rich and powerful never seems to have entered his head.
-
BST. Let's get one thing straight. You're the one who always wants to talk facts. Today I've had spats with two people. I've also agreed with around the same amount of people. To me, that's about the going rate in a debate. I think that's quite acceptable.
What exactly do you want? I dare say that loads of people have packed this forum in because they couldn't express their views without a backlash from the usual suspects. Do you want to continue with that trend until you all agree and can have a great big love in?
I think you need to take ownership of that issue, you must be one of the most argumentative on here
f**king hell! That's actually amazing, coming from you! :ohmy:
-
I got the impression that if he ever had to testify in court Andrew would get torn to shreds under proper cross-examination.
-
Jesus.
Virginia Roberts said that on the night they had sex, Prince Andrew was sweating profusely.
He's responded, saying "Well there's a slight problem with, with, with, with the sweating because I, I, I ...have... a peculiar m-m-medical condition that means I don't sweat. Or, or I didn't sweat at the time. When was it? YES! I didn't sweat at the time." He then goes on to mumble something about how he now does sweat because of "having done a number of things in the recent past."
An utter car crash. This is supposed to be him setting the record straight.
I wonder who thought it was a good idea for him to do a televised interview? Quietly retiring from public life would have probably been a better option.
Dead right TRB. A lot of the news broadcasts today are suggesting that heads could roll over this, because of him being advised to do the interview, and the briefing, or lack of briefing, that preceded it.
-
You're assuming he listened to his advisers.
This from Royal biographer Angela Levin
Royal biographer Angela Levin said she was gripped by the interview but felt it was "ill-judged" to offer insights into his life with Epstein.
"Unfortunately it was a sign of his arrogance," she said. "He has always been arrogant.
"The Queen's motto is don't complain don't explain. I think in her heart she will be extremely embarrassed.
"I know for a fact Prince Andrew does not listen to his advisers."
I saw a documentary about a decade ago which tracked him through typical work days. He was utterly obnoxious.
He bawled out some minion for checking his phone during a meeting. The minion explained that he had a relative seriously ill in hospital and he'd just had his phone buzz so he was checking if there was news. Prince Andrew said "we'll go outside and check it, and then turn it off." Not a word of enquiry about the health of the relative, or apology for giving the man a bollocking. It reeked of privilege, arrogance and disdain for others. As did last night's shambolic performance.
-
It'd be funny if it wasn't a story involving a horrific child sex trafficking ring. You could see "Prince Andrew forgets how to sweat" as a Day Today headline.
-
Jesus BB. I think you are pretty much the funniest guy on this forum. You have been for years. You crease me up sometimes. But this?? Just take a look at what you are doing. You've got a rare talent. Make more of it man.
Cheers
BobG
BST. Let's get one thing straight. You're the one who always wants to talk facts. Today I've had spats with two people. I've also agreed with around the same amount of people. To me, that's about the going rate in a debate. I think that's quite acceptable.
What exactly do you want? I dare say that loads of people have packed this forum in because they couldn't express their views without a backlash from the usual suspects. Do you want to continue with that trend until you all agree and can have a great big love in?
I think you need to take ownership of that issue, you must be one of the most argumentative on here
f**king hell! That's actually amazing, coming from you! :ohmy:
-
Interesting development in the Epstein case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51486711
I'm not a mad conspiracy theory freak, but given that Epstein could have had things to discuss to the legal authorities about what the following people got up to at his residences, where child prostitutes were regularly offered to guests:
The President of the USA
The Queen's son
The head of Barclays Bank
the idea that he managed to kill himself while on 24 hour suicide watch does start to strain the bounds of credibility.
-
Interesting development in the Epstein case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51486711
I'm not a mad conspiracy theory freak, but given that Epstein could have had things to discuss to the legal authorities about what the following people got up to at his residences, where child prostitutes were regularly offered to guests:
The President of the USA
The Queen's son
The head of Barclays Bank
the idea that he managed to kill himself while on 24 hour suicide watch does start to strain the bounds of credibility.
Utter and total speculation, and nothing else.
I'm surprised that you, a man of facts and reason, should post something based on nothing but guttersnipe gossip.
-
SS.
Which bit is speculation?
It's an established fact that the people listed were close personal friends of a serial paedophile, and regular visitors to the residences where Epstein had a conveyor belt shipping in under age prostitutes.
It's an established fact that Epstein was on suicide watch.
It's an established fact that three of the CCTV cameras outside his cell malfunctioned on the night of his death, and that the warders who knew he was the highest profile prisoner in the country, and who were supposed to check on him at least every 30 minutes did not check on him for 8 hours.
It's an established fact that he suffered injuries which are far more consistent with assault and strangulation than with hanging.
Which bit is speculation?
-
SS.
Which bit is speculation?
It's an established fact that the people listed were close personal friends of a serial paedophile, and regular visitors to the residences where Epstein had a conveyor belt shipping in under age prostitutes.
It's an established fact that Epstein was on suicide watch.
It's an established fact that three of the CCTV cameras outside his cell malfunctioned on the night of his death, and that the warders who knew he was the highest profile prisoner in the country, and who were supposed to check on him at least every 30 minutes did not check on him for 8 hours.
It's an established fact that he suffered injuries which are far more consistent with assault and strangulation than with hanging.
Which bit is speculation?
The whole lot of it, based on the words you used; "COULD have had things to discuss". Unless there's something wrong with my semantics that's a million miles away from facts.
You've displayed on this forum many times a deep, personal, pathological hatred of Trump, which may or may not be justified; but to link him with child prostitutes based on nothing but speculation, and what you'd LIKE to be true, is quite frankly spurious at best.
-
You could maybe list a few of trumps good points for balance SS, go for it he's been around for 67 years :)
Added: I've made a start for you
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/
-
You could maybe list a few of trumps good points for balance SS, go for it he's been around for 67 years :)
As expected Sydney, you're completely missing the point. This is nothing whatsoever to do with Trump's good points or bad points. It's to do with suggestions that he and others may have had links to child prostitutes, based on pure speculation.
As regards Trump's presidency, the American people will decide on that in November.
-
Hey Steve if trump was this really nice bloke with a reputation to match I'd say give the guy a break, innocent till proven otherwise but he's not is he, so the fact that he is listed as being in the company of a convicted pedophile and has admitted sexual assault himself gives me the impressession that in front of a jury he would lose, maybe that's why he keeps paying people off so he doesn't gp to court. There is plenty all the documated and yet this powerful bloke doesn't take any of them to court, the miserable t**t cheats at golf too, odious at best a criminal at worst.
-
Hey Steve if trump was this really nice bloke with a reputation to match I'd say give the guy a break, innocent till proven otherwise but he's not is he, so the fact that he is listed as being in the company of a convicted pedophile and has admitted sexual assault himself gives me the impressession that in front of a jury he would lose, maybe that's why he keeps paying people off so he doesn't gp to court. There is plenty all the documated and yet this powerful bloke doesn't take any of them to court, the miserable t**t cheats at golf too, odious at best a criminal at worst.
Opinions, speculation, and idle gossip. Would YOU be prepared to state in a newspaper or media outlet that you have evidence of Trump's association with child prostitutes?
No, I didn't think so.
-
As expected Steve you've missed the point, I don't need to it's all documented in major reliable US newspapers.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/dec/10/rick-reilly-donald-trump-golf-commander-in-cheat-book-interview
This guy has even released a book based on trump being a liar.
-
As expected Steve you've missed the point, I don't need to it's all documented in major reliable US newspapers.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/dec/10/rick-reilly-donald-trump-golf-commander-in-cheat-book-interview
This guy has even released a book based on trump being a liar.
Back to the point, where is YOUR evidence that Trump has had associations with child prostitutes? Which is nothing to do with anything you've written so far.
-
It's the laws of probability Steve, birds of a feather, reputation, documentation, you're correct he may not be guilty but if I we're a betting man and given his history ............... he's a pathetic, vindictive, insecure bully.
-
It's the laws of probability Steve, birds of a feather, reputation, documentation, you're correct he may not be guilty but if I we're a betting man and given his history ............... he's a pathetic, vindictive, insecure bully.
Laws of probability? Like the ones that said Hilary Clinton would win? Remain would win? The General Election would be a hung Parliament?
Keep digging Sydney, keep digging. That hole's getting bigger by the minute.
-
You're straying well off topic, I did ask you to list some of trumps redeeming points a while back, got anything good or me? :lol:
-
When it comes to Trump, evidence has a way of vanishing doesn't it? And that's not supposition. It is established fact.
6 men who were interviewed by Mueller about possible illegality attached to Trump preferred to serve time for lying to Mueller and/or Congress than tell the truth.
Doesn't that strike you as...well, an interesting pattern. It's the sort of behaviour you'd expect from associates of a mob boss.
In light of that, I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the strange facts surrounding the death of a convicted paedophile who was a regular party-thrower with Trump, whom Trump gushed was a "great guy" and bragged that he had known for 15 years and whom Trump is on record as saying "It's said he likes beautiful women almost as much as me, and some of them are on the younger side."
-
You're straying well off topic, I did ask you to list some of trumps redeeming points a while back, got anything good or me? :lol:
F*cking hell Sydney, you're tiresome. Me off topic? It's about Trump's possible associations with child prostitutes, and I've asked you to provide the evidence. If you haven't got any, that's me done with the f*cking thread.
-
No evidence from any of you? Looks like I've won this particular debate.
Goodnight guys, I'm out of here now.
-
Well done Steve you're the first to successfully defend d trump :lol:
-
You could maybe list a few of trumps good points for balance SS, go for it he's been around for 67 years :)
As expected Sydney, you're completely missing the point. This is nothing whatsoever to do with Trump's good points or bad points. It's to do with suggestions that he and others may have had links to child prostitutes, based on pure speculation.
As regards Trump's presidency, the American people will decide on that in November.
SS the Russians have already decided who the next President is😉
-
The ruskies also had a hand in johnson's shorts but we're not allowed to see the report. :)
-
The ruskies also had a hand in johnson's shorts but we're not allowed to see the report. :)
Zzzzzzzzz.
Keep it up Sydney. I've been suffering from insomnia recently, and you're the perfect cure.
-
Happy to be of service Steve, glad you read my posts ;)
-
This isn't a good look.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58593836
Prince Andrew's legal team doing everything they can to get out of being served legal papers in a case of alleged sexual assault of a minor.
He's in a hell of a bind now.
If he refused to attend court, he automatically loses the civil case and presumably would have damages awarded against him. If he didn't pay, that would be a breech of US criminal law I think. If he did pay, without taking the opportunity to defend himself, that's an implicit admission of guilt.
But if he DOES go to court to defend himself, he will be questioned, under oath, about Woking Pizza Express and his inability to sweat.
-
We cannot even get Anne Sacoolas extradited from USA for killing that poor motorcyclist.
What makes anyone think Prince Andrew won’t be afforded the same luxury.
Perhaps we will do a swap?
-
He can't be extradited for this. It's a civil case. The point is, whichever option he takes, it is devastating for his reputation and/or then does make him a criminal under US law.
-
You wouldn't want to live next door to them aye?
-
So it looks like he might have a way out. Apparently when Giuffre settled a case with Epstein, Epstein's lawyers made it a requirement that Giuffre would not bring legal action against Epstein associates.
So, in simple terms, Prince Andrew's lawyers are trying to get a sex abuse case against him cancelled, on the grounds that he was an associate of a paedophile and sex trafficker, because the paedophile and sex trafficker required a person who he had hired as a 16 year old prostitute not to prosecute people who Epstein had arranged for her to have sex with.
And this is their best outcome?
-
It’s a cover story I reckon.
The out of court settlement will have been sorted behind closed doors, complete with full gagging order.
Everyone is happy.
-
I see The Queen is financing his defence, it appears that Andrew has a lack of personal income
-
Trump and Andrew good looking young men filthy rich, didn't even have to try the lucky so and so's. how many on here in their teens and early twenties wouldn't have?
If you say no I wouldn't have, I don't believe you, or you are a danger to the public.
-
Trump and Andrew good looking young men filthy rich, didn't even have to try the lucky so and so's. how many on here in their teens and early twenties wouldn't have?
If you say no I wouldn't have, I don't believe you, or you are a danger to the public.
When I asked you if you were a virgin at 16 you went all stroppy!!!
-
It was better when the Australians were sleeping.