Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Trying to think of anything I would trust to that man. I wouldn?t even get him to hold my beer.


How he is/was a trade ambassador is a mystery. Why any charity has him as patron is a mystery. Why anyone invests in his hare-brained schemes is a mystery. Surely now people will see the emperor?s new clothes for what they aren?t?

peckham_ryu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Trying to think of anything I would trust to that

> man. I wouldn?t even get him to hold my beer.

>

> How he is/was a trade ambassador is a mystery. Why

> any charity has him as patron is a mystery. Why

> anyone invests in his hare-brained schemes is a

> mystery. Surely now people will see the emperor?s

> new clothes for what they aren?t?


Apart from knocking around with a (ex) nonce

Captain Marvel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> He's a repellant, lying, sweaty shitbag but apart

> from that, I'm not sure what he's done wrong


Isn't the allegation essentially "non-consensual sex"? I honestly don't know if he's guilty of that or not, but it certainly sounds "wrong".

Quite an easy swap, he goes to the US to give evidence and in return Anne Sacoolas comes back to the UK to stand trial for manslaughter (US citizen who used diplomatic immunity to flee after she had hit and killed a motorcyclist, whilst she was driving on the wrong side of the road). I'm more bothered/shocked by the latter story.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Captain Marvel Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > He's a repellant, lying, sweaty shitbag but

> apart

> > from that, I'm not sure what he's done wrong

>

> Isn't the allegation essentially "non-consensual

> sex"? I honestly don't know if he's guilty of that

> or not, but it certainly sounds "wrong".


No, so much more obviously which is why is being stood down from all royal "duties". You would hope that he is also being removed from the Civil List as he shouldn't be paid.

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite an easy swap, he goes to the US to give

> evidence and in return Anne Sacoolas comes back to

> the UK to stand trial for manslaughter (US citizen

> who used diplomatic immunity to flee after she had

> hit and killed a motorcyclist, whilst she was

> driving on the wrong side of the road). I'm more

> bothered/shocked by the latter story.


I agree

BM13 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> malumbu Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Quite an easy swap, he goes to the US to give

> > evidence and in return Anne Sacoolas comes back

> to

> > the UK to stand trial for manslaughter (US

> citizen

> > who used diplomatic immunity to flee after she

> had

> > hit and killed a motorcyclist, whilst she was

> > driving on the wrong side of the road). I'm

> more

> > bothered/shocked by the latter story.

>

> I agree



Totally agree with this.


Louisa.

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> keano77 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > There?s something dodgy about that photo that I

> > can?t quite put my beetroot-stained paws on

>

>

> Maybe the hands around the waist of a 17 year old,

> maybe?


Yet legally that's not a problem even if you're a teacher (as long as they aren't under your care)


https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/15/tribunal-awards-700k-to-headteacher-sacked-over-gay-dating-app-activity

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > fishbiscuits Wrote:

> > --------------------------------------------------

> > Isn't the allegation essentially "non-consensual sex"?


> No, so much more obviously


What, specifically? That the Virginia Giuffre thing is just the tip of the iceberg, and that he was actually a part of a child sex ring?

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seabag Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > keano77 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > There?s something dodgy about that photo that

> I

> > > can?t quite put my beetroot-stained paws on

> >

> >

> > Maybe the hands around the waist of a 17 year

> old,

> > maybe?

>

> Yet legally that's not a problem even if you're a

> teacher (as long as they aren't under your care)

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/15/

> tribunal-awards-700k-to-headteacher-sacked-over-ga

> y-dating-app-activity



His defence of ?I don?t recall that photo being taken? is breathtaking. He then goes on to say ?yes that is me? or something to that effect. And whether the girl is in his care or not, she?s 17 years old.


I also agree Maxwell is as deeply in it as him.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • And the Sainsbury’s own brand chocolate mini rolls have gone from £1.15 to £1.40 overnight, so 22%-ish. I prefer them them to the Cadbury original because they have a lot more chocolate on them, presumably because they’re made in a less advanced factory. I would think that getting the Rizla thin coating of chocolate that Cadbury’s accountants demand onto a piece of sponge is quite a sophisticated operation. Discuss.
    • Another recommendation for Leon. He was able to come out to our electrical elergency within 24 hours of me contacting him. His communication was great and whilst he could not solve our problem, he was able to perform tests to identify this and did so quickly and efficiently. He charging  is very fair and his manner very pleasant. Both of these in contrast to some experiences I have had elsewhere.    happy to put my name to recommending Leon. His number is  07707 925039.
    • Other than acting as 'interested parties' Southwark Councillors have no responsibility for water issues. And no real leverage either. Considering the complete disdain with which Thames Water treats its own Regulator, and the government, (let alone its customers) I doubt very much whether an entire battalion of councillors would have much impact. What powers could they exercise?
    • That may not be so - many on this site are experts in many areas - you yourself claim huge traffic management (or similar) expertise for instance. And I think you will find that Southwark employees are unlikely to support criticism or challenges to Southwark policy - why, you don't and you apparently neither live in, or vote in, the borough. Do you, however, work for it, as you are such a cheerleader? If not, then you are the most passionate disinterested person on this site, as regards so many aspects, not just traffic.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...