Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[beninho]

First topic message reminder :

It does seem that this cat video is pretty old. But, also oeople seem more upset about it then say, Chelsea having a player who killed someone when he was drink driving.

We are a nation of animal lovers, my mum was all in on Romanian rescue dogs, not so keen on Romanian people.
,

[pedro]

[Shotrock]

Mac - You are correct ... a rating's bonanza for US networks. Most Americans love the pageantry of it all, especially when they don't have to pay. I can guarantee you that 95% (or more) of Americans don't have a clue about royal privilege for those further down the line and what that might cost.

[super_realist]

Much as I despise the institution of the monarchy, it is by a considerable margin cheaper than what it costs to look after the US President

[navyblueshorts]

Oooo! Boo hoo! I take the many knee-jerk 'dislikes' on my recent posts as a badge of honour. Can't/don't want to engage/debate? Pathetic.

[McLaren]

So Ben, you think people should use homeopathy?

Why wouldn't you? If it works for some people it works for some people, does it work for everyone? no. Does chemo work for all cancers? no

It works for no-one. If it works, it's placebo. End of story. Good result I guess, but it's not 'homeopathy' that has done an iota of good.

Sadly I am not sure everyone is equipped to grasp that Navy.

[McLaren]

By the way, never mind this crap about the queen, has there been a more interesting news story in recent times than how the Ukrainians are dealing with the Russian invasion?

[beninho]

Police arresting people for holding up pieces of paper. Seems a bit strong.

[McLaren]

Yep. We seem to be at the stage in the UK where you are arrested if you depart from the government prescribed mourning ritual.

[navyblueshorts]

By the way, never mind this crap about the queen, has there been a more interesting news story in recent times than how the Ukrainians are dealing with the Russian invasion?

Yep. All power to them, but a long way to go and they have to now hold what they're reclaimed...

[navyblueshorts]

Police arresting people for holding up pieces of paper. Seems a bit strong.

Does a bit. I wonder what the charge is? Lèse majesté?

[Soul Requiem]

Police arresting people for holding up pieces of paper. Seems a bit strong.

Does a bit. I wonder what the charge is? Lèse majesté?

Disturbing the peace most likely. There's a time and a place to protest and those doing it know it could potentially cause conflict.

[Shotrock]

As an outsider, my question is: Is Charles up to the job?

Despite the opulent surroundings, I am sure he has has real "functions of state" work to do. All (or virtually all) of his contemporaries have retired and he's just staring his primary job. I'm guessing it will really test his patience and stamina.

[Duty281]

https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/1569748001354121218

I worry that the King is near a breakdown when you see clips like this.

[McLaren]

As an outsider, my question is: Is Charles up to the job?

You would hope so because in some ways it is not a particularly difficult job, as the queen showed. Just do or say nothing. But that has not been a strength of Charles over the years who has been keen to offer his opinion to both the public and ministers (black spider letters). He essentially just has to avoid scandal for the next few years until people accept him and I doubt he will face many major issues.

The one issue he may not have been able to solve was the Andrew issue because he would not have had enough goodwill in the bank to get away with paying for a sexual assault lawsuit to disappear whereas the queen pretty much got away with it. It is crazy to think that the queen paid millions of pounds in broad daylight to hush up the assault of a 17 year old and on the whole the british public just looked the other way. Without the queens millions who knows what Andrew might have had to give up to settle the case. Because settling for what he could afford himself may have seen something like a public apology/admission to be made.

He is a big proponent of curbing emissions which will annoy Super, but he is a strong advocate for alternate medicine (particularly homeopathy) so Benhino will be happy.

[JuliusHMarx]

https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/1569748001354121218

I worry that the King is near a breakdown when you see clips like this.

Does all that curmudgeonly moaning remind you of anyone on this forum?

[navyblueshorts]

As an outsider, my question is: Is Charles up to the job?

You would hope so because in some ways it is not a particularly difficult job, as the queen showed. Just do or say nothing. But that has not been a strength of Charles over the years who has been keen to offer his opinion to both the public and ministers (black spider letters). He essentially just has to avoid scandal for the next few years until people accept him and I doubt he will face many major issues.

The one issue he may not have been able to solve was the Andrew issue because he would not have had enough goodwill in the bank to get away with paying for a sexual assault lawsuit to disappear whereas the queen pretty much got away with it. It is crazy to think that the queen paid millions of pounds in broad daylight to hush up the assault of a 17 year old and on the whole the british public just looked the other way. Without the queens millions who knows what Andrew might have had to give up to settle the case. Because settling for what he could afford himself may have seen something like a public apology/admission to be made.

He is a big proponent of curbing emissions which will annoy Super, but he is a strong advocate for alternate medicine (particularly homeopathy) so Benhino will be happy.

Not you as well? I'm not getting into another debate on this here, but your actual evidence (not social media, speculation, bias or other complete rubbish) that there was any hush up is what, exactly? You have none, but you're perfectly happy to contribute to the continued trashing of a man who's been convicted of sweet Fanny Adams. He couldn't win and I thought Giuffre was utterly adamant she was having her day in court, no? If it was so clear-cut that she couldn't have lost, a bit odd to back out.
Your clear anti-monarchy bias is obvious. You know nothing about the particulars of Giuffre's claims against Andrew; just like the rest of us. God help anyone trying to defend themselves in a jury trial if you're one of the jurors...

In terms of being up to the job and it being easy, perhaps you'd like a go? Didn't think so. He'll do OK and he's made it perfectly clear he knows being heir apparent is very different from being monarch.

[navyblueshorts]

https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/1569748001354121218

I worry that the King is near a breakdown when you see clips like this.

Really? Re. him not liking a leaking pen, I'd be ****ing swearing in all likelihood as well, and crappy video all over social media is what you get when anyone and everyone is sticking a camera into your life all the time. His mum had just died and he's been chasing from one end of the country and back again over and over, as well as meeting all and sundry while probably getting little sleep and having his every move on camera. So he got the date wrong initially, a pen leaked and he cussed - who cares?

[super_realist]

As an outsider, my question is: Is Charles up to the job?

You would hope so because in some ways it is not a particularly difficult job, as the queen showed. Just do or say nothing. But that has not been a strength of Charles over the years who has been keen to offer his opinion to both the public and ministers (black spider letters). He essentially just has to avoid scandal for the next few years until people accept him and I doubt he will face many major issues.

The one issue he may not have been able to solve was the Andrew issue because he would not have had enough goodwill in the bank to get away with paying for a sexual assault lawsuit to disappear whereas the queen pretty much got away with it. It is crazy to think that the queen paid millions of pounds in broad daylight to hush up the assault of a 17 year old and on the whole the british public just looked the other way. Without the queens millions who knows what Andrew might have had to give up to settle the case. Because settling for what he could afford himself may have seen something like a public apology/admission to be made.

He is a big proponent of curbing emissions which will annoy Super, but he is a strong advocate for alternate medicine (particularly homeopathy) so Benhino will be happy.

Not you as well? I'm not getting into another debate on this here, but your actual evidence (not social media, speculation, bias or other complete rubbish) that there was any hush up is what, exactly? You have none, but you're perfectly happy to contribute to the continued trashing of a man who's been convicted of sweet Fanny Adams. He couldn't win and I thought Giuffre was utterly adamant she was having her day in court, no? If it was so clear-cut that she couldn't have lost, a bit odd to back out.
Your clear anti-monarchy bias is obvious. You know nothing about the particulars of Giuffre's claims against Andrew; just like the rest of us. God help anyone trying to defend themselves in a jury trial if you're one of the jurors...

In terms of being up to the job and it being easy, perhaps you'd like a go? Didn't think so. He'll do OK and he's made it perfectly clear he knows being heir apparent is very different from being monarch.

I can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them.

[JuliusHMarx]

As an outsider, my question is: Is Charles up to the job?

You would hope so because in some ways it is not a particularly difficult job, as the queen showed. Just do or say nothing. But that has not been a strength of Charles over the years who has been keen to offer his opinion to both the public and ministers (black spider letters). He essentially just has to avoid scandal for the next few years until people accept him and I doubt he will face many major issues.

The one issue he may not have been able to solve was the Andrew issue because he would not have had enough goodwill in the bank to get away with paying for a sexual assault lawsuit to disappear whereas the queen pretty much got away with it. It is crazy to think that the queen paid millions of pounds in broad daylight to hush up the assault of a 17 year old and on the whole the british public just looked the other way. Without the queens millions who knows what Andrew might have had to give up to settle the case. Because settling for what he could afford himself may have seen something like a public apology/admission to be made.

He is a big proponent of curbing emissions which will annoy Super, but he is a strong advocate for alternate medicine (particularly homeopathy) so Benhino will be happy.

Not you as well? I'm not getting into another debate on this here, but your actual evidence (not social media, speculation, bias or other complete rubbish) that there was any hush up is what, exactly? You have none, but you're perfectly happy to contribute to the continued trashing of a man who's been convicted of sweet Fanny Adams. He couldn't win and I thought Giuffre was utterly adamant she was having her day in court, no? If it was so clear-cut that she couldn't have lost, a bit odd to back out.
Your clear anti-monarchy bias is obvious. You know nothing about the particulars of Giuffre's claims against Andrew; just like the rest of us. God help anyone trying to defend themselves in a jury trial if you're one of the jurors...

In terms of being up to the job and it being easy, perhaps you'd like a go? Didn't think so. He'll do OK and he's made it perfectly clear he knows being heir apparent is very different from being monarch.

I can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them.

Based on their weight?

[super_realist]

As an outsider, my question is: Is Charles up to the job?

You would hope so because in some ways it is not a particularly difficult job, as the queen showed. Just do or say nothing. But that has not been a strength of Charles over the years who has been keen to offer his opinion to both the public and ministers (black spider letters). He essentially just has to avoid scandal for the next few years until people accept him and I doubt he will face many major issues.

The one issue he may not have been able to solve was the Andrew issue because he would not have had enough goodwill in the bank to get away with paying for a sexual assault lawsuit to disappear whereas the queen pretty much got away with it. It is crazy to think that the queen paid millions of pounds in broad daylight to hush up the assault of a 17 year old and on the whole the british public just looked the other way. Without the queens millions who knows what Andrew might have had to give up to settle the case. Because settling for what he could afford himself may have seen something like a public apology/admission to be made.

He is a big proponent of curbing emissions which will annoy Super, but he is a strong advocate for alternate medicine (particularly homeopathy) so Benhino will be happy.

Not you as well? I'm not getting into another debate on this here, but your actual evidence (not social media, speculation, bias or other complete rubbish) that there was any hush up is what, exactly? You have none, but you're perfectly happy to contribute to the continued trashing of a man who's been convicted of sweet Fanny Adams. He couldn't win and I thought Giuffre was utterly adamant she was having her day in court, no? If it was so clear-cut that she couldn't have lost, a bit odd to back out.
Your clear anti-monarchy bias is obvious. You know nothing about the particulars of Giuffre's claims against Andrew; just like the rest of us. God help anyone trying to defend themselves in a jury trial if you're one of the jurors...

In terms of being up to the job and it being easy, perhaps you'd like a go? Didn't think so. He'll do OK and he's made it perfectly clear he knows being heir apparent is very different from being monarch.

I can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them.

Based on their weight?

That's what I day when I'm called up to Jury duty.

[Duty281]

https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/1569748001354121218

I worry that the King is near a breakdown when you see clips like this.

Does all that curmudgeonly moaning remind you of anyone on this forum?

None of us. Not a soul. We're all cheerful and optimistic, looking forward to the sunlit days of the future.

[Duty281]

https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/1569748001354121218

I worry that the King is near a breakdown when you see clips like this.

Really? Re. him not liking a leaking pen, I'd be ****ing swearing in all likelihood as well, and crappy video all over social media is what you get when anyone and everyone is sticking a camera into your life all the time. His mum had just died and he's been chasing from one end of the country and back again over and over, as well as meeting all and sundry while probably getting little sleep and having his every move on camera. So he got the date wrong initially, a pen leaked and he cussed - who cares?

I'm not knocking him for it, I'm just concerned for his wellbeing. It hasn't been much commented on, but he's an old man forced into a load of pomp and ceremony after losing both parents in the last year and a bit. Never a minute's waking peace.

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

[I'm never wrong]

If it was so clear-cut that she couldn't have lost, a bit odd to back out.

Not odd to me, because it was a civil case, not a criminal trial. If she had carried on there could have been three (or more) outcomes, only one of which was the same as she ended up with.
1. She wins - Judge awards her the £12 million. Very unlikely as the judge would say why didn't you settle for the amount offered? Then she might have costs.
2. She wins and judge awards her far less than £12 million (and she has costs.)
3. She loses and has costs awarded against her.

Personal civil cases are usually about reputational damage, and that's usually quantified by a monetary amount. So as soon as that offer was on the table, her options were limited for her to keep as much as possible. Lawyers are expensive. And as you have seen on this board and elsewhere, people have made an assumption because of the settlement, which vindicates her in the eyes of the uninformed.

[navyblueshorts]

https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/1569748001354121218

I worry that the King is near a breakdown when you see clips like this.

Really? Re. him not liking a leaking pen, I'd be ****ing swearing in all likelihood as well, and crappy video all over social media is what you get when anyone and everyone is sticking a camera into your life all the time. His mum had just died and he's been chasing from one end of the country and back again over and over, as well as meeting all and sundry while probably getting little sleep and having his every move on camera. So he got the date wrong initially, a pen leaked and he cussed - who cares?

I'm not knocking him for it, I'm just concerned for his wellbeing. It hasn't been much commented on, but he's an old man forced into a load of pomp and ceremony after losing both parents in the last year and a bit. Never a minute's waking peace.

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Good points, but concern for people's wellbeing when those people are deemed to be 'privileged' (let alone a monarch) isn't on most people's radars. People don't like being asked to apply a set of claimed standards without fear or favour; only usually to their favourite 'deserving' group.

[navyblueshorts]

If it was so clear-cut that she couldn't have lost, a bit odd to back out.

Not odd to me, because it was a civil case, not a criminal trial.  If she had carried on there could have been three (or more) outcomes, only one of which was the same as she ended up with.
1. She wins - Judge awards her the £12 million. Very unlikely as the judge would say why didn't you settle for the amount offered? Then she might have costs.
2. She wins and judge awards her far less than £12 million (and she has costs.)
3. She loses and has costs awarded against her.

Personal civil cases are usually about reputational damage, and that's usually quantified by a monetary amount. So as soon as that offer was on the table, her options were limited for her to keep as much as possible. Lawyers are expensive. And as you have seen on this board and elsewhere, people have made an assumption because of the settlement, which vindicates her in the eyes of the uninformed.

All fair points . I could add to that, that she naturally might not have wanted to re-visit anything that had happened in the glare of publicity, or be cross-examined on it. Understandable. Anyway, done deal now and people have drawn whatever conclusions they want.

[McLaren]

Navy

From what I gather most cases like this are settled rather than going to trial. For many reasons, including those listed above by INW. The mere fact it was settled doesn't indicate who was correct.

But what we do know is that whatever she brought to the table it was enough that the queen had to stump up £12m+ to avoid this going any further. Even with a team of top lawyers presumably able to find any crack in Guiffre's case Andrew was left in an incredibly weak negotiating position. He essentially lost all his wealth just to stop any detail of her evidence coming out.

We are used to the crazy money of football these days but in the real world (and the Royal) world £12m is a lot of money. It is more than Andrew was able to pay even after selling up some of his properties. If the Queen had not been around to bail him out he would not have been able to afford such a cosy settlement.

On top of this we have his disastrous interview with Maitlis. If you have seen it you know.

The whole point of the settlement is to leave it vague so we are left with having to rely on legal experts analysis of why the case went a certain way, and from what I have heard and read it would seem that analysis favors the idea that Andrew would not have survived this going to trial.

[McLaren]

And also Navy

As I often point out when sexual assault allegations are made you don't always have to view it through the lens of whether it would get by a jury. You can weigh up a character judgement that makes sense to you personally. Ask yourself, do you believe the woman? Do you think it is reasonable to you that the accused could commit the act?

In this case for the purposes of forming my opinion of Andrew I think the accusation is probably true and that his removal from public life is warranted because he most likely raped a teenager. We would need to see the whole case set out in court to decide whether he loses his liberty but for the purposes of his royal duties and my opinion of him the case is settled. And the royal family obviously agree given he has been pretty much removed from their pay roll.

[super_realist]

Andrew makes Harry look bright.
Not much time for Maitlis and her nonsense either

[McLaren]

Super

But Maitlis his pretty nice legs

[beninho]

Rest in peace Queenie. God rest your soul. May he be your guide.

Long live the King

[super_realist]

Rest in peace Queenie. God rest your soul. May he be your guide.

Long live the King

"May he be your guide"?

[beninho]

And God bless you super_realist may he sit on your shoulder and help you through those lonely nights. When you only have tears to lubricate your masturbation. He helps everyone.

[Duty281]

These posts are getting weirder.

[navyblueshorts]

And also Navy

As I often point out when sexual assault allegations are made you don't always have to view it through the lens of whether it would get by a jury. You can weigh up a character judgement that makes sense to you personally. Ask yourself, do you believe the woman? Do you think it is reasonable to you that the accused could commit the act?

In this case for the purposes of forming my opinion of Andrew I think the accusation is probably true and that his removal from public life is warranted because he most likely raped a teenager. We would need to see the whole case set out in court to decide whether he loses his liberty but for the purposes of his royal duties and my opinion of him the case is settled. And the royal family obviously agree given he has been pretty much removed from their pay roll.

If anyone reads this who's responsible for jury selections, anywhere, please take note that this individual should not be allowed anywhere near one. Thank-you.

Done with this.

[McLaren]

Navy

Your wife/daughter/good friend comes to you and "claims" they have been sexually assaulted. Are you treating it like a court case before you believe them?

[super_realist]

Navy

Your wife/daughter/good friend comes to you and "claims" they have been sexually assaulted. Are you treating it like a court case before you believe them?

Are you saying that every claim of assault of a sexual nature should be believed by default?

[McLaren]

Super, the rates of false sexual assault claims are very low. Women don't make this stuff up to be put through the trauma of trying to get justice when you become a victim of sexual assault. Life is not easy for woman making these accusations, so I have no idea why people think they are all frivolously going about making this stuff up.

But in the Andrew case we don't just have Virginia Giuffre's word for it. There is a photo of him with Giuffre and a known sex trafficker on the night in question. His disastrous attempt at trying to cover it up in the Maitlis interview. Pizza hut and not sweating? He is a known associate of Jeffrey Epstein. The queens pay off. The fact it has been shown in other court cases that Giuffre was trafficked and raped as part of the Epstein/Maxwell sexual abuse network.

It would really take a leap of magical thinking to conclude Andrew was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Soul Requiem]

Super, the rates of false sexual assault claims are very low. Women don't make this stuff up to be put through the trauma of trying to get justice when you become a victim of sexual assault. Life is not easy for woman making these accusations, so I have no idea why people think they are all frivolously going about making this stuff up.

But in the Andrew case we don't just have Virginia Giuffre's word for it. There is a photo of him with Giuffre and a known sex trafficker on the night in question. His disastrous attempt at trying to cover it up in the Maitlis interview. Pizza hut and not sweating? He is a known associate of Jeffrey Epstein. The queens pay off. The fact it has been shown in other court cases that Giuffre was trafficked and raped as part of the Epstein/Maxwell sexual abuse network.

It would really take a leap of magical thinking to conclude Andrew was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You're right victims of sexual assault don't make it up, well done but there are people out there who are not victims who do make it up.

It doesn't take any great leap at all to think someone in Andrews position could simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, a photograph doesn't prove guilt.

[super_realist]

Super, the rates of false sexual assault claims are very low. Women don't make this stuff up to be put through the trauma of trying to get justice when you become a victim of sexual assault. Life is not easy for woman making these accusations, so I have no idea why people think they are all frivolously going about making this stuff up.

But in the Andrew case we don't just have Virginia Giuffre's word for it. There is a photo of him with Giuffre and a known sex trafficker on the night in question. His disastrous attempt at trying to cover it up in the Maitlis interview. Pizza hut and not sweating? He is a known associate of Jeffrey Epstein. The queens pay off. The fact it has been shown in other court cases that Giuffre was trafficked and raped as part of the Epstein/Maxwell sexual abuse network.

It would really take a leap of magical thinking to conclude Andrew was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sorry Mac, but it's a ridiculous situation. It's like starting a scientific experiment and already claiming to know the answer.

It's stupid to bring a relative into it and conflating that with being a juror or a judge.

Courts are set up to prove if someone is guilty, not innocent so you can't start off by assuming the witness is telling the truth. That's the global court system backwards.

[McLaren]

Super

Why are you talking about courts. Since when did you make an assessment on someone based on how things might play out in a courtroom?

[super_realist]

Super

Why are you talking about courts. Since when did you make an assessment on someone based on how things might play out in a courtroom?

Because you're making a ridiculous conflation between what a relative claims to you with how the law should see the very same claim.
If you can't see there's a blatant difference in there you're more stupid than I thought.

A parent has every reason to believe the claim of a daughter for example, the law has no such reason.

[McLaren]

Super

I can only suggest you reread my posts. I think you will find we are close to agreeing.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Your wife/daughter/good friend comes to you and "claims" they have been sexually assaulted. Are you treating it like a court case before you believe them?

You're equating your knowledge of a very close acquaintance with your (lack of) knowledge re. Andrew and that case? Really?

You're right. If my wife came to me and claimed she'd been assaulted, I'd believe her in all likelihood. That doesn't mean I'd think it sensible to trumpet all sorts of unproven allegations in public, however. You seem to think it's fitting to do the latter, based on nothing real at all - you don't know either of the protagonists. At all.

Lets leave it. You clearly don't think I have a valid point, and I know you don't .

[McLaren]

Navy

I doubt we see this all that differently. Super has muddied the waters by claiming I said we know enough to convict Andrew. I clearly never said that. All I have said is that we know enough to make an assessment of his behavior and whether it is suitable for him to hold an official public position.

Really, my main issue with the whole situation is that the queen got away with paying for r*** case to go away.

[super_realist]

Navy

I doubt we see this all that differently. Super has muddied the waters by claiming I said we know enough to convict Andrew. I clearly never said that. All I have said is that we know enough to make an assessment of his behavior and whether it is suitable for him to hold an official public position.

Really, my main issue with the whole situation is that the queen got away with paying for r*** case to go away.

That's exactly what you haven't demonstrated Mac. It's a claim.

[McLaren]

So Super, you are just completely neutral on Celebrities. You hold no opinion on them and waiting for all the data to come in?

[JAS]

Let's have another go at trying to make trickle down economics work then.

Who was it that said "The very definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results"

[super_realist]

So Super, you are just completely neutral on Celebrities. You hold no opinion on them and waiting for all the data to come in?

If I'm in the business of convicting them of a crime the only thing that matters is the evidence. The evidence is that Andrew holds dodgy company, not that he r***d anyone.

[McLaren]

This is painful. Why are you still going on about convicting him?

[super_realist]

This is painful. Why are you still going on about convicting him?

Because you are claiming that his payoff implies he r***d her. There is no evidence this happened.

I get he's a loathsome man, but you are tagging him with a crime that has not been proven and never can be

[Sponsored content]