Today's Jubilee Looky-Likey

[Eza Blade]

Trying to bring it back to the OP!!

View attachment 137344
Didzy

View attachment 137345
Jeffrey Wright from TV’s Westworld

Didzys face in this pic

“I couldn’t hit what with a banjo”

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

Totally agree

And as always , beautifully put .

“…probably with very little 'pleasing herself' time”


Yeah but he’s got a dirty mind

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

I mean come on. How does the queen represent who I am? She could never in a million years have any conception of what a normal person's life is like. The country is on it's fucking knees, shit loads are choosing between heating and eating, and we throw an enormous party costing a billion pounds to celebrate that she's stayed alive for 70 years on the thrown after being waited on hand and foot her entire life.

One of "the Firm" is almost certainly an actual paedophile. Public money has undoubtedly been used directly or indirectly to get him off. Is that also who we are and who we've always been? Is that fine because they bring in tourists? It's revolting that they are literally classed as better than other humans just because they're born into that family.

“70 years on the thrown”


Ouch!

 

[vegleeds]

But it is still assumptions and speculation. You have no idea what other tangibles he has or which third party is also shoving cash his way, or over what terms this settlement is agreed. It is unlikely he will have said 'Okay Miss, I'll give you twelve mill to shut up. Which account shall I make the cheque out to?' True that he will be pretty potless after this (which to me is richly fucking deserved, although a spell inside might alleviate any further doubts about his sexual integrity) and he is currently living alongside his ex wife in a grace a favour lodge in Windsor, courtesy of Brenda But I'd issue caution trying to work out the details of his transactions. Rich people's financial are complex and spread out to mitigate risk. Simply assuming Brenda has said 'I've got this tab, Andy love' is daft beyond comprehension, so steer clear of the press and the iNtOrNeT.

Sorry to those who thought the thread had died - so please ignore. I'm probably only talking to Chingo and Pommpey.

Chingo, you do realise that when you accuse me of "speculation" re how settlement in this case was financed, you should be accusing Pomps of speculation when he talks of "the manipulative nonce", after all the court case was ended before a verdict could be reached. If the case had reached a natural conclusion and a verdict had been reached, would it be too surprising if the court came to the same conclusion reached by Pomps? And that being so the settlement was always going to be in the $$$$millions. All speculation of course but I'm having a slight problem finding anybody who thought the case was going well for Andy.

Pommpey When both parties agreed to reach settlement, then the lawyers for Andy (your speculation for being the losing party) would have had to sort out with their client how to pay. Yes, I too doubt that he could simply have written out a cheque from his post office savings account. So where COULD the money have come from? Saying "Rich people's financial [affairs] are complex and spread out to mitigate risk" I can agree with but we have to remember that is/was not just a rich person but a member of the Royal Family. As such he could easily catch the attention of foreign oligarchs etc who would slip him the odd million for 'a word in the right ear' for a favour wanted. When you're born a royal and are used to always being a "person of influence" it probably never strikes you that you should perhaps save up a few millions extra just in there's a rainy day (aka a VERY expensive court case in New York). Maybe even though he was accused of being a paedo in a NY court and so has rapidly lost both power and influence, his old 'friends' have stood by him? When I think 'what's in it for them?' and the answer is 'nothing' except guilt by association, then I think nooo. And so I arrive back at his lovely old Mum who's supported him for 62 years and even now supports him by letting him stay at his grace and favour home which he apparently maintains on his "20k per year naval pension. (He's still one four Royal Councillors by the way.) So did Brenda more or less say 'I've got this tab, Andy love" I've got no idea but it does in the circumstances seem plausible. To call this 'daft beyond comprehension' I can only put down to extreme deference to Her maj which would be beyond the comprehension of many. Speculation? Of course but it's what all on this thread have engaged in. We can only look at the facts we know for sure and fill in the gaps using common sense. Amen.

 

[pommpey]

Sorry to those who thought the thread had died - so please ignore. I'm probably only talking to Chingo and Pommpey.

Chingo, you do realise that when you accuse me of "speculation" re how settlement in this case was financed, you should be accusing Pomps of speculation when he talks of "the manipulative nonce", after all the court case was ended before a verdict could be reached. If the case had reached a natural conclusion and a verdict had been reached, would it be too surprising if the court came to the same conclusion reached by Pomps? And that being so the settlement was always going to be in the $$$$millions. All speculation of course but I'm having a slight problem finding anybody who thought the case was going well for Andy.

Pommpey When both parties agreed to reach settlement, then the lawyers for Andy (your speculation for being the losing party) would have had to sort out with their client how to pay. Yes, I too doubt that he could simply have written out a cheque from his post office savings account. So where COULD the money have come from? Saying "Rich people's financial [affairs] are complex and spread out to mitigate risk" I can agree with but we have to remember that is/was not just a rich person but a member of the Royal Family. As such he could easily catch the attention of foreign oligarchs etc who would slip him the odd million for 'a word in the right ear' for a favour wanted. When you're born a royal and are used to always being a "person of influence" it probably never strikes you that you should perhaps save up a few millions extra just in there's a rainy day (aka a VERY expensive court case in New York). Maybe even though he was accused of being a paedo in a NY court and so has rapidly lost both power and influence, his old 'friends' have stood by him? When I think 'what's in it for them?' and the answer is 'nothing' except guilt by association, then I think nooo. And so I arrive back at his lovely old Mum who's supported him for 62 years and even now supports him by letting him stay at his grace and favour home which he apparently maintains on his "20k per year naval pension. (He's still one four Royal Councillors by the way.) So did Brenda more or less say 'I've got this tab, Andy love" I've got no idea but it does in the circumstances seem plausible. To call this 'daft beyond comprehension' I can only put down to extreme deference to Her maj which would be beyond the comprehension of many. Speculation? Of course but it's what all on this thread have engaged in. We can only look at the facts we know for sure and fill in the gaps using common sense. Amen.

'Filling in the gaps using common sense'. Yeah, sure. With a dollop of acquired knowledge and a soupcon of personal bias to reach a conclusion with nil evidence. 'Surely this must be' and 'I reckon, right' are never good platforms with which to base ones case and you do start to sound just like the clickbait journos who fill nimble minds with bollocks such as this. Truth is, we'll never know. What we do know is that in a picture, he's hugging VG, she says he shagged her when she was 17, this was part of an arranged sexual transactions scheme with GM and JE (both of whom are convicted sex offenders) and his involvement with VG given his status and age differential gives every undisputed reason to believe he is a wrong un. Hence the 'manipulative nonce' tagline.

Your track on how much, what the arrangements are and who pays the (assumed £12m) settlement is based on 'what'? So far, you've built a framework without structure based on 'what you (think you) know' versus 'what is fact', two circumstances which you will never be able to corroborate. So just give up, eh? I'm not defending Brenda in this case, just calling out your speculation as bullshit until proven otherwise.

pommpey

 

[vegleeds]

So just give up, eh? I'm not defending Brenda in this case, just calling out your speculation as bullshit until proven otherwise.

pommpey

"Until proven otherwise"? I must have missed the court case where Andy was found guilty of, or liable for, anything. You're just speculating the same as the rest of us poms but won't admit it. As for "not defending Brenda" well your "daft beyond comprehension" comment clearly nails your colours to the mast. I'm just posing this point and others as a (theoretical) possibility, as in speculating, the thing that Chingo "accuses" me of. You're floundering in uncertainties and trying to pretend they're "facts". The irony..........

I really will let you have the last word to help you believe you're saving face, because I'm like that.

 

[pommpey]

"Until proven otherwise"? I must have missed the court case where Andy was found guilty of, or liable for, anything. You're just speculating the same as the rest of us poms but won't admit it. As for "not defending Brenda" well your "daft beyond comprehension" comment clearly nails your colours to the mast. I'm just posing this point and others as a (theoretical) possibility, as in speculating, the thing that Chingo "accuses" me of. You're floundering in uncertainties and trying to pretend they're "facts". The irony..........

I really will let you have the last word to help you believe you're saving face, because I'm like that.

Yeah. It's you who claims 'Brenda spunked twelve million to save her skint son'. Whilst this sounds a convenient story to uphold your biases, you have zip all to prove it. You do understand how that works, don't you? You make an allegation which you expect everyone to believe and for those doubters who don't swallow statements without evidence, the burden of proof to uphold your bullshit lies with you. So show your hand, eh? And make it something away from the papers, because seemingly they don't have much to go on either.

So give us a quote, a bank statement, a shakycam vid of Brenda handing 'Randy Andy' a suitcase of fifties or anything that whiffs of the truth or STFU, eh?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Hitchens used to brilliantly say.

pommpey

 

[vegleeds]

Yeah. It's you who claims 'Brenda spunked twelve million to save her skint son'. Whilst this sounds a convenient story to uphold your biases, you have zip all to prove it. You do understand how that works, don't you? You make an allegation which you expect everyone to believe and for those doubters who don't swallow statements without evidence, the burden of proof to uphold your bullshit lies with you. So show your hand, eh? And make it something away from the papers, because seemingly they don't have much to go on either.

So give us a quote, a bank statement, a shakycam vid of Brenda handing 'Randy Andy' a suitcase of fifties or anything that whiffs of the truth or STFU, eh?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Hitchens used to brilliantly say.

pommpey

 

[vegleeds]

Yeah. It's you who claims 'Brenda spunked twelve million to save her skint son

pommpey

Show me where I made this claim. I'VE MERELY SPECULATED ON THE POSSIBILTY OF MAJ SPUNKING MONEY ON ANDY AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SETTLEMENT FIGURE WAS IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. (I've used capitals in a maybe vain effort to help this notion at last sink into your noodle. You do know the difference between somebody saying something is a possibility or something is a fact?) You've attributed to me words/certainties that I've not come out with. Maybe in your quite obvious annoyance, you're linking me with stuff from other people? At least reread all that I've actually said in this thread and then tell me you genuinely believe what you're saying in your latest post? If you can do this with a straight face, then all I can say is You are Boris Johnson and I claim my £5. And people tell me I'm thick.....jeez! At least you seem to have cut out the mental health jibes which I suppose is some kind of progress

 

[pommpey]

Show me where I made this claim. I'VE MERELY SPECULATED ON THE POSSIBILTY OF MAJ SPUNKING MONEY ON ANDY AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SETTLEMENT FIGURE WAS IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. (I've used capitals in a maybe vain effort to help this notion at last sink into your noodle. You do know the difference between somebody saying something is a possibility or something is a fact?) You've attributed to me words/certainties that I've not come out with. Maybe in your quite obvious annoyance, you're linking me with stuff from other people? At least reread all that I've actually said in this thread and then tell me you genuinely believe what you're saying in your latest post? If you can do this with a straight face, then all I can say is You are Boris Johnson and I claim my £5. And people tell me I'm thick.....jeez!

'Obvious annoyance'. Yet it is you in your fit of pique who can't coherently use the forum nor coherently back up your argument - you post a statement with an argument which in fact backs up my argument against? You've speculated. I have said prove it. You can't. So what you say is bollocks ... (get this) ... until proven otherwise.

No capitals. You are an odd contradiction of notions and biases. And nothing else.

pommpey

 

[vegleeds]

'Obvious annoyance'. Yet it is you in your fit of pique who can't coherently use the forum nor coherently back up your argument - you post a statement with an argument which in fact backs up my argument against? You've speculated. I have said prove it. You can't. So what you say is bollocks ... (get this) ... until proven otherwise.

No capitals. You are an odd contradiction of notions and biases. And nothing else.

pommpey

Putting words in my mouth that I've not actually said to try to bolster your argument is something I wouldn't have expected from you pommpey. Until now. You believe Brenda couldn't/wouldn't possibly bail out Andy "Daft beyond comprehension" as you put it. Brenda who's worth a few hundred million, has supported Andy all her life and is still doing so by not kicking him out on his ear. I'll leave people still looking at this thread to use their common sense to decide whether or not my speculation (not statement of fact) is more plausible than your "daft beyond comprehension" speculation. If I really don't respond any more, it's not because I'm angry with you Pommpey, I just can't be. It's sadness at what your posts seem to be revealing about your true nature.

 

[pommpey]

Putting words in my mouth that I've not actually said to try to bolster your argument is something I wouldn't have expected from you pommpey. Until now. You believe Brenda couldn't/wouldn't possibly bail out Andy "Daft beyond comprehension" as you put it. Brenda who's worth a few hundred million, has supported Andy all her life and is still doing so by not kicking him out on his ear. I'll leave people still looking at this thread to use their common sense to decide whether or not my speculation (not statement of fact) is more plausible than your "daft beyond comprehension" speculation. If I really don't respond any more, it's not because I'm angry with you Pommpey, I just can't be. It's sadness at what your posts seem to be revealing about your true nature.

I am not putting words in your mouth. You are making a narrative - without any evidence whatsoever except a raft of fallacious, arguments from standpoints, appeals to populism, Ipse dixit, and wild assumption statements again, based on acquired 'knowledge' gained from provenly dubious sources, themselves evidence-free. I could buy your case if you had one scrap of fact backing it but your prejudices and 'this-therefore-that' conclusions are laughably shit. If me challenging you on this (and let me reinforce, I am not upholding Andrew's malfeasance, simply refuting your clear-cut affirmation Brenda paid for his settlement) 'reveals something about my true nature' then fill your boots. On the basis of your allegations alone (when challenged, can't back them up) you are on thin ice, so any judgement you have on me is also open to scrutiny. So save the appeal to my character schtick, why don't you? You've been unpacked and laid bare and your inner loathing of a set of individuals you have the very choice to ignore and who have a piffling effect on your existence entirely says more about you, than any thing I say does about me.

And if you think Brenda is worth 'a few hundred million' it shows exactly what you do ... or don't know about the Monarchy and Royal Estate in it's entirety.

pommpey

 

[Alan Birchenall's hair]

Get a room you two....