Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

Fox is a bit right wing for you folks, because by our standards most of you really aren't Conservatives in any shape or form. The problem is that just because you view it as a “joke” you then try to negate the fact that it reaches millions and helps form opinions.
I always stick Fox on when in the states. The other channels are like watching the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.
It says to expect more wonderful news in the future!

Perhaps you might want to lay off the Vodka, but it is 1600 hours for you.
Wow (Again) a journalist wants you to keep reading their story.

She basically said **** all.
So Epstein does not have a property in New Mexico?
Andrew did not go visit his chum in New Mexico?
And that has what to with any illegal activities?

A man visited his friend. HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!!!!
The Den of Iniquity is not exactly a hunting trip, shooting clays, or playing poker.

So no proof of anything? It doesnt take much to entertain you does it?
So no proof of anything? It doesnt take much to entertain you does it?
You do realise that eventually many of the sealed documents are going to be made public??

You remind me of the many folks, I deal with on a daily basis. The you didn't "see me" doing these naughty things so clearly it never happened. Unless of course I have a paper trail to dispute your claims and in fact prove the exact opposite. So whilst stacker, I might not have seen you drinking the road soda in your car, the fact that you can't maintain your lane, have a six pack in your lap, smell of alcohol, and slur your words means you are perfectly sober and that I am picking on you...
Andrew Pearce, LBC, had a high proportion of calls calling for the monarchy to be abolished, their funds and assets seized and redistributed. (Momentum and CPGB would approve..) A deluded caller accused other callers of being deluded and started spouting potentially libellous conspiracy theories.
Without turning this into a Brexit thread, there was nothing illegal about that prorogation - the Supreme Court was a stacked deck, which is why they returned a unanimous verdict on an issue where the most senior courts of Scotland and England were divided.
As I said to Bob, I think I'll defer to the Supreme Court's legal knowledge here. They just may know rather more about the law than you or I.
Based on clear precedent, of which HMQ has a far superior working knowledge than any member of the Supreme Court, the PM was entitled to prorogue Parliament and there was nothing excessive about the length of the prorogation when the conference season was factored in.
See above. ..... and purely as a point of fact, there was / is no such precedent for proroguing Parliament under any similar circumstances or for any similar period.

Since you clearly fancy yourself as an expert, name any such precedent. ANY AT ALL.
We're lucky to have such an experienced head of state at a time of such constitutional upheaval and I suspect that her quiet guidance behind the scenes has been a considerable restraining influence on both sides (which, given everything that's happened, makes one wonder what would have happened without her).

If true that makes your whole point that she simply followed precedent rather contradictory - "without her", things would inevitably have had to be exactly the same.

..... and again, putting the full extent of your fertile imagination to play, how about naming any way in which "both sides", or even any side or anybody could have been any more or any less restrained?

The one thing Brexit has done is to show the complete farce of having a Head of State who isn't the head of state.

Latest Threads