ECCOnoob

Yes really. I keep saying, it is a civil compensation claim i.e. a money claim. Whatever her lawyers try to declare she thinks she's going to get resolved out of this case, the simple fact his money is the only outcome. This is not a criminal case that's going to lead to prosecution or sentencing or jail.

Here is a very simple idea, what about just calling them "customers" or "guests" or "patrons". Believe it or not the majority manage to survive quite reasonably without having to gender every single thing.

I wonder how many people whinging about the 10 extra steps it takes to get into Sainsbury's outside quite happily walk outside the centre and round the corner to get into M&S on a frequent basis. It is the the absolute minor of inconveniences. Can we get a grip here. Those who have genuine disability or infirm will simply use the disabled parking and go straight into the store as they would in any event. I've heard of first world problems but this is absolutely ridiculous.

and? everyone seems more than happy to make sweeping, judgemental, uncorroborated statements about the Prince based on no facts and media speculation - why shouldn't I be able to apply the same to this woman. I doubt very much that she was under any sort of duress to sign a settlement agreement. At the time she was in a court of law surrounded by her team of lawyers. She has been more than happy to become the professional victim, whoring herself around any media outlet that will pay her and bringing further actions against other high-profile targets. Hardly some frightened, timid, manipulated little girl acting under duress.

Well I can only speak from my day job experience..... but generally when I get the inkling a claimant is only in it for easy money you know how many carrots to dangle before they snatch your hands off. In other words when some chancer comes along it's cheaper to pay them off than spending money fighting it.

We will never know considering one of the main protagonists is dead.

....... a "young girl" who was well over the legal age of consent in most countries around the world at the time the photograph of taken. A photograph which hardly displays a image of someone being there by way of fear, enforcement, entrapment or reluctance. A young girl who was previously caught out giving dubious evidence on other similar cases. A young girl who is clearly chasing the money more than prepared to sign big fat non disclosure settlement agreements rather than getting to the truth. A young girl who is a master in manipulating the media for her next compensatory payout from easy high profile targets. A young girl who has not provided a single shred of any credible evidence to these allegations. This is a civil compensatory claim. Let's get that simple fact out there. Let's all stop with this ridiculous notion that there is some book to be thrown or some jail cell just waiting or PC Plod around the corner ready to charge in to arrest him. She's after nothing more than a big fat cheque.

.....ah yes, grooming and luring of underage persons never happened in the analogue days of the 60s and 70s did it? Bad people do bad people things no matter what technology. Crimes may evolve but it can hardly be blamed on the tools. It's all well and good cherry picking through rose-tinted nostalgia about the so-called good old days but let's not also not forget how difficult, slow, and complex things were back then.... The days when there was one government mandated supplier of a phone line where you got told if and when you could have one and restricted to exactly what equipment they would allow......... The days when contacting relatives and acquaintances in the next city had to be a considered financial decision and very much limited, for most of us, to occasional , brief, off peak chat. As for telecommunicating with relatives abroad forget it. Far too costly those early satellite line calls. They just stuck with the odd letter and card...... The days when even the simplest transaction or communication would take an age with lots of agonising waits for the office secretary to finally transcribe the dictation of a letter and the postman to finally deliver it. The fact is that the age of the computer isn't going away. Kids have to be tech ready from the moment they hit adult if not teenage life. Even the most basic of jobs from cleaning or warehouse involves a minimum level of technical ability and expectation of at least smartphone use if not computerised program use. Even our homes are becoming the internet of everything with smart this, automated that, digital other. Whilst I agree that has to be some control over mobile use particularly in the classroom, just like the working world, I feel it's only inevitable that most kids in the upper range of school-age will have to have a mobile of some sort.

To be honest ITV breakfast has always been the the lighter, cheerier, dumbed down, gaudier version compared to its chief rival. The latest debacle is hardly a surprise. Even way way back at the start in the early 80s, TV-AM was always seen as the Poundland version of BBC Breakfast Time, once they had dumbed it down to Roland Rat levels it was well and truly done for...... Then along came GMTV with its sunshine yellow sets and cheesy grinning "journalist" presenters like Anthea Turner against the stiff collars and serious BBC Breakfast News....... then came along the the absolutely storming success of Daybreak (.......who??) for those of us are unlucky enough to remember it was an accomplishment in one thing - somehow managed to be even more irrelevant than The One Show Now days the appearances are slightly reversed with the BBC choosing to go for the slightly more casual sofa arrangement and ITV clearly desperately trying to emulate in American style morning show with their slightly more "serious" news desk arrangement. However the flimsy content, overbearing presenter personalities and tacky giveaway competitions clearly doesn't live up to the more upmarket set. The BBC still kicks their backside into next week when it comes to ratings. I'm amazed they have not done a Channel 4 or Channel 5 and given up any sort of breakfast TV altogether. They might as well whack on This Morning from 6 a.m. till midday and have done with it. Clearly whatever program title it always seems to be exactly the same lowbrow, celebrity driven, tabloid level gossip and pointless lightweight drivvel right through to mid-afternoon.

Certainly. IMO religion was and always will be a root cause of most of the problems and conflicts in this world.

There we go again, more nonsense statements. So girls coming out of their own single sex schools are highly probable to be lesbians then Anna??? Stop trying to backtrack. It was perfectly clear what you were trying to suggest with mentioning it. Disgusting comment. As far making out that convictions are only against the general population - another load of tripe. I don't defend the indefensible, I'm simply not such a gullible, deluded person I believe everything I read in the papers nor have such black and white prejudiced opinion that deem that all rich, powerful, elitists = Evil and all hard done by, salt of the earth, low paid workers = Angels. Kettle calling pot bringing up my alleged bias. Take a look at your own.

What a disgusting vile post. Firstly, are you so naive to think it is really more prevalent amongst the rich or is it simply the case that the media will only report on the well-known persons and more interesting stories in order to attract readers and sell their wares. Secondly, how dare you mate such assumptions that there is some causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Those sort of outdated comments are long gone back in the dark old times when gay people were deemed spawn of Satan and the populace had mass hysteria over the so-called gay disease, HIV, falsley accusing and attacking innocent people of all sorts of things for their gayness, deviant sexual activity and so called depravity. Your suggested boarding school activites are straight out of some pre-war novel and bear no reality into the modern world. Once again, your clear bias against anyone who is wealthy or powerful is showing. You really don't think that 1% of pedophilia is outside the realms of the "ordinary" people..... What about your beloved hard done, underpaid, undervalued public sector. All those "caring" and 'dedicated" nurses and doctors and carers and social workers. Are they incapable of engaging the same??? Quick look at all the abuse in care homes or hospitals or in special needs services clearly shows differently. They weren't elitist rich private school oligarchs were they? How would you be feeling if I make some remark that "....all hetro care workers are wannabe paedos..." Wise up.

What sort of ridiculous statement is that. Might as well be chanting "...what is the point of you?" They are just somebody's children. Somebody who happens to be a member of the royal family. They may have been born with a silver spoon and leg up but so do lots of other families in this world. There are plenty of middle and upper-class families whose children had a nice easy start in life. But that doesn't mean they dont toss it all away when they get to adulthood. Just as equal there are plenty of people in this world who start with very low income and very modest Beginnings managed to work hard, make a success and become extremely wealthy. Both Beatrice and Eugenie studied hard, got their degree qualifications and they both have worked their way into careers. They have jobs in the real world just like any one else does. Yes they may well be executive level jobs - yes they may well be very very white collar jobs ....but so what? That is their choice and that is what they studied for. Sometimes your statements reek of jealousy and reverse snobbery..

So just to be clear. You don't like it when people make judgemental, potentially false assertions about you without taking time to consider the full facts and evidence. Hmmm.. interesting.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, was he actually convicted? The fact is he was dead and buried when these allegations and stories and testimonies and rumours all came flooding out. Whilst I certainly will not doubt the massive weight of evidence against him, the basic fact is a corpse cannot stand trial. Nobody will ever really be 100-percent certain. No one can actually guarantee what may have been said in defence. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not defending it I am just suggesting there is a difference between a hard and founded conviction and speculative assertions on a deceased. Let's not forget that crowds of supporters in their hundreds were lining in the streets on the day of his funeral. They worshipped him as a hero, someone to be looked up to, celebrated his life and achievements.....then something quickly changed soon after and whether we like to admit it or not, the man never got a chance to speak for himself.

You will be waiting a long time. Read my words again. I have not directly stated that you support the death penalty anywhere. I am merely demonstrating that it's a good job we don't have anything like that in place with the sort of judgemental, premature, unevidenced and uncorroborated assertions you have been declaring on here against an alleged accused party.

Well clearly you have already heard all you want to hear, seen all the evidence you want to see, deliberated your judgement and applied your sentencing. Case closed as far as Crookesey is concerned everyone. Jesus, thank god we still don't have hanging 🙄 Out of curiosity, may I humbly question His Honour what level of damages award monies has been applied to the obviously proven victim.

It's nothing to do with being a royalist or not. It is basic principles of judicial process. A process in which, I hope is far more superior to be able to rise above influences from simply being rich and powerful equally as much as it should be rising above influences from tabloid tittle-tattle, public speculation and the chanting working class, lower income mobs. Justice is supposed to be blind and it needs to stay that way. Bringing class warfare and sweeping categorisation such as whether people are royalist supporters misses the point.

Get away with what? So far there has not been a single shred of evidence that this woman had any relations with Andrew let alone such relations being against her will and illegal. All she has done so far is bring some very dubious proceedings through a convoluted jurisdiction process which makes no sense and of course hired herself a very good PR team to maximise playing the victim against the "wealthy" "elitist" and "privileged" Monsters. She already has past form for falsehoods and and gaps in evidence and this case is playing out no better. Innocent until proven guilty applies no matter whether prince or pauper. I get rather fed up with the obvious one-sided naming and shaming which seems to happen particularly in sensitive sexual assault cases. Both parties should remain equal throughout the proceedings in terms of their anonymity, public intrusion, press rumour and speculation. They may well be troubled, shaken, upset victims but that does not excuse them for their duty of sufficiently evidencing and presenting their case beyond reasonable doubt of a crime or strong balance of probabilities in a civil claim. Ultimately, if they can't provide such position no case. We don't do trial by Twitter or newspaper polls. All that should matter is proper Justice. That means until a court decides otherwise an accousor is only ever the alleged victim just as equal to someone only ever being the alleged accused.

🤣🤣 well we all know how much he loves to exaggerate and embellish the numbers. After all, that's why he had so much "profit" and "success" with his businesses. Tick tock tick tock Donny. The bean counters are coming for you.....

.... yet they won the election with the huge majority and completely annihilated the opposition for years to come. Dry your eyes mate. If you honestly think simply getting rid of Boris is going to open the door to some easy victory for Captain Hindsight and his bunch of champagne socialists you are deluded.

Seriously?? So you honestly think it's impossible for a straight man and straight woman to have a purely platonic friendship. So every time you see a man/woman friendship, where one party is not gay, you instantly determine that they must clearly be banging each other 🙄

Only if those construction workers suffer the misfortune of an accident or by means of their own or someone else's negligence. In reality all those construction workers are following the directives, orders, set rules, guidelines and regulations from higher authority...... All of which will have been drawn by graduates who have studied and graduated to become experts in in engineering, architecture, management, contractual agreements, health and safety, the law etc. It is the said graduates who have to make the decisions, the planning, have the ultimate control, liability and responsibilities. It is therefore obvious that said graduate level jobs attracts higher pay to those regular construction workers. I'm not closing my mind to a debate that certain jobs should be paid more than they currently are. I am not immune to the concept that there has to be a mixture of importance between lower level skills and high level graduates. But....the comparators you are making or so wildly different it is outside of any reasonable debate. You seem to be constantly letting your or reverse snobbery influence any rationality. I can tell you that from very direct knowledge that even in the world of six figure paid labourers or site operatives in highly dangerous occupations in hostile environments such as oil rig workers or pipe engineers in the Sub-Zero temperatures of of Canada, there is still a clear difference between those on the ground holding the tools and those in the warm office making the high level decisions. You may continue to think it's unfair but ultimately when it all hits the fan who exactly is the one who everyone turns to and expects them to take control to resolve it. It ain't your low level site operative.

It is "more difficult" shoveling piles of dung all day every day compared to someone sat at a computer clicking a few mouse buttons and doing some keyboarding to keep the national powergrid running. However it is very obvious which job deserves more pay. It is obvious which profession requires the skills and qualifications in order to do the role. It is obvious why one will get paid significantly more than another. Hardly a difficult concept. As for my deliberate thicko comment it is a response to your own position. If you want to go around attacking the so-called White Collar midddle classes making your ridiculous assumptions about how they are all privileged, how easy they all have it, how simply anyone could do what they so, how easier it all is....... expect some fight back. Not every graduate in a high-level position has had a silver spoon wedged up their backside. Whatever type of cheese sandwich course you did it is how you present yourself at the other end that counts. IMO opinion, based on your conduct on this forum repeatedly, not very well. You are filled with jealousy, venom against anyone in privileged positions and reverse snobbery. Since you claim you are now part of the professional classes, I'd like to know if you bandy such words around with your fellow colleagues as you seem to do under your username on here. How do they take being told that they are all privileged middle classes who had it easy compare to your former trade?

Deliberately missing out the 7 + years of studies and exams to get to be a GP in the first place..... "after a bit of experience" my backside. I don't believe a word you say. You are clearly speaking like a true working class low skilled thicko jealous of anyone who has got career advancements or become a qualified professional. You constantly bandy about this ridiculous working class vs middle class tripe as if it's still relevant in 2021. It isn't, there are huge grey areas overlapping the so called class system and a brand new breed of workers doing jobs never existing before. The boundaries between what was traditionally deemed working and middle-class have long gone. For the next generation, even the so-called lowest paid workers still have assets, goods and lifestyles that the traditional lower class could only dream of. The world has moved on and you need to drag yourself through it. Clip clop back under your rock. Is clear what your purpose with this thread is. There's no such debate.