Axel Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 22 minutes ago, crookesey said: You of course are correct, us none royalists are saying that whatever a royal is accused of, it’s a complete waste of time and money to take it further. I agree with this, playing devils advocate here, but what if Maxwell was the brains behind this and not Epstein....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, crookesey said: You of course are correct, us none royalists are saying that whatever a royal is accused of, it’s a complete waste of time and money to take it further. 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. Edited December 30, 2021 by ECCOnoob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 25 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said: 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. So Andrew and I are to be treated exactly the same for an identical allegation, I would love this to be correct, however !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 (edited) I think he's saying, Andrew and YOU, should receive the same standard of legal process and judgement; and that the fact of one person being (relatively) poor and the other being super rich (and 'royal'), should make no difference to how the legal process is applied. It's a worthy ideal of course, I'm sure most people would agree (with the possible exception of those who benefit from being super rich, famous, or royal etc). Edited December 30, 2021 by Waldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 5 minutes ago, West 77 said: The super rich, famous or royalty etc are targeted for this type of allegation unlike the relatively poor. As I've already stated it's all about the money and not justice. That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, West 77 said: It's logical and truthful. In your head maybe. Most reasonable people would possibly think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 39 minutes ago, West 77 said: You wouldn't be treated exactly the same as the likelihood is in real life you're not as famous as Prince Andrew or have the wealth he does meaning it would be pointless making a civil claim against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 42 minutes ago, West 77 said: You wouldn't be treated exactly the same as the likelihood is in real life you're not as famous as Prince Andrew or have the wealth he does meaning it would be pointless making a civil claim against you. A good private education, standing knee deep in privilege, very well heeled, but also stupid. I have my standards, it appears that he doesn’t need such things, over to you 70 years Queen, it should be a complete doddle for you to sort this spoilt brat out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, crookesey said: A good private education, standing knee deep in privilege, very well heeled, but also stupid. I have my standards, it appears that he doesn’t need such things, over to you 70 years Queen, it should be a complete doddle for you to sort this spoilt brat out. 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. Edited December 31, 2021 by ECCOnoob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 4 hours ago, crookesey said: A good private education, standing knee deep in privilege, very well heeled, but also stupid. I have my standards, it appears that he doesn’t need such things, over to you 70 years Queen, it should be a complete doddle for you to sort this spoilt brat out. Randy’s her favourite child, so the most Liz will do is demote him from public duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now