Ani Posted February 4 Posted February 4 6 hours ago, bolty58 said: If the law says so? Does it? 5 hours ago, bolty58 said: Oh do fuck off. You'll be rolling out "I've got a black friend" next. You can not only quote the legal side when it suits, you were ok with prostitution if the woman was ‘of age’. And you are ok with 50 plus year old men flying 17 year olds round the world for their enjoyment. I think it is shit and should be called out as so. Nice deflection on the second point. You are only getting riled and resorting to ‘oh fuck off’ then making up stuff that might be said next because you have tied yourself up in knots, just because the Don is in the firing line. They all should be properly investigated the Clintons, Mandelson , Andrew, Trump and all the other cunts involved. Quote
wakey Posted February 4 Posted February 4 6 hours ago, bolty58 said: 4. The negative publicity is crucifying my reputation/business/family. I've got pots of money, let's just make this go away. Feel free to add anything I haven't. Tenuous ... surely a robust, consistent rebuttal followed by a win in court is - PR-wise - far better than settling and always looking guilty. Unless you mean settling the claim before it gets into the public domain, of course. You've reminded me of another. 5. The 'claimant' is blackmailing you in some other way that would be far more costly than the settlement itself, e.g. threatening to withhold broadcasting licenses, withhold federal funds etc. Quote
mickbrown Posted February 4 Posted February 4 5 hours ago, royal white said: As @bolty58 said who’s defending? Everything I have said regarding Trump and these files has been true, feel free to prove me wrong. Yet there’s multiple people on here who have just made up their own version on the files. You’re a big spaz at times aren’t you fella. He’s a rapist. Plain and simple Quote
royal white Posted February 4 Posted February 4 21 minutes ago, mickbrown said: He’s a rapist. Plain and simple Who to believe? Quote
mickbrown Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 35 minutes ago, royal white said: Who to believe? The judge Anyroad, I’ll reword it for you. He’s a sexual abuser. Edited February 4 by mickbrown Quote
royal white Posted February 4 Posted February 4 2 minutes ago, mickbrown said: The judge Anyroad, I’ll reword it for you. He’s a sexual abuser. I know that, it’s literally in the picture that I’ve just sent to you. Just happy to clear things up for you, 👍 Quote
mickbrown Posted February 4 Posted February 4 1 minute ago, royal white said: I know that, it’s literally in the picture that I’ve just sent to you. Just happy to clear things up for you, 👍 But your picture missed the bit where the judge said he was a rapist Quote
mickbrown Posted February 4 Posted February 4 Just now, mickbrown said: But your picture missed the bit where the judge said he was a rapist Ah your pic did say that. So he’s a rapist and a sexual abuser. Whaddaguy Quote
royal white Posted February 4 Posted February 4 Just now, mickbrown said: Ah your pic did say that. So he’s a rapist and a sexual abuser. Whaddaguy Nope, not a rapist. 👍 glad to clear it up for you. Quote
wakey Posted February 4 Posted February 4 4 minutes ago, royal white said: Nope, not a rapist. 👍 glad to clear it up for you. not a rapist, but committed what is commonly understood as rape. but definitely not a rapist. Quote
royal white Posted February 4 Posted February 4 4 minutes ago, wakey said: not a rapist, but committed what is commonly understood as rape. but definitely not a rapist. Commonly known where? Quote
wakey Posted February 4 Posted February 4 1 minute ago, royal white said: Commonly known where? try reading what you post - "which the judge later clarified..." Quote
royal white Posted February 4 Posted February 4 1 minute ago, wakey said: try reading what you post - "which the judge later clarified..." Language not legal terms. We are going off legal terms. he was not convicted of rape. Glad we could clear that up. 👍 Quote
wakey Posted February 4 Posted February 4 3 minutes ago, royal white said: Language not legal terms. We are going off legal terms. he was not convicted of rape. Glad we could clear that up. 👍 so ..... not a rapist, but committed what is commonly understood as rape. but definitely not a rapist. think we're in agreement then. Quote
Spider Posted February 4 Posted February 4 Someone needs to explain to me in really simple terms why the name of the sender of this email is redacted. Keep it really really simple Quote
royal white Posted February 4 Posted February 4 2 minutes ago, wakey said: so ..... not a rapist, but committed what is commonly understood as rape. but definitely not a rapist. think we're in agreement then. I wouldn’t understand it as rape, as per British laws anyway. I’m obviously going off legal terms whilst you go off what folk Say down the pub or on a footy forum. Quote
wakey Posted February 4 Posted February 4 Just now, royal white said: I wouldn’t understand it as rape, as per British laws anyway. I’m obviously going off legal terms whilst you go off what folk Say down the pub or on a footy forum. or - in the real world - what the judge said. Quote
royal white Posted February 4 Posted February 4 4 minutes ago, wakey said: or - in the real world - what the judge said. I guess Britain ain’t the real word then. Quote
wakey Posted February 4 Posted February 4 4 minutes ago, royal white said: I guess Britain ain’t the real word then. Commonly understood as rape but didn't meet the narrow legal definition in the case. Per the judge, who as far as I know isn't on a footy forum or down the pub. I've no idea if it meets the British legal definition, but it's seems pretty irrelevant to me. Are we agreed that he committed what is commonly understood as rape then? Quote
royal white Posted February 4 Posted February 4 8 minutes ago, wakey said: Commonly understood as rape but didn't meet the narrow legal definition in the case. Per the judge, who as far as I know isn't on a footy forum or down the pub. I've no idea if it meets the British legal definition, but it's seems pretty irrelevant to me. Are we agreed that he committed what is commonly understood as rape then? Maybe in some states in America but not in NYC at the time and not here in Blighty. Can you just confirm if he has ever been charged, tried and convicted of rape. It’s a yes or no answer no matter how much you try and twist it. Quote
mickbrown Posted February 4 Posted February 4 48 minutes ago, royal white said: Nope, not a rapist. 👍 glad to clear it up for you. Just sexual abuser then? Whaddaguy. Quote
wakey Posted February 4 Posted February 4 Just now, royal white said: Maybe in some states in America but not in NYC at the time and not here in Blighty. Can you just confirm if he has ever been charged, tried and convicted of rape. It’s a yes or no answer no matter how much you try and twist it. never said he had pal. if I'd said convicted rapist, your last few posts of pointless argument would have been justified. Quote
mickbrown Posted February 4 Posted February 4 So the argument, he didn’t actually stick his dick in her just sexually abused her ain’t really a win. Quote
royal white Posted February 4 Posted February 4 4 minutes ago, wakey said: never said he had pal. if I'd said convicted rapist, your last few posts of pointless argument would have been justified. I never said you had. I was just asking you to confirm it as mick is struggling to accept it when I tell him. Quote
Popular Post crawshawbooth Posted February 4 Popular Post Posted February 4 31 minutes ago, Spider said: Someone needs to explain to me in really simple terms why the name of the sender of this email is redacted. Keep it really really simple This is what i dont understand. Remove all the blacked out shit Let us see who said what to who and when Speculation over Lock all the dirty bastards up Throw away key Sorted Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.