Prince Andrew buys £13m ski chalet

ballysmate

VTech wrote:

Its funny because on previous occasions I have been argued with for expressing my thoughts on the way british people like to destroy others as a matter of course, this thread being yet another example.

It doesn't matter really, fact is he is privileged and I doubt he is bothered with the daft negatives from people on here

It is not a case of wanting to destroy anyone. Andrew is a member of the Royal Family and as such as represented this country and lobbied on its behalf. You can't be suggesting that his financial dealings and behaviour should be beyond scrutiny? If he has been guilty of any criminal activity (bribery, money laundering, underage sex for instance) he should not be immune from its consequences.

I accept that he is privileged, that is by the by. But this tw@t has represented me and I think he deserves the closest scrutiny.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

It is not a case of wanting to destroy anyone. Andrew is a member of the Royal Family and as such as represented this country and lobbied on its behalf. You can't be suggesting that his financial dealings and behaviour should be beyond scrutiny? If he has been guilty of any criminal activity (bribery, money laundering, underage sex for instance) he should not be immune from its consequences.

I would argue that any lobbying is usually done with some form of bribery, some subtle, some not so much.
Yes, it is now illegal in this Country but it still happens and it is much, much more prevalent on the World stage.
An easy example is FIFA.

rick_chasey

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

Don't worry there'll be a reply soon about how much richer than you he is, and how much money he's making whilst posting his 'winding up' messages, but regardless he still won't be able to spell 'wether'

arran77

Rick Chasey wrote:

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.

I'd best not comment

slowmart

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

I posted a tongue in cheek image of one of these toys with a note to suggest this Vtech was on his way to make his next million.

I got a board warning for trolling and potential flaming………. :roll:

That said i appreciate its a difficult role to do.

slowmart

Slowmart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

I posted a tongue in cheek image of one of these toys with a note to suggest this Vtech was on his way to make his next million.

I got a board warning for trolling and potential flaming………. :roll:

That said i appreciate its a difficult role to do.

Anyway back OT

bianchimoon

Slowmart wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

I posted a tongue in cheek image of one of these toys with a note to suggest this Vtech was on his way to make his next million.

I got a board warning for trolling and potential flaming………. :roll:

That said i appreciate its a difficult role to do.

Anyway back OT

ha, caught with his hand in the cookie jar... so to speak

thegreatdivide

bianchimoon wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

I posted a tongue in cheek image of one of these toys with a note to suggest this Vtech was on his way to make his next million.

I got a board warning for trolling and potential flaming………. :roll:

That said i appreciate its a difficult role to do.

Anyway back OT

ha, caught with his hand in the cookie jar... so to speak

Also purchased with our hard earned money.

pblakeney

thegreatdivide wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

I posted a tongue in cheek image of one of these toys with a note to suggest this Vtech was on his way to make his next million.

I got a board warning for trolling and potential flaming………. :roll:

That said i appreciate its a difficult role to do.

Anyway back OT

ha, caught with his hand in the cookie jar... so to speak

Also purchased with our hard earned money.

Mum is obviously happy. :?

thegreatdivide

PBlakeney wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

I posted a tongue in cheek image of one of these toys with a note to suggest this Vtech was on his way to make his next million.

I got a board warning for trolling and potential flaming………. :roll:

That said i appreciate its a difficult role to do.

Anyway back OT

ha, caught with his hand in the cookie jar... so to speak

Also purchased with our hard earned money.

Mum is obviously happy. :?

So in that photo you have from left to right - Prince Andrew who has his arm around an underage prostitute and at the back, the woman who procured girls for a convicted paedophile.

Explain that vtech?

bianchimoon

thegreatdivide wrote:

So in that photo you have from left to right - Prince Andrew who has his arm around an underage prostitute and at the back, the woman who procured girls for a convicted paedophile.

Explain that vtech?

Isn't that Robert Maxwells daughter Gislaine?
Wasn't she allegedly busy helping spend Mirror groups pension fund at the time?

bianchimoon

oh damm, there we go again knocking the un-reproachable rich and famous, who couldn't possibly do anything wrong because they've 'made it' :roll:

Anonymous

He'd say

'if you had worked harder at not just pointed at those better off than yourself, you too could be involved in a royal scandal with an underage prostitute but instead you are a typical layabout brit'

Look at Kate Middleton...she was ambitious and look what she achieved. Apparently they were known as the wisteria girls, as they were such climbers.

bianchimoon

coriordan wrote:

He'd say

'if you had worked harder at not just pointed at those better off than yourself, you too could be involved in a royal scandal with an underage prostitute but instead you are a typical layabout brit'

Look at Kate Middleton...she was ambitious and look what she achieved. Apparently they were known as the wisteria girls, as they were such climbers.

if think this warrants a whole new thread on "He would say..."

thegreatdivide

bianchimoon wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

So in that photo you have from left to right - Prince Andrew who has his arm around an underage prostitute and at the back, the woman who procured girls for a convicted paedophile.

Explain that vtech?

Isn't that Robert Maxwells daughter Gislaine?
Wasn't she allegedly busy helping spend Mirror groups pension fund at the time?

The very same.

arran77

Slowmart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

I posted a tongue in cheek image of one of these toys with a note to suggest this Vtech was on his way to make his next million.

I got a board warning for trolling and potential flaming………. :roll:

That said i appreciate its a difficult role to do.

I guess you can say what you like when you're the organ grinder

VTech

Ballysmate wrote:

VTech wrote:

Its funny because on previous occasions I have been argued with for expressing my thoughts on the way british people like to destroy others as a matter of course, this thread being yet another example.

It doesn't matter really, fact is he is privileged and I doubt he is bothered with the daft negatives from people on here

It is not a case of wanting to destroy anyone. Andrew is a member of the Royal Family and as such as represented this country and lobbied on its behalf. You can't be suggesting that his financial dealings and behaviour should be beyond scrutiny? If he has been guilty of any criminal activity (bribery, money laundering, underage sex for instance) he should not be immune from its consequences.

I accept that he is privileged, that is by the by. But this tw@t has represented me and I think he deserves the closest scrutiny.

I never suggested that, I simply wrote that he, more than anyone would be aware that if he did do the crime suggested by the girl, he would be found out. For that reason alone I find that I am leaning towards believing him rather than her.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

As a mod you shouldn't put a member in a position where they can't win.
You know full well that if I reply about your "work more" comment that my only reply is that "I don't need to work another day for the rest of my life" which has only one end result with a certain few members.
Having said that, I'm actually not bothered

finchy

VTech wrote:

I never suggested that, I simply wrote that he, more than anyone would be aware that if he did do the crime suggested by the girl, he would be found out. For that reason alone I find that I am leaning towards believing him rather than her

Given the way in which it now appears that the rich and powerful have benefited enormously from their positions in evading justice, I really don't share your confidence. That's not to say that he did it, of course.

arran77

VTech wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

As a mod you shouldn't put a member in a position where they can't win.
You know full well that if I reply about your "work more" comment that my only reply is that "I don't need to work another day for the rest of my life" which has only one end result with a certain few members.
Having said that, I'm actually not bothered

I think he's baiting you VTech

Just rise above him

ballysmate

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

VTech wrote:

Its funny because on previous occasions I have been argued with for expressing my thoughts on the way british people like to destroy others as a matter of course, this thread being yet another example.

It doesn't matter really, fact is he is privileged and I doubt he is bothered with the daft negatives from people on here

It is not a case of wanting to destroy anyone. Andrew is a member of the Royal Family and as such as represented this country and lobbied on its behalf. You can't be suggesting that his financial dealings and behaviour should be beyond scrutiny? If he has been guilty of any criminal activity (bribery, money laundering, underage sex for instance) he should not be immune from its consequences.

I accept that he is privileged, that is by the by. But this tw@t has represented me and I think he deserves the closest scrutiny.

I never suggested that, I simply wrote that he, more than anyone would be aware that if he did do the crime suggested by the girl, he would be found out. For that reason alone I find that I am leaning towards believing him rather than her.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vtech is a kids toy company isn't it?

Think vtech should take his own advice and spend less time on the forum and more time working.


Obviously not ambitious enough.

As a mod you shouldn't put a member in a position where they can't win.
You know full well that if I reply about your "work more" comment that my only reply is that "I don't need to work another day for the rest of my life" which has only one end result with a certain few members.
Having said that, I'm actually not bothered

You are right to assume that it would be only a matter of time before he was found out, but he doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the box. Tool? yes. Sharp? I reckon not.

PS I don;t know any more than you if he is guilty but I am prepared to have an open mind to the possibility. If he turns out to be innocent, the best he can hope for is to shown up for keeping unsavoury company. (Again). You would think he would have learnt but perhaps he is just as thick as pigshit. Better that than a paedo I suppose.

florerider

Ballysmate wrote:

.
Sharp? I reckon not.

still think that after yesterday's lifting of the cap on the SWF?

slowmart

florerider wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

.
Sharp? I reckon not.

still think that after yesterday's lifting of the cap on the SWF?

Wow, that's a reach!

The correlation between the two has about as much causal link as Eva Green having breakfast and the cup of coffee I'm about to drink.

oscarbudgie

Here's my suggestion for dealing with troublesome royals

ben@31

Its funny that no other country thats became a republic has gone back to being a monarchy. Do you think they know something we don't .

I'm still waiting to see our share of all this tourist revenue that Royalists harp on about. Nobody has seen it outside a small area of London. Also the Palace of Versailles in France pulls in more tourists.
I don't see how anyone with any intelligence or logic can fawn after and pay for an unelected person to live a priviledged lifestyle while they don't give a s*** about you. Are they subject to austerity measures and redundancies too? Apparently we live in a multi cultural Britain, but you cant have a Catholic, Jew, Muslim, black person in the Royal Family, you're just not allowed. Even Australia is not allowed an Australian to be their head of state.

As for ".. but they only cost 50p per person". But nobody knows the true cost as for some reason they made their finances exempt from the freedom of information act. Do you really think they would admit to being bad value for money and a total scam? Does the cost include travel, policing, security and state visits or is that picked up by someone else's budget?

oscarbudgie

+1
There is a greater principle than whether the royals generate tourism, its that we cannot claim to live in any kind of fair and meritocratic society when such a privileged institution is allowed to exist

VTech

ben@31 wrote:

Its funny that no other country thats became a republic has gone back to being a monarchy. Do you think they know something we don't .

I'm still waiting to see our share of all this tourist revenue that Royalists harp on about. Nobody has seen it outside a small area of London. Also the Palace of Versailles in France pulls in more tourists.
I don't see how anyone with any intelligence or logic can fawn after and pay for an unelected person to live a priviledged lifestyle while they don't give a s*** about you. Are they subject to austerity measures and redundancies too? Apparently we live in a multi cultural Britain, but you cant have a Catholic, Jew, Muslim, black person in the Royal Family, you're just not allowed. Even Australia is not allowed an Australian to be their head of state.

As for ".. but they only cost 50p per person". But nobody knows the true cost as for some reason they made their finances exempt from the freedom of information act. Do you really think they would admit to being bad value for money and a total scam? Does the cost include travel, policing, security and state visits or is that picked up by someone else's budget?

Anyone who thinks the royals cost us money as a negative revenue source is idiotic.
The royalty is one of the best value commodities we have.
As for only london getting the benefit, thats utter nonsense and akin to council estate whispers.

I started out in the midlands, in a council estate and thanks to the princes trust I have employed hundreds of people around the world. the benefits of the royals is far reaching.

rick_chasey

ben@31 wrote:

Its funny that no other country thats became a republic has gone back to being a monarchy. Do you think they know something we don't .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_(England)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Philippe_I

Not strictly true is it?

rick_chasey

Arguments about the royals are distracting.

In the grand scheme of public expenditure they cost peanuts.

If it's not measured in billions, it basically worth focussing your attention elsewhere.

A single mess up at the Dounraey decommissioning costs more than the royals do, and they happen a lot.

bianchimoon

Ben@31 and Oscarbudgie, your so right, baffled how any person can believe that someone deserves the amount of social security, housing benefits, private flights, healthcare, isolation from real life as this one family unit in London. Guess it's the same people who stare in awe at a Royal wedding or throw flowers at the funeral car of an ex-wife of a 'prince', and why do some modern day Britains still feel the need to have this archaic loyalty to rank, submission, servitude and dignified obedience?