|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Fri 21 Aug 14:20
So Prince Harry and 6 others have got to make an initial payment to ANL of the thick end of £10m to cover legal costs.
Some of the 6 others are minted (like Elton John), but others may not be.... like Doreen Lawrence and Simon Hughes.
Does anybody know how this works? Do they insure themselves before the case is raised, or are they going to be bankrupted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Turps
Date: Fri 21 Aug 15:23
Bit more detail here. Including how the costs could still rise for them.
Click here
Lawrence’s costs are expected to be covered by the others.
Quite the win for the Daily Mail.
Post Edited (Fri 21 Aug 15:24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Fri 21 Aug 15:32
Thanks Turps.
I hope for their sakes that any final payments is within the amount of insurance they put in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Fri 21 Aug 16:12
“The claimants had insurance to cover up to £16.2m of Association Newspapers` costs in the event of losing the case - but Friday`s ruling means the newspaper group could now try to recover up to the £34.5m that it said it had to spend to defend itself. This means the Duke and others could face a bill of some £18m.”
They’ll just have to cough the rest up or raise appeals which could make the ceiling cost rise even more if they’re unsuccessful.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 21 Aug 16:17
I t makes you wonder why Harry & Co are coming back to the UK. I can`t imagine ANL will give them an easy time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 21 Aug 17:58
Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 21 Aug 18:05
And Piers Morgan is still Tefal!🤔
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 21 Aug 19:21
Sounds like the judge has it in for them tbh. Id imagine they are coming back to give their kids a British education rather than an American one. Megan looking to get back into acting too by the sounds of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Fri 21 Aug 20:16
Quote:
jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58
Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle...
Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Fri 21 Aug 21:51
Quote:
Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16
Quote:
jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58
Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle...
Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware.
No, it`s just 17 year olds that had been groomed since childhood into becoming a sex slave, and trafficked around the world to be abused by him, so that`s okay then. What a fxxking nonce you are Tad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 21 Aug 22:01
Cue a Go Fund Me ?
Count me out - nice to see the Royals and their sycophantic mafia getting one 😊
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 21 Aug 22:14
Quote:
Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16
Quote:
jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58
Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle...
Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware.
Wow 🤦🏻♂️ just wow 🤦🏻♂️
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 23 Aug 16:07
Quote:
red-star-par, Fri 21 Aug 21:51
Quote:
Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16
Quote:
jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58
Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle...
Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware.
No, it`s just 17 year olds that had been groomed since childhood into becoming a sex slave, and trafficked around the world to be abused by him, so that`s okay then. What a fxxking nonce you are Tad
And 17 year olds - regardless of what has happened to them - are not pre-pubescent children - i.e. the targets of a ‘paedo’
Nobody is saying “that’s ok then” - get over yersel’
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Sun 23 Aug 16:42
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Sun 23 Aug 16:07
Quote:
red-star-par, Fri 21 Aug 21:51
Quote:
Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16
Quote:
jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58
Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle...
Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware.
No, it`s just 17 year olds that had been groomed since childhood into becoming a sex slave, and trafficked around the world to be abused by him, so that`s okay then. What a fxxking nonce you are Tad
And 17 year olds - regardless of what has happened to them - are not pre-pubescent children - i.e. the targets of a ‘paedo’
Nobody is saying “that’s ok then” - get over yersel’
So Lux, you think that 17 year olds, that have been groomed and abused since childhood are fair game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 23 Aug 17:30
Quote:
red-star-par, Sun 23 Aug 16:42
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Sun 23 Aug 16:07
Quote:
red-star-par, Fri 21 Aug 21:51
Quote:
Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16
Quote:
jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58
Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle...
Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware.
No, it`s just 17 year olds that had been groomed since childhood into becoming a sex slave, and trafficked around the world to be abused by him, so that`s okay then. What a fxxking nonce you are Tad
And 17 year olds - regardless of what has happened to them - are not pre-pubescent children - i.e. the targets of a ‘paedo’
Nobody is saying “that’s ok then” - get over yersel’
So Lux, you think that 17 year olds, that have been groomed and abused since childhood are fair game?
Nope - I think that abusing that 17 year old is reprehensible, and covered under quite a few descriptions - but is not paedophilia, the definition of which has been given to you and ignored by you on multiple occasions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Hoolie
Date: Sun 23 Aug 20:38
So Andrew is just a old pervert taking advantage of a 17 year old young lassie..
He was part of the Royal family and his mum bailed him out with millions so don’t even state he wasn’t up to some stuff with Epstein…just remember that interview he did..oh I don’t sweat blah blah..he is a vile wee pervert peado that should be in a cell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Sun 23 Aug 20:48
He could well be a peado but the evidence isn’t out yet. He is a properly disgusting individual tho and part of a pretty disgusting family imo.
Happily be a republic.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 23 Aug 21:24
Christ. Are we really arguing over the definition of a paedo?
Okay, not pre-pubescent so will we go with sexual abuser? Groomer? Rapist? Dirty old man?
Doesn`t matter what definitions or terms you choose to use, he`s a beast and got off due to money and influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Mon 24 Aug 15:43
Quote:
jake89, Sun 23 Aug 21:24
Christ. Are we really arguing over the definition of a paedo?
Okay, not pre-pubescent so will we go with sexual abuser? Groomer? Rapist? Dirty old man?
Doesn`t matter what definitions or terms you choose to use, he`s a beast and got off due to money and influence.
I don’t think the argument was the definition
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
