Prince Harry

[fourteen85]

There has been talk in the press lately about him having lied on his visa form to gain entry to the USA, could he be stopped from re entering after the coronation?

[andy-hughes]

//
Ladybirder - An assumption you are not to make, and probably untrue if you were. //

Should read - " .. you are not qualified to make ...".

[douglas9401]

I'm willing to bet 50p that someone isn't allowed to speak at home.

[andy-hughes]

douglas - // I'm willing to bet 50p that someone isn't allowed to speak at home. //

Unless you suggest who that 'someone' is, you post is meaningless.

So no change there.

[douglas9401]

50p is change.

[Barsel]

Andy, I would be interested to know if you felt Saville carried out these assaults.

[naomi24]

Small change. ;o)

[Ellipsis]

> Ellipsis, I’ve not mentioned a hybrid sex scheme. You said that just after you said ‘so in your version…’ - which wasn’t my version.

It is your version, unless you're saying that Epstein didn't traffic anybody at all (i.e. that his conviction was wrong).

[naomi24]

Why do you think I’ve said that when I very clearly haven’t said it, ellipsis?

[andy-hughes]

Barsel - // Andy, I would be interested to know if you felt Saville carried out these assaults. //

I am absolutely convinced that he did, and probably a lot more that will never be revealed, based entirely on the horrifically large amount of personal testimony that has come out since his death.

But what I, or you, or anyone else believe, is not conviction in law, and that is why his crimes remain alleged, and not proven.

[Ellipsis]

Naomi, as soon as you say Giuffre went along with her own volition - something that you have no evidence for, but "some women know" - everything else follows.

Unless you're saying that Epstein wasn't a sex trafficker of minors, even though he was convicted as one.

[naomi24]

She was offered a job which she accepted. We know that.

Where do you even begin to get the rest from, ellipsis? Not from me, that’s for sure.

[Ellipsis]

> Ellipsis are you saying neither of them were paedophiles?

No, I think that both were. My response was in response to the dialogue between 1ozzy and naomi, in particular "Wonder no longer. That wasn't the charge." on page 8 at 06:09.

[Peter Pedant]

Unless you suggest who that 'someone' is, you post is meaningless.
So no change there.

nope. "There is a man in the world who cannot speak at home." Not only is this statement, intelligible but also decidable ( can take value 0 - no there isnt, 1 yes there is).

I thought I was the only one exposed to illogic in all its forms.
clearly it is like a disease, and spreading !

Carry on Doug ! Your statements conform to the reqts set out in AJ Ayer's Language Truth and Logic 1935. (( verifiability I think)

[Ellipsis]

> Where do you even begin to get the rest from, ellipsis?

From what you've said, and the implications that result if what you're saying is true. Clearly, you disagree. OK.

> Why did Andrew stay in Jeffrey Epstein's mansion for three days in 2010, after Epstein's conviction for sex offences against a minor?

That was my question, and your answer was:

> because, being completely thick, rather than simply tell the truth which would have been his best plan of action, he was convinced he could distance himself from the whole stinky mess

But you don't go for a stay "because you're thick", you go there for a reason, like "Seeing a show", or "Doing some shopping", or "Doing some business". So why did Andrew stay in Jeffrey Epstein's mansion for three days in 2010, after Epstein's conviction for sex offences against a minor?

[Peter Pedant]

Where do you even begin to get the rest from, ellipsis? Not from me, that’s for sure.

yes ellipsis - and you know the site rule - - if you dont get it from Naomi then it cant be true....

normal Tuesday on AB then

[Peter Pedant]

But you don't go for a stay "because you're thick"

concluding from the foregoing ( guff above), that none of this is serious, Mount everest was climbed 'because it was there' andPrincess Margaret was wed to luvva-boy ( because she was there)

in olden times, a fella was asked in a libel action ( wivva jury) why he had written an (auto) biography of someone who was still living (and suing) - answered - - because I am a bloody fool.

the jury let him off !

er carry on carping!

[Ellipsis]

LOL

[Peter Pedant]

Maybe some women think they know more than they do
and some men
I know I do.

I preferred Ellipsis on "statements are decidable"

I'm Spartacus! :-P - what that fella with the muscles?
oh no, that was Gluteus Maximus. :-PP

[Peter Pedant]

Why do you think I’ve said that when I very clearly haven’t said it, ellipsis?
because history proves that you will tomorrow - in a "clarification"
ter daah !

this is about Harry and not the Randy One
yes it is true that a pressure group is taking the US govt to court and seeking an order to force the govt to take H's admission on drugs into account

( British Law from 1964 - provides for the rather obvious move of "yes we have, ( or even we did) and our opinion does not differ"
Blackburn v MPC)

carry on carping ABers !

[naomi24]

No, pp. If it hasn’t come from me it isn’t something I’ve said. Multiple posts and you still haven’t got it right. Keep trying.