Is The Home Secretary Really That...
News1 min ago
Prince Harry
485 Answers
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fourteen85. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
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.
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.
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)
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)
> 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?
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?
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!
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!
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 !
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 !
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |