[s]YouTube stuff[/s] cancelled

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18695
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Montegriffo » Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:26 pm

BjornP wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:09 pm
Montegriffo wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:54 pm
BjornP wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:49 pm


Curious, then, that no one has succeeded bringing that claim to your courts. You'd think that if the narrative of "Brexit can be invalidated if it's a no-deal Brexit because that wasn't one of the specific referendum questions" was true, something would have happened by now.
A no-deal Brexit has indeed been ruled out by the courts. A vote of 11-0 in the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful based on the vote in Parliament where it was argued that no one voted for no-deal in the referendum.
Not the same thing. A no-deal Brexit has been ruled out quite recently, after the fact. And as for the supreme court, wasn't that in reference to Boris' suspension of parliament? Otherwise, do you have a link to the story that explicitly states that the British supreme court found that a no-deal Brexit would not have a legal mandate?
Ah, you're right. I was confusing the two things.
It was Parliament which ruled out a no-deal Brexit.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18695
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Montegriffo » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:53 pm



Yeah yeah, you have no recollection.
Perfectly reasonable defense. :roll:
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Smitty-48 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:19 pm

Montegriffo wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:53 pm

Yeah yeah, you have no recollection.
Perfectly reasonable defense. :roll:
Particularly as the Windsor men never have upheld the standards he claims

The Windsor men were always after the putty.

David and Bertie notoriously catting around

George V chose Bertie over David because Bertie agreed to dump his married girlfriend and David refused.

David never forgave Bertie for knuckling under so he could be Duke of York.

I love all that shit tho, the Royals are a soap opera, that's what makes them entertaining.

I don't think Wills nor Harry are catting around tho, Wills is too much of a wuss, and Harry already sowed his oats.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18695
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Montegriffo » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:27 pm

17 wouldn't even be a problem here (legally). The age of consent is 16.
Hanging around with a convicted pedophile is dodgy as fuck though and Andrew's little nervous chuckle as he talked about it was really creepy.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Smitty-48 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:30 pm

Montegriffo wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:27 pm
17 wouldn't even be a problem here (legally). The age of consent is 16.
Hanging around with a convicted pedophile is dodgy as fuck though and Andrew's little nervous chuckle as he talked about it was really creepy.
I don't think he's guilty of a crime, none the less conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18695
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Montegriffo » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:30 pm

Smitty-48 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:19 pm
Montegriffo wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:53 pm

Yeah yeah, you have no recollection.
Perfectly reasonable defense. :roll:
Particularly as the Windsor men never have upheld the standards he claims

The Windsor men were always after the putty.

David and Bertie notoriously catting around

George V chose Bertie over David because Bertie agreed to dump his married girlfriend and David refused.

David never forgave Bertie for knuckling under so he could be Duke of York.

I love all that shit tho, the Royals are a soap opera, that's what makes them entertaining.

I don't think Wills nor Harry are catting around tho, Wills is too much of a wuss, and Harry already sowed his oats.
Wills and Harry have both got really hot wives anyway.
Maybe after they've ruined their bodies chucking out heirs they'll be tempted to stray.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Smitty-48 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:33 pm

It's like I've had sex with a 16 year old girl too.

Except I was only 15 at the time.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18695
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Montegriffo » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:35 pm

Smitty-48 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:30 pm
Montegriffo wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:27 pm
17 wouldn't even be a problem here (legally). The age of consent is 16.
Hanging around with a convicted pedophile is dodgy as fuck though and Andrew's little nervous chuckle as he talked about it was really creepy.
I don't think he's guilty of a crime, none the less conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Sex with a 17 year old is a crime in the US though. That's just the one we know about as well.
Could throw the parasite under the bus as far as I'm concerned. He's not done anything useful since he flew helicopters as a decoy to protect the task force.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18695
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Montegriffo » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:38 pm

Could chuck that toe sucking adulterous ex-wife under the bus with him. She's running cover for him telling the tabloids how innocent he is.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: YouTube stuff

Post by Smitty-48 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:42 pm

Montegriffo wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:35 pm
Smitty-48 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:30 pm
Montegriffo wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:27 pm
17 wouldn't even be a problem here (legally). The age of consent is 16.
Hanging around with a convicted pedophile is dodgy as fuck though and Andrew's little nervous chuckle as he talked about it was really creepy.
I don't think he's guilty of a crime, none the less conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Sex with a 17 year old is a crime in the US though. That's just the one we know about as well.
Could throw the parasite under the bus as far as I'm concerned. He's not done anything useful since he flew helicopters as a decoy to protect the task force.
HM should strip him of his HRH and exile him, agreed.

Whether or not it was legal is no matter, he's brought the Firm into disrepute,

George V would have disowned him.

It's like she stripped Diana of her HRH, and I never liked Diana, but she never did anything this disreputable.

I mean, heck, Edward VIII was forced to abdicate, and he never did anything this disreputable.

David liked his putty, but he wasn't banging teenagers, he liked married women.
Nec Aspera Terrent