- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,659
- Reaction score
- 10,530
I vote that they base it at City McCityface
The Centre for Towns will have something to say about that!I vote that they base it at City McCityface
www.bbc.co.uk
No idea, but from the articles I've read they certainly talk about public and private money. How easy it is to separate them, who knows?Are the two pools separate though?
The sovereign grant they get is like £40m, paying for that sweaty nonce is a drop in the ocean
My understanding from news coverage today is that (if) she is contributing it'll be essentially a top up to the money from the sold ski chalet (17M - 6M mortgage) and will obviously not be taxpayer money.Are the two pools separate though?
The sovereign grant they get is like £40m, paying for that sweaty nonce is a drop in the ocean
www.bbc.co.uk
At the heart of the settlement is the biggest question of all: why is a prince who told me he had "no recollection of ever meeting this lady" now paying her what we understand to be upwards of £10m? I distinctly remember putting Virginia Giuffre's accusations to him directly:
"She says she met you in 2001, she dined with you, danced with you, you bought her drinks in Tramp nightclub and she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia."
And I have the Prince's reply in front of me now. Three words only: "It didn't happen."
There are only three possible explanations then for the settlement:
It is not my place to decree which is true.
- Either he was lying in that response - and remembered her well
- Or he genuinely had no recollection - and was adamant they hadn't met - only for his memory subsequently to be jogged
- Or that he maintains his innocence, but feels the weight of legal and public opinion against him now make settling the easier option, albeit without accepting any liability.
But the wording of the settlement is curious: "Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms Giuffre's character and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks."
My understanding from news coverage today is that (if) she is contributing it'll be essentially a top up to the money from the sold ski chalet (17M - 6M mortgage) and will obviously not be taxpayer money.
Some people don't seem to understand how royal money works though so I'm sure the clickbatey stuff suggesting taxpayer money will continue
Probably not - joint purchase with Sarah Ferguson and reports seem to conf it being private money.Maybe that ski chalet was funded with taxpayers' money?
You do remember that it was God who created fish and birds on day five?
Maybe that ski chalet was funded with taxpayers' money?
You do remember that it was God who created fish and birds on day five?
Probably not - joint purchase with Sarah Ferguson and reports seem to conf it being private money.
Sorry the last part had gone over my head
www.therugbyforum.com
This is a good video. If we had a vote on it I would personally vote to scrap the monarchy, but I wouldn't have massively strong feelings either way. Listening to this just made me think of how out of touch the concept of a monarchy is in modern Britain and I would move into campaigning to abolish the monarchy.
This is a good video. If we had a vote on it I would personally vote to scrap the monarchy, but I wouldn't have massively strong feelings either way. Listening to this just made me think of how out of touch the concept of a monarchy is in modern Britain and I would move into campaigning to abolish the monarchy.
Oh right haha no I was winding that chap up from a Google list called "surprising things that aren't British" lolThe last part was a tongue in cheek continuation from the Scotland v England thread after you suggested 'we invented fish and chips' Maybe you'd had a few
![]()
[2022 Six Nations] Scotland vs England (05/02/22)
As English as Saint George then https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George Roman soldier, Next...www.therugbyforum.com
www.bbc.co.uk