Redcard wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:07 pm
Absolutely ridiculous that he cannot recall ever meeting the girl yet from all that time ago he remembers where he was that particular day. The royals obviously have protection so his whereabouts would have been documented . I would state my life on her version of events.
He probably doesn’t remember her because he was shagging so many young women that they all just blurred into one.
Presumably if he’s happy to talk to the BBC then he should be happy to let the FBI interview him as well.
The worst thing for me is that he shows absolutely no remorse for all the hurt that he’s caused.
Redcard wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:07 pm
Absolutely ridiculous that he cannot recall ever meeting the girl yet from all that time ago he remembers where he was that particular day. The royals obviously have protection so his whereabouts would have been documented . I would state my life on her version of events.
He probably doesn’t remember her because he was shagging so many young women that they all just blurred into one.
Presumably if he’s happy to talk to the BBC then he should be happy to let the FBI interview him as well. The worst thing for me is that he shows absolutely no remorse for all the hurt that he’s caused.
Perhaps he doesn't show remorse because he hasn't done anything wrong and perhaps the lady is making false allegations?
Redcard wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:07 pm
Absolutely ridiculous that he cannot recall ever meeting the girl yet from all that time ago he remembers where he was that particular day. The royals obviously have protection so his whereabouts would have been documented . I would state my life on her version of events.
He probably doesn’t remember her because he was shagging so many young women that they all just blurred into one.
Presumably if he’s happy to talk to the BBC then he should be happy to let the FBI interview him as well. The worst thing for me is that he shows absolutely no remorse for all the hurt that he’s caused.
Perhaps he doesn't show remorse because he hasn't done anything wrong and perhaps the lady is making false allegations?
Innocent until proven guilty?
The photograph of Andy and Victoria Roberts looks fairly genuine to me and apparently photographic experts.
He’s always mixed with some strange people.
I know whose account I believe.
He probably doesn’t remember her because he was shagging so many young women that they all just blurred into one.
Presumably if he’s happy to talk to the BBC then he should be happy to let the FBI interview him as well. The worst thing for me is that he shows absolutely no remorse for all the hurt that he’s caused.
Perhaps he doesn't show remorse because he hasn't done anything wrong and perhaps the lady is making false allegations?
Innocent until proven guilty?
The photograph of Andy and Victoria Roberts looks fairly genuine to me and apparently photographic experts.
He’s always mixed with some strange people.
I know whose account I believe.
So, if a photo appears of a male in company of a female, in public & fully clothed, it means the male is guilty of serious sexual offences?
The photo proves nothing other than a photo was taken of 2 people...
Perhaps he doesn't show remorse because he hasn't done anything wrong and perhaps the lady is making false allegations?
Innocent until proven guilty?
The photograph of Andy and Victoria Roberts looks fairly genuine to me and apparently photographic experts.
He’s always mixed with some strange people.
I know whose account I believe.
So, if a photo appears of a male in company of a female, in public & fully clothed, it means the male is guilty of serious sexual offences?
The photo proves nothing other than a photo was taken of 2 people...
He says he’s never met her, the photo proves otherwise, geddit
As I said before, I know whose side of this story I believe.
The photograph of Andy and Victoria Roberts looks fairly genuine to me and apparently photographic experts.
He’s always mixed with some strange people.
I know whose account I believe.
So, if a photo appears of a male in company of a female, in public & fully clothed, it means the male is guilty of serious sexual offences?
The photo proves nothing other than a photo was taken of 2 people...
He says he’s never met her, the photo proves otherwise, geddit
As I said before, I know whose side of this story I believe.
I thought He said he doesn't recall meeting her...very different from saying he didn't meet her
Redcard wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:07 pm
Absolutely ridiculous that he cannot recall ever meeting the girl yet from all that time ago he remembers where he was that particular day. The royals obviously have protection so his whereabouts would have been documented . I would state my life on her version of events.
He probably doesn’t remember her because he was shagging so many young women that they all just blurred into one.
Presumably if he’s happy to talk to the BBC then he should be happy to let the FBI interview him as well.
The worst thing for me is that he shows absolutely no remorse for all the hurt that he’s caused.
This is probably a question for Spen but in legal terms is there a difference between not recalling or remembering things compared to being able to state I didn't do it?
Redcard wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:07 pm
Absolutely ridiculous that he cannot recall ever meeting the girl yet from all that time ago he remembers where he was that particular day. The royals obviously have protection so his whereabouts would have been documented . I would state my life on her version of events.
He probably doesn’t remember her because he was shagging so many young women that they all just blurred into one.
Presumably if he’s happy to talk to the BBC then he should be happy to let the FBI interview him as well.
The worst thing for me is that he shows absolutely no remorse for all the hurt that he’s caused.
This is probably a question for Spen but in legal terms is there a difference between not recalling or remembering things compared to being able to state I didn't do it?
Huge difference. It's a basic language construction .
One is a denial and one is not an admission.
Turn it the other way is perhaps easier to understand. Look at the difference between saying I did it or I can't recall if I did it.
He probably doesn’t remember her because he was shagging so many young women that they all just blurred into one.
Presumably if he’s happy to talk to the BBC then he should be happy to let the FBI interview him as well.
The worst thing for me is that he shows absolutely no remorse for all the hurt that he’s caused.
This is probably a question for Spen but in legal terms is there a difference between not recalling or remembering things compared to being able to state I didn't do it?
Huge difference. It's a basic language construction .
One is a denial and one is not an admission.
Turn it the other way is perhaps easier to understand. Look at the difference between saying I did it or I can't recall if I did it.
One could convict you the other can't
So basically legal lies. In your legal opinion do you believe his legal council told him to say that?
Did his legal council have in mind that one day he will be appearing in court as a Peedo?
This is probably a question for Spen but in legal terms is there a difference between not recalling or remembering things compared to being able to state I didn't do it?
Huge difference. It's a basic language construction .
One is a denial and one is not an admission.
Turn it the other way is perhaps easier to understand. Look at the difference between saying I did it or I can't recall if I did it.
One could convict you the other can't
So basically legal lies. In your legal opinion do you believe his legal council told him to say that?
Did his legal council have in mind that one day he will be appearing in court as a Peedo?
Max, you are making things up.
I have never said anything about anyone lying.
Carry on without me. I am not prepared to engage whilst you make things up.
Perhaps he doesn't show remorse because he hasn't done anything wrong and perhaps the lady is making false allegations?
Innocent until proven guilty?
The photograph of Andy and Victoria Roberts looks fairly genuine to me and apparently photographic experts.
He’s always mixed with some strange people.
I know whose account I believe.
So, if a photo appears of a male in company of a female, in public & fully clothed, it means the male is guilty of serious sexual offences?
The photo proves nothing other than a photo was taken of 2 people...
ContrifibulatoryFred wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:59 am
If Spen’s a lawyer, meet my relative Bubbles
He’s more like an inmate of a children’s home
Trot along to the police then and report me.
Under s20 of the solicitors Act 1974 it is an offence to call yourself a solicitor if you aren't one.
I am happy to state quite openly I am a solicitor.
Lets see you report the alleged crime...won't take the police longer than 10 seconds to look up on the Solicitors Regulatory Authority website to see I am indeed a Solicitor. Indeed anyone with half a brain cell could do the same...so if you get someone to help you, you could check.
Its actually rather pathetic and childish to make posts like yours really. Especially when you have never met me and know absolutely nothing about me
That's the funniest post you've done yet Spen, revealing that you are more closely aligned to a children's home than a bulwark of the legal profession.
For a 'lawyer' you're not really very vigilant or attentive. If you were you might notice that no accusation was made of criminality, merely of your petulant and irritating condescension towards other boarders
I would happily risk my liberty to kick you right up the bumhole though, I must admit
Its an opinion about how irritating Spen is - and actually an indictment on this MB that he was ever allowed to resume posting, having been found guilty of duplicity in the first place. Obviously he has friends in high places in the admin of the board.
Its not for me to criticise those who manage this MB, as I am sure it can be a thankless task - but I do wonder why Spen is allowed so much scope to purvey his poisonous and patronising tripe
Good for you, it this is true
Nice to know he might have some positive attributes, and that his domination of the MB is down to your recreational drug habits
ContrifibulatoryFred wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:34 am
That's the funniest post you've done yet Spen, revealing that you are more closely aligned to a children's home than a bulwark of the legal profession.
For a 'lawyer' you're not really very vigilant or attentive. If you were you might notice that no accusation was made of criminality, merely of your petulant and irritating condescension towards other boarders
I would happily risk my liberty to kick you right up the bumhole though, I must admit
Are you really so unable to understand what you have done.
it is a criminal offence to claim to be a solicitor. You are saying I am not a solicitor. Therefore you are accusing me of a crime contrary to S20 or S21 of the solicitors Act 1974.
You appear that you don't even know when you are accusing people of criminal activity.
You are even more pathetic when wishing to assault someone you have never met, simply because they show you up as being rather stupid.
ContrifibulatoryFred wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:42 am
Its an opinion about how irritating Spen is - and actually an indictment on this MB that he was ever allowed to resume posting, having been found guilty of duplicity in the first place. Obviously he has friends in high places in the admin of the board.
Its not for me to criticise those who manage this MB, as I am sure it can be a thankless task - but I do wonder why Spen is allowed so much scope to purvey his poisonous and patronising tripe
Says the person spouting poisoning patronizing tripe
Spen666 is merely a persona used on an message board, and not a real person.
Therefore, as stated and reiterated here, there is no lawyer called Spen666
If you are so sure of your legal grounds I look forward to receiving a private message outlining the redress you will be taking in regard to my supposed criminal act(s), and the wish that I expressed, albeit fancifully, to kick you right up the bum-hole.
I look forward to updating the MB as to your progress in this regard
For the benefit of everyone else, however, I look forward to Spen posting up link to the solicitor's website where his 'private' persona is said to exist.
Let me remind the MB that Spen claims I could have looked him up in a matter of seconds, even though I don't know his real name, This lack of knowledge is, according to our learned friend, an intellectual failing on my part
UpminsterO wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:15 pm
Fred you write in a manner that you have a legal bias to your intellect
Re spen direction to people to that list to verify
He did the same a year or so ago and when a person raised the same point that it could not be actioned as they did not know his name he basically attacked that person - I remember it quite clearly but I don't have the link to that post as evidence
My name is easily identifiable. Esteban proved that last summer when he posted my identity on here. Its not a secret
This board is about football and Lofc welfare
I just cannot fathom why spen would allocate so much of his time to argue the toss with people
As opposed to you spending your time arguing about me and posting about me even on a thread about Prince Andrew?
