King Chuck discussion zone: new parasite, same idiot hat

Stugene wrote:big swathes of this thread will be deemed illegal under the Flag Shagging Act (2022) when 'er madj is wiv da angles

Johnson's popularity skyrockets after bringing back hanging, drawing, and quartering for disrespecting our country. As the big boss of banned flag-hating website GRcade, Gecko is the first person to be found guilty under the new laws. RIP.

YouTube

Gunged in acid in the town square for being an anti-british-pedo as part of the Jubilee Celebrations

Dave Benson Phillips wearing an executioners hood.

twitter.com/amateuradam/status/1490394034900197388

That's brilliant work, someone is getting fired at the Palace :lol:

someone didn't read the thread :roll:

YouTube

I think we should storm the palace and take back the rightful property of the state for the peOPLE WE LOVE THE MOST, THE ROYAL FAMILY. WE SHOULD ALL BE PRAISING HER GLORIOUS MAJESTY AND RETURN THE COUNTRY TO FEUDALISM. WAVE YOUR FLAGS WITH ME, FELLOW CITIZENS.

YOURS,

PEASANT STUGENE

Pleasant Stugene

YouTube

Kezzer wrote:Pleasant Stugene

he's not bad imo

Duke of Nonce has reached a settlement then

Hypes wrote:Duke of Nonce has reached a settlement then

More like a sweattlement amirite

People with money can get away with anything really.

Hypes wrote:Duke of Nonce has reached a settlement then

Duke of Nonce I like that one has a ring to it......

In honesty I think we all knew he would basically get away with it, we live in a society where these aristocratic bell ends are so worshiped by certain people that he could have nailed 12 under age girls in a conga in broad day light and gotten away with it.

Victor Mildew wrote:
Hypes wrote:Duke of Nonce has reached a settlement then

More like a sweattlement amirite

Real life lol at both of these

Links for those interested:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -principle

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... t-happened

Raises more questions than answers though doesn't it? There must have been more skeletons in the closet that he was afraid would come out in court.

Victor Mildew wrote:More like a sweattlement amirite

Very good!

I was thinking about this difficult hypothetical situation - you are taking a high profile person to court for abuse which you know they have committed, but they offer a substantial donation to a charity that will materially benefit many other victims of similar abuse as a settlement. Morally I would worry about gambling that material benefit on continuing with the court case. That's weighed up against the harder to measure value of justice being seen to be done against the abuser.

Thinking about that helps persuade me that there should be laws against out of court settlements, because settlements can be used as both monetary bribes but also a sort of moral blackmail. It's a kind of coercive control. Another example of a legal system that heavily favours the wealthy and amoral.

OrangeRKN wrote:I was thinking about this difficult hypothetical situation - you are taking a high profile person to court for abuse which you know they have committed, but they offer a substantial donation to a charity that will materially benefit many other victims of similar abuse as a settlement. Morally I would worry about gambling that material benefit on continuing with the court case. That's weighed up against the harder to measure value of justice being seen to be done against the abuser.

Thinking about that helps persuade me that there should be laws against out of court settlements, because settlements can be used as both monetary bribes but also a sort of moral blackmail. It's a kind of coercive control. Another example of a legal system that heavily favours the wealthy and amoral.

Banning out of court settlements for civil cases makes no sense.

If she'd won, she'd have received some kind of damages. If he has offered a settlement she is happy with, than why would she said not settle?

The issue here is less about the civil case settlement and more the fact no criminal charges have even been brought.

Tomous wrote:If she'd won, she'd have received some kind of damages. If he has offered a settlement she is happy with, than why would she said not settle?

That depends whether the desired outcome is monetary compensation or visible justice and accountability.

I agree re: why no criminal charges. In situations like this the distinction doesn't really make sense to me.

Looking at the papers this morning they seem to be estimating the settlement in the £10-12million region.

Oh, and Queeny is helping to pay for it, which means the taxpayer is basically picking up the tab for her kid being a sex trafficking nonce.

King Chuck discussion zone: new parasite, same idiot hat

Who is online

Affiliates