Prince Harry

[fourteen85]

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?

[MissTerious2]

Also Andy. You showed yourself up when Naomi was offered a 'modship' by acting like a kid and threatening to give up your Mod position. You have continually dropped hints, and now openly said,what you think about Naomi Quite personal remarks. I know what I would do if I ran this site.

Naomi might not be a perfect mod,but she certainly has more integrity than you do.



And

[Redhelen72]

At least Andy doesn’t show favouritism

[MissTerious2]

Perhaps not Red, but that's not relevant on this thread.

[Mozz71]

Good to see the site has matured and everyone has been getting along in my absence.

[jackthehat]

Plus ça change.......
How this thread had wandered away from the antics of bluff prince Hal to the baiting and snarking from posters who really ought to know better.

Deliberately failing to understand a point being made and then using that as a stick with which to thwack your foe is a long-established practise on here.......but it still isn't a proper way of debating and hasn't grown any less childish.

The USA won't bar Harry unless it is interests to do so, and at the moment, it isn't.

[Redhelen72]

I stand corrected MissT but it would appear this thread strayed from the original OP many pages ago

[MissTerious2]

True Helen. Its just that I think a group of bullies have attacked and that is something I really hate. Naomi takes a lot of stick. She's not perfect. But then neither are any of us. You and I know what it's like to be targetted on here :0/

[Zacs-Master]

'Naomi takes a lot of stick.'

Her failure to answer direct questions directly would be the main reason for that. Instead she feigns confusion, says she's answered it before but when challenged, resorts to the childish response of 'find it for yourself', or simply doesn't answer (as is the case when I've asked her to provide evidence that Ms Giuffre was a willing participant in the act of sex which she has asserted quite a few times.

[MissTerious2]

Zak. I would suggest that if you have problems with her moderation you express this in private with the Ed. And not join with a verbal group battering in public.

[Zacs-Master]

I think you need to re-read my post/s. I haven't said anything about her moderation, MissT. You're heading towards making an apology to me. Again.

[Barsel]

Zacs, //To repeat........
Naomi, you haven’t given any evidence. You’ve merely stated your opinion again. Plus, you’ve avoided answering how you know the sex with Andrew was entered into willingly.//
What exactly is it you want, a signed letter from Guiffre herself telling you what happened?
Perhaps if you had read more about the case you might understand that Guiffre worked for Epstein, she was paid by Epstein, she was told that if she didn't do what she was paid to do, she would be out on her ear. So, she had no choice really, she was paid to entertain men, that was her job. Do I have evidence, no, do you have evidence,no?
We can only go by what we read, and this is what I've read.

[Zacs-Master]

'she was told that if she didn't do what she was paid to do, she would be out on her ear'

Exactly. This is completely contrary to Naomi's assertions that she did it willingly.

'What exactly is it you want, a signed letter from Guiffre herself telling you what happened?'

No, that would be a stupid request. I just want to know from what source/s Naomi obtained her info that Giuffre was a willing participant in their sexual encounters. Quite simple really.

[MissTerious2]

Well Zacs. Just leave out the moderation bit. You joined in with the group of Naomi bashers. Half an apology. I admit that I got mixed up a bit , after having a go at Andy!

[Barsel]

So Guiffre may not have been a willing participant, but she didn't have a choice. It was something she had to do, it was her job.
Is that the answer you want Zacs or is there anything else I can help you with today? :-)

[Zacs-Master]

Half apology half accepted, MissT. I have explained, fairly courteously, why I would like a direct answer from Naomi.
Is that unreasonable?

[Rosetta]

I agree MissT , this has turned again into naomi bashing. She has given her opinion and if there is no direct evidence to support it, exactly the same can be said of those giving a different view.
Unfortunately, on this site, personal antipathy is allowed to spill out onto many different threads, and yes AH this includes you

[Zacs-Master]

Barsle. I've no idea why you keep attempting to answer for Naomi. You actually seem to be proposing the same argument as me. I'm merely asking her to provide some evidence for something which she's stated fairly vociferously, several times.

[naomi24]

For God's sake! I've sat here with my popcorn watching a bunch of spiteful old cronies, mostly identifying as men, pull me to bits for no good reason that I can think of. The reason I think (and I only think!) she was a willing partner is because she accepted the job, she didn't resign, and when the bubble burst she accepted hush money. Additionally, grown people who are abused do not usually go willingly back for more. Now do us all a favour - grow up! And if anyone has a problem with my moderation here - which out of simple courtesy to the membership I do in my own username - and which, despite accusations to the contrary, I really do try to do fairly - contact the editor.

Thank you Lottie, JtH, Barsel and Rosetta. Voices of reason in the midst of madness.

[MissTerious2]

So Barsel you too are only saying what you have read. Naomi is saying what she read. She has read a lot about all this and obviously bases her opinions on what she reads You may read different papers, but don't assume Naomi hasn't read as much as you.

I actually made it clear earlier in the thread that I agree with Naomi on a lot of this subject.

[anneasquith]

You would think any mods on this thread would stick with the topic.
Alas this is the new AB .