Or at least the appearance of serious punishment.I think the Royal Family *needs* Andrew to have some sort of serious punishment.
He's got no money on paper, that he's legally obliged to talk about. But he's fucking minted, is at legal risk of losing fuck all - apart from his dignity, but then he doesn't care one jot about how the plebs see him - and neither do his many and varied friends.They won't, because if he has nothing to lose and no money he'll just sell his story. He has 60+ years of dirt, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. They won't want their privacy eroding like that so he'll be protected.
That's why the performative shit's been going on for ages. Even if he gets found guilty of something (lol, like there'll be a real trial) then at worst he'll spend some time in a variety of ski lodges.Maybe just maybe he is thinking about his kids and grandkids - It is not unheard of.
Because the experienced mountaineer judge said his only lapse was failing to recognise much earlier on that she was not going to make it.Suspended sentence seems odd.
So it looks like he did it before to an ex.
BBC said:She said she was crying and screaming when he suddenly disappeared, walking ahead and leaving her behind.
...said every woman about their partner ever.
I think there's a difference for her, but women are always irritated by (larger, longer stride) men walking faster than them, and such a feeling would be massively heightened in this type of circumstance. What's missing from this conversation is did she catch up or did he return or stop and wait? After all, she got back down the mountain with him.I think there's a difference doing this on like a normal walk and then there's doing it on a mountain, no?
Maybe they shouldn't strop, scream, whine and rage and be more constructive when they're tired.I think there's a difference doing this on like a normal walk and then there's doing it on a mountain, no?
You keep making ghe assertion that he's obviously responsible for her. And expressed surprise/disappointment that he's not in clinky because he didn't keep her safe.lol wtf
Orange man just got rinsed by the supreme court
"Under the international emergency economic powers act of 1977 Donald Trump does not have the authority to impose Tariffs"
Bet he's absolutely fuming
It's a bit extreme to say you don't trust the supreme court. They still take their roles seriously, despite the ridiculous levels of partisanship - and they ruled against Trump. It's not some conspiracy for him to do that (although he surely will - it's the obvious political play).Or...he knows tariffs aren't working and are actually tanking the economy. Now he can go "I wanted to carry on but it was the SC who stopped me, what a bunch of losers", rinse and repeat. He owns the Supreme Court, I don't trust anything that comes from them.
All the analysis is that the imports of raw materials that were stockpiled by US manufacturers last year are about to run out. There's also the problem that after initial panic, countries aren't blinking any more, the Orange Gibbon is increasingly finding his threats are empty.It's a bit extreme to say you don't trust the supreme court. They still take their roles seriously, despite the ridiculous levels of partisanship - and they ruled against Trump. It's not some conspiracy for him to do that (although he surely will - it's the obvious political play).
The long term projections aren't great, for whatever value we put on projections. But it's not "tanking" right now. But tarrifs aren't about making a better economy. They're about forcing renegotiation. They're a strategy for that, not for building a better economy.
Dropping them post renegotiation works in the US's favour.