You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Does anyone think he may have been pushed into settling by the rest of the Royal family? Pay whatever’s needed to just get it out of the media? He’s permanently damaged by this anyway, so there’s little to win in a court case - his association with Epstein is enough no matter what else happens.
What makes me think is that given his arrogance so far, with the TV interview, etc, I’d guess he firmly believed he could win in court. His lawyers may not have agreed (especially after the interview) but, him…? But win or lose for him, it’s a loss for the Royals, so they told him to make it and himself go away?
jambourgie - you say you aren't an apologist for mr windsor but it looks very much like you are.
When the queen dies it would be a very good time for the Royal family to be disbanded and our money returned as it has turned into a shit show over the last 10 years or so and not sure it has that much support or interest from anyone under 50.
The Royal family in the last 60 years have been absolute angels compared to the previous 1000. Not excusing them, but some perspective helps.
I'm ambivalent about them, but too many people seem to be using Andy as an excuse to batter them.
Think this sort of shit wouldn't go on in a republic? Check where the victim was working before being picked up by Maxwell/Epstein.
The royal angle is a red herring. Your money pays compensation to victims of abuse every day through local authorities, sports federations, youth organisations.
it would be a very good time for the Royal family to be disbanded and our money returned
ooo, can we add that to the 350mil a week please
This was their only option (barring a car in a tunnel incident). When he was found guilty in court, what then? Prison / community service / reeducation, not viable options with his family connections.
This was their only option (barring a car in a tunnel incident). When he was found guilty in court, what then? Prison / community service / reeducation, not viable options with his family connections.
How many times has someone explained on this thread it was not a criminal trial.....
To me, a payout only suggests guilty.
As reported by Eye. There have been rumblings in the royal household for some time with some of the youngsters keen to cut Andy adrift. RAndy was taken aside by the queen and told in no uncertain terms the only way back was to be proven innocent. Hence an attempt at bluffing it out in court. So no this isn’t a win for Andy. He is now out the door with no way back to the trinkets and honours he so adores. And a new generation have stamped their influence on the monarchy.
ooo, can we add that to the 350mil a week please
Will be a big saving for all of us, especially when the Crown Estates are all sold off to the highest bidder donor.
The Royals are a useful tool to distract people from where the real abuse of power, trust and money takes place.
To me, a payout only suggests guilty.
Reports of queue of people waiting outside Andrew's house after hearing that he's giving millions away to people he's never met
Does anyone think he may have been pushed into settling by the rest of the Royal family?
Very obviously. There's a remembrance service for Philip and its the Queens Diamond Jubilee year. Joking aside, I've just read the agreement, and while it still doesn't say that he acknowledges that he knows her still, it does say that he regrets continuing to see Epstein after his conviction in 2008, and agrees that he "trafficked countless young girls over many years" and reverses his statement from the interview in 2019 that there could have no possible justification for his continued association with a convicted sex trafficker, which he now regrets. So that means no going back to Royal duties and Giuffre has essentially won. I hope the payout is hefty and continues to remind him over many many years what a complete shit he's been.
To me, a payout only suggests guilty.
I think we differ here as to how a payout is viewed in the U.S. Over there, it’s often been viewed as a “simple” business decision to avoid losses down the line as a result of reputational damage that an airing of dirty linen could do, whether the accused is guilty or not. IMO, #MeToo has shifted the perception of culpability onto he or she that pays out. Rightly or wrongly, I don’t know sometimes.
Because the second scenario is morally bankrupt but the first is actually illegal.
Yup, but the point i was making that while is was technically legal here, its not technically legal in the US, and though morally reprehensible, the BBC and others should be treating it with less levity than they are.
This is pretty7 much how I feel about it, put so eloquently by oldmanmtb
"
He’s bought his way out of trouble with his mam’s savings.
If he lived in a Council House and swept up litter for a living his feet wouldn’t have touched the ground on his way to prison…"
So with this in mind, the bbc and others should be shouting louder than they are, whereas it seems they're not putting out the we are outraged message, but instead saying, nothing to see here ,lets move on.
The message prince andrew is implying by his statement is he was tricked, and the bbc are not calling this statement out as a fabrication and twisting of the actual truth.
I’ll take that as a “no” then.
No-one on this entire thread has tried to excuse what he’s done, either.
If you want to take it as the opposite of what's been said, you carry on.
Meanwhile I will continue to be puzzled as to why he's published a contrite letter and paid a sack full of cash to someone he's never met.
If he lived in a Council House and swept up litter for a living his feet wouldn’t have touched the ground on his way to prison…”
So with this in mind, the bbc and others should be shouting louder than they are, whereas it seems they’re not putting out the we are outraged message, but instead saying, nothing to see here ,lets move on.
The message prince andrew is implying by his statement is he was tricked, and the bbc are not calling this statement out as a fabrication and twisting of the actual truth.
Firstly, yet again, this was a civil case and you don't go to prison in a civil case.
Secondly, as there has been no legal finding of guilt or liability, the BBC and other news organisations - and possibly cycling forums - have to be quite careful what they say or do to avoid the threat of legal action themselves.
We all know what this decision looks like and what we can infer from it. Putting those thoughts on the record is potentially very dodgy though
We all know what this decision looks like and what we can infer from it. Putting those thoughts on the record is potentially very dodgy though
I don't think dodgy is the word, risky perhaps. It would be a good idea to make sure Giuffre would be prepared to give evidence before proceeding. But you have to wonder if Mountbatten-Windsor would want/ be able to fund further litigation even if he had a good case.
I don’t think dodgy is the word, risky perhaps. It would be a good idea to make sure Giuffre would be prepared to give evidence before proceeding. But you have to wonder if Mountbatten-Windsor would want/ be able to fund further litigation even if he had a good case.
Yes, risky is a better term.
As a publicly funded broadcaster, the Beeb may be even more risk averse than most, maybe.
@nickc, prefer this one:
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/CxnDkW5M/IMG-20220216-WA0000.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/CxnDkW5M/IMG-20220216-WA0000.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I don’t see hire becoming a non working royal constitutes any form of punishment. All the perks and none of the “work”. His reputation was pretty lie to start with
Oooooh,
The grand old Duke of York,
He had 12 million quid,
He gave it to someone he'd never met,
For something he never did.
I have taken very little interest in this and its always been filed under 'typical royal bollox' in my brain and ignored. Like most people, I've always thought Andrew was a bit of a wrong'un and at the very least of low moral fibre shall we say.
However,I'm sure this has been done to death on this thread but I can't be bothered to check as its almost 1000 posts - that picture which I just finally looked at for more than 3 seconds - surely its a fake? I mean it just screams fake all over it. The way the bodies aren't touching, the perspective, the composition, the weird hand that doesn't look like its his, her expression doesn't fit the situation at all - so much just looks wrong in it. Why would it be taken anyway? Why there and then after getting back from a nightclub apparently - just doesn't seem right.
Anyway if it was a means to an end then fair play - I mean i'm sure he wasn't a friend of epsteins for nothing
@jeffwachowchow Outstanding contribution to the internet
However,I’m sure this has been done to death on this thread but I can’t be bothered to check as its almost 1000 posts – that picture which I just finally looked at for more than 3 seconds – surely its a fake?
If you think that pic is "fake" and deceitful, have you seen "the interview".
surely its a fake?
It's not, and you don't even need to take my word for it. The FBI have the original. Given to them by Giuffre.
Acquiring a bit of self awareness and perhaps learning to “Read the room” (or preceding 20 odd pages of posters mostly not taking the former Duke of York’s side) might sit you in good stead.
+1. And most of the other posts Cookeaa has made on the last couple of pages.
Ransos +1 for at least the last couple of pages and probably more on this thread.
Vulnerable person, taken across borders for sexual activity and unable to provide consent. That’s by definition abuse.
Why there and then after getting back from a nightclub apparently – just doesn’t seem right.
Unless you make your money by putting rich people in compromising positions and taking photos of it. #MakesYouThink
"The FBI have the original"
Do they though?
and from the Guardian
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">The original image showing Giuffre, the duke and Maxwell together at Maxwell’s home, before, her lawyers claim, she was sexually abused by the duke, is reportedly lost.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">Ahead of the settlement, the duke’s lawyers asked Giuffre to hand over the original, anticipating arguing that it was fake. But according to the Daily Beast, nobody on Giuffre’s legal team knows where it is, or has ever seen the original photograph.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">The picture, taken on Giuffre’s own camera, had allegedly been packed into a box and shipped from Colorado to Sydney sometime between between 2011 and 2016, when Giuffre emigrated to Australia.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">It remained unseen, at least by the public, until the Mail on Sunday asked for evidence to Giuffre’s claim that she had been trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell – who is now awaiting sentencing after being convicted of sex trafficking in December – to support her claims that she had been forced to have sex with a number of prominent figures.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">It later emerged, during a 2016 deposition as part of a defamation suit Giuffre filed against Maxwell, that the Mail on Sunday paid her $140,000 to publish it, as well as $20,000 for two interviews.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">During that deposition, Giuffre said she had lent the picture to the FBI in 2011 but had last seen it before she packed up her home to emigrate. It might, she said, be in her home, in storage at her in-laws’ or with “seven boxes full of Nerf guns, my kids’ toys, photos”.</p>
^^ Are you saying the FBI never examined the original or that the original is now "lost" that's a vey different thing.
Vulnerable person, taken across borders for sexual activity
By someone else, who was arrested and charged for it.
and unable to provide consent. That’s by definition abuse.
It is, and that's what she's accusing him of. Seemingly successfully now, thankfully.
I couldn't care less about the oily shite. I'm just trying to separate fact from hyperbole, is all.
The original image showing Giuffre, the duke and Maxwell together at Maxwell’s home, before, her lawyers claim, she was sexually abused by the duke, is reportedly lost.
I wonder how much my NFT is worth now 🙂
What if it’s like when you get a spurious parking ticket by some private cowboys and you know you’re in the right but have to consider whether it’s worth spending the next year fighting it and potentially messing up your credit rating and finances, or just to pay the £60 and move on with your life, whilst imploding on yourself in rage.
Where in your analogy does knowingly associating with a convicted child sex trafficker factor in?
When the queen dies it would be a very good time for the Royal family to be disbanded and our money returned
what do you plan to do with your £1?
What do you mean £1 of it? There is billions of taxpayers assets floating around in the rf. A huge chunk of London, Cornwall and Scotland for starters. Then there is all the art, jewellery and other trinkets.
what do you plan to do with your £1?
I don't know, but at least it would be my choice and it wouldn't be used to pay off someone I allegedly abused.
+1 What chrismac said
Also, not to mention the impact it would have on finally ridding this country of its class system which might mean in time that we saved from PMs such as the current one.
I can't be asked starting another thread but in the context of "get rid of the lot of 'em"...
Police to investigate Prince Charles' charity
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60404077
I'm sure the full force of the law will be brought to bear. Yeah, right.
Get rid of them (the Met) too, I say.
what do you plan to do with your £1?
4 pack of wispa gold.
Next question?
What if it’s like when you get a spurious parking ticket by some private cowboys and you know you’re in the right but have to consider whether it’s worth spending the next year fighting it and potentially messing up your credit rating and finances, or just to pay the £60 and move on with your life, whilst imploding on yourself in rage.
The size of the settlement is key here. If you know and the other party knows it is a try on then you settle for a small-ish amount (these things being relative) and make it go away. The other party is happy in the knowledge they have got something for a bit of a try on.
If your legal team thinks you're on sketchy ground and the other party is pretty certain their position stacks up then you need to settle for a lot more. Say £10m+ as opposed to £500k-£1m for a try on.
The accompanying statement is important too. In your analogy you would write to parking co along the lines of I never parked there but CBA to argue with you. Here's your £60.
The Andrew formerly known as Prince has had to state words I am sure he rather he did not have to and her legal team will have agreed the phrasing. It is ambiguous enough to not imply absolute guilt on his part but it is far far more than someone who was trying get something off their desk would have put their name to.
In a complete try on the usual phrase is along the lines of 'both parties have decided to move on from the matter and will not be commenting further'.
The overall terms of the settlement including the statement and the estimated amounts of money involved suggest his legal team and or Queenie really really didn't want this to go to court.
Also, not to mention the impact it would have on finally ridding this country of its class system which might mean in time that we saved from PMs such as the current one.
The hope and naivety on here sometimes is just lovely to see.
The Andrew formerly known as Prince has had to state words I am sure he rather he did not have to and her legal team will have agreed the phrasing. It is ambiguous enough to not imply absolute guilt on his part but it is far far more than someone who was trying get something off their desk would have put their name to.
Yes, I thought it was telling. Just a few weeks ago the position from his team was still something like:
"I am innocent and will clear my name in court"
"I don't regret my relationship with Epstein"
"Never met her and she's a gold digger looking for a payday"
Get rid of them (the Met) too, I say.
This thread is getting totally derailed, The MET have the same issue as the BBC do, in that they are in fear of MORE funding cuts if thay don't do as they are told by the conservatives. Let us not forget the Mayor of London is Labour, and has brown skin.
This is the conservative modus operandi. Divide and conquer. And it's working.
Windsor is guilty as sin, maybe not for full on rape, but it's clear he's a real wrong 'un.
The fact there was an out of court settlement says just that.
This is the conservative modus operandi. Divide and conquer. And it’s working.
Indeed, the Met and the Royals are the cause of all our ills and are stopping Boris and pals leading us to those sunlit uplands.
Yeah, right
Sneaky edit to say I agree with your sneaky edit too.
😀
Whereas patronising smartarses are something I think we'd be better off without, MoreCash.
You can't sue someone for being a 'patronising smartarse'.
Well, you could try but I doubt they would settle out of court 😀
Firstly, yet again, this was a civil case and you don’t go to prison in a civil case.
Yes we know its a civil case. But the point he was making was that were it some bloke who lived in a Council House and swept up litter for a living it wouldn't even be getting to the civil action stage, it would have went criminal from the off.
Now, say it was criminal and the FBI or whomever put out that P/Andrew was to be one of those accused. Do you honestly believe he would have been extradited tot he US to stand trial.
To my mind it should have went criminal the moment he demanded a trail by jury. Then, he could be sued for his actions in civil court if found guilty.
Of course in such a scenario, would the British government allowed a prince of the realm to go to an American prison, probably for decades ?.
No. So no chance of him ever agreeing to a criminal trial, and no way our government agreeing to a criminal trial with him being extradited there.
Only option is a civil case where the penalties dont include 20 years as a bum boy to some psychopathic sex offender.
it would have went criminal from the off.
Jeez, does it really need to be spelled out? Proving rape is notoriously difficult, especialy if the (young, dumb and vulnerable) victim took benefit/high living lifestyle, you could call it high class prostitution.
It was never going to be a criminal case as it would be impossible to prove beyond doubt.
Yet the royals coughed up what, 10 or 12 million quid, rather than go to court?? c'mon now.
It was never going to be a criminal case as it would be impossible to prove beyond doubt.
Except Mrs Maxwell got found guilty for her role. And had Epstein made it to that court, chances are he'd have also been found guilty.
No. Prince Andrew was never going to be tried in a criminal court, for the reasons ive given above.
It was never going to be a criminal case as......
the US statute of limitations for state prosecutions is pretty messed up.
You'd hope this would be one of the big positives from this case - that every state in the US has long hard look at their statute of limitations and sorts them out (apart from some of the southern states that are partial to a child bride and marrying their cousins where they might just think it a tad risky!)
Except Mrs Maxwell got found guilty for her role. And had Epstein made it to that court, chances are he’d have also been found guilty.
Oh yes, I'm not arguing that, but that's also an entirely different point.
The Point is what Andrew windsor did or didn't do. It's safe to assume he had a fair idea of what was going on, but of course that's just pure conjecture on my part.
Not my intention, I don't intend to cause offence, and if I did I apologise. It's a very emotive subject.
For the record, I think Andrew windsor should be in jail.
No worries, mattyfez. Probably an overreaction on my part so sorry for that.
I know this is STW and not the comments section on MSN but I've seen so many references to her being a "madam" who has "profited from her behaviour". That sort of thing.
I also had to remind my father who was telling me that the parties involved should have more respect for queen that his granddaughter is 17 and he might think differently if she got trafficked to another country and was made to have sex with a man twice her age.
To his credit, he managed not to say that his granddaughter is not 'that type of girl' but I'd bet good money he was thinking it.
Yet the royals coughed up what, 10 or 12 million quid, rather than go to court?? c’mon now.
This is a drop in the ocean compared to the risk of losing the whole of the monarchy to scandal.
Would they really take the risk when it can be made to go away for what is to them, a pittance? Even a gambling man would take a sure thing rather than risk it all for the same result…
Guilty or innocent, VG had them in a corner from which they were more than happy to pay to escape.
No worries, no offence taken 🙂
There have been a few ethicaly/morally dodgy posts on this thread. For me the most offensive things are saying she's cashing in.
VG had them in a corner
Not sure she really did. Hence why her lawyers have said settle and don’t go to court. (I think they were worried if she did go to court they might not get paid). Andrew would of found plenty witnesses to say he was somewhere else. I believe even the original photo of them together has been lost by VG so Andy’s lawyers would say it’s impossible for them to test as authentic. There are maybe flight records to say they were in the same place at the same time and other evidence but maybe not enough for them to be confident, we will now never know.
Not sure she really did. Hence why her lawyers have said settle and don’t go to court. (I think they were worried if she did go to court they might not get paid). Andrew would of found plenty witnesses to say he was somewhere else. I believe even the original photo of them together has been lost by VG so Andy’s lawyers would say it’s impossible for them to test as authentic. There are maybe flight records to say they were in the same place at the same time and other evidence but maybe not enough for them to be confident, we will now never know.
Oh, for gods sake, that's why it would never stand up as a criminal trial.
The civil case is a mater of brinkmanship. Randy Andy blinked first, presumably he's hired better lawyers this time, and they emphaticaly told him too settle out of court.
Mum, can I borrow 12 milion quid?
There can be no criminal trial because it was too long ago, nothing to do with the level of evidence.
Which begs the question as to why she waited until after the statute of limitations had passed before embarking on her legal challenge
I’m not sure that really matters. Had there been a criminal conviction it wouldn’t stop a subsequent civil action. Nor would a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial - see the civil actions against OJ Simpson (US courts) and that footballer Goodwillie (Scottish court) for examples of successful civil actions following NG verdicts in criminal trials.
Which begs the question as to why she waited until after the statute of limitations had passed before embarking on her legal challenge
Because when someone is abused by people with power, they are often slow to confront them.
Hardly a shocker I know but...
Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis
I wonder how it is proved one way or the other if you did or didn't have sex with somebody decades ago? Short of being documented as 'definitely balls-deep' by a medley of reliable witnesses, I'm not sure it's even possible.
I’d imagine there’s an explanation of why it’s a civil case on every page of this thread. 😂
Doh, of course. Ignore me, it's been a long day.
I wonder how it is proved one way or the other if you did or didn’t have sex with somebody decades ago? Short of being documented as ‘definitely balls-deep’ by a medley of reliable witnesses, I’m not sure it’s even possible.
It’s basically down to witness evidence and credibility, and since rape is rarely witnessed by a third party (not an innocent one anyway), it’s very hard to prove. You need a victim whose evidence stands up to the scrutiny a defence will subject it to, whether that’s on grounds of untruthfulness, forgetfulness, uncertainty etc., and a suspect whose account can be shown to be dubious, perhaps through demonstrating he’s lying or his grounds for believing their was consent are implausible. If you can do all that, you might persuade a jury beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim is telling the truth and the suspect isn’t.
Plus also if there are multiple accounts from different girls, that goes a way to securing a conviction, as we aren't relying on the word of one against the other.
Very much so.
@mattyfez, yes I'd read those comments accusing VG of being a money grabber, got wound up, and then obviously took your post the wrong way. Probably not helped by the 8% (!) IPA I'd just drunk 🙂
As for the Maitlis article, spot on again. I never bother with Newsnight unless she's presenting. The Beeb's best journalist for me at least.
Even without this scandal Andrew (always known as randy Andy when younger) is an arrogant, thoughtless, impatient, shameless, useless, slightly thick man and I'm being polite.
My nephew was commissioned to take a cover photo of Andrew for the Sunday Times magazine about 3 years ago. He was given a slot of 25 minutes to set up and get 'the shot' (this was at Buckingham palace). Andrew walks in without a 'how do you do' or 'hello', bellows to my nephew that he had 10 minutes. My nephew in his working life has come across many 'well known' people and I think he said Andrew was the worst.
As for the Maitlis article, spot on again. I never bother with Newsnight unless she’s presenting. The Beeb’s best journalist for me at least.
As usual, Americast is a good listen on this. The superb NY attorney they had on pretty much said that Andrew was losing this case because of his Matlis interview.
Yeah, as stated a few times, his own hubris and ego brought him down, he was told not to do the interview, he then went and did it, and it was so bad it became an actual comedy show.
With what he had said, and how he acted, in a civil case all they had to do was show bare minimum evidence against his statements in that interview to cast doubt.
It's quite funny to think that he's been allowed to be this self entitled and egotistical individual his whole life, and now his family are all wondering how it came crashing down so fast.
Which begs the question as to why she waited until after the statute of limitations had passed before embarking on her legal challenge
Here's a bit of homework for your soul. Try to put yourself in the position of Virginia (or indeed any of the many many trafficked women who've been victims of Epstein and Maxwell) and think about the question you've asked. Could it be that there's for instance a cognitive dissonance? That they've been persuaded and told repeatedly by people they think are their friends that they want this? that they aren't being exploited? that they're special? and so on and on and on...And that when you do finally realise what actually happened to you and you confront your abuser; you're forced to sign documents and agreements by powerful and expensive lawyers that you think will mean you'll go straight to prison if you utter a word about it to anyone ever again...
These are damaged, abused and vulnerable people.
What's that Robin Williams quote?: "You have no idea of the personal battles people are fighting when you meet them; be kind"
Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had 12 million quid,
He gave it to somebody he didn't know,
For something he never did............
My nephew in his working life has come across many ‘well known’ people and I think he said Andrew was the worst.
obviously never met the leeds squad under david 0leary then!
Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had 12 million quid,
He gave it to somebody he didn’t know,
For something he never did…………
That deserved more attention. Good work!
That deserved more attention. Good work!
It obviously didn't get much attention the first time it was posted as it was posted again. Even that second post didn't get enough attention to prevent it being posted a third time. 🙂