Listening to Today this morning:
1. That Russian ice skater 'accidently' took her grandfather's heart medication and of course it's a coincidence that it would contain a performance enhancing drug.
2. Novak Djokovic says he'll miss grand slam competitions rather than take the vaccine. It's just a coincidence that England are relaxing rules for visiting foreigners and other countries wil, no doubt, eventually follow. He also stated he suffers from asthma. Surprising how many athletes can legally take asthma medication to open their airways.
3. Virginia Roberts says she's lost the original of that photo. What a coincidence.
|
1. Seems the no doping thing is something the russians aren't too fussed about. Mind you they seem to get treated with kid gloves so no surprise they keep doing it.
3. Don't follow, it was 20 years ago. Why would she need the original? I assume it's the picture of maxwell, Prince Andrew and her in a flat somewhere?
|
|
3. There was a claim it was photoshopped. Other than the pic I'm not sure there was much solid evidence.
|
>> 3. There was a claim it was photoshopped. Other than the pic I'm not sure
>> there was much solid evidence.
I was looking forward to popcorn and juicy evidence including a description of the royal appendage but according to the BBC Giuffre has settled for a donation to charity.
|
"... Giuffre has settled..."
Or did the Prince settle? I never know which way it's supposed to be. He was the accused, wasn't he?
Anyway, while I understand the relief the Royal Family is probably feeling, given that, had the case proceeded, Andrew would probably have been humiliated in court, there is a bit of me that hoped the case would take place and that Giuffre or whatever her name is would have lost, as I think she is a gold-digger and little else.
However, I don't wish to imply that the Prince comes out of it with any credit whatsoever. The best you can say about him is that he's a fool.
|
Giuffre was the Plaintiff/Claimant and has settled for what's been offered.
I don't buy the gold digger narrative; she strikes me a somebody damaged by her early life and choices forced on her as a young woman.
|
|
Since I understand the award is to be donated to charity it’s difficult to describe her as a gold digger
|
> Since I understand the award is to be donated to charity it’s difficult to describe
> her as a gold digger
US media have reported that the filing states that the settlement includes a donation to Giuffre's charity not that it consists solely of a donation.
|
I accept that Roberts/Giuffre is a damaged individual, though it appears much of that damage was inflicted during childhood and early adolescence. How far the Prince contributed to her further trauma or took advantage of her vulnerability we don't know, but he's probably guilty by association with Epstein, if for no other reason.
She brought a case against Epstein in 2009, which was settled in her favour for $500,000. She sued Ghislaine Maxwell in 2015, which was settled in her favour for a figure reportedly in millions of dollars. She sued Alan Dershowitz in 2019; she was allegedly a victim of his. Dershowitz is a lawyer and has used every trick in the book to stymie her case. As I understand it, that case is ongoing.
Then she sued the Prince in 2021.
Maybe she's not a gold-digger through and though and maybe she deserves most of the money she gets, but she has done very well out of her litigation. Were there other, less wealthy individuals who took advantage of her whom she has not sued?
|
>> >>
>> I was looking forward to popcorn and juicy evidence including a description of the royal
>> appendage
Whatever floats your boat.
|
Joshua Rozenberg's view on the settlement:
rozenberg.substack.com/p/who-won?
|
|
Daily Star headline: "Royal wrong 'un pays out to sex victim he's never met. As you do"
|
I am afraid that for me, all this Andrew business does is remind me of all the questions I have about the Monarchy. I think their days must be numbered.
viz. The Queen will contribute to the payment, money from her own 'private' Duchy of Lancaster estate funds. Oh really? Who had the right to give chunks of my country - England - to anybody?
|
I didn't realise you owned it!! :-)
The few articles I've read on the subject seemed to not know where the money would come from, not how much it was.
Some weeks back SWMBO showed me an article in the Mail which claimed that the lad was having his Swiss ski chalet valued (co-owned with Fergie IIRC) in anticipation of getting a big bill. That was worth in excess of £5m IIRC. I don't read the Mail, so not up to date with it.
|
The settlement is reported to be 12 million in total, the chalet had a big mortgage on it, it won't cover the bill.
HM has supposedly settled the sum so it does not overshadow the upcoming royal celebrations
|
The Grand Old Duke of York
He had ten million quid
He gave it all to an American girl
For a thing he never did.
|
>> The Grand Old Duke of York
>> He had ten million quid
>> He gave it all to an American girl
>> For a thing he never did.
>>
Absolutely brilliant :-) :-)
|
He bailed out just before he had to give a sworn statement under oath (and thus risk perjury which is a serious criminal offence).
Timed to perfection if he was guilty and wanting to try to show the pretence of putting up a "robust defence".
If he had paid her off at the start it would look even more suspect.
If he had a cast iron alibi of never having met Guiffre he wouldn't have had to defend anything in the end (and considering he has a perpetual entourage it would surely have been possible to prove the meeting never happened), so I suspect his denials of even having met the plaintiff could be proven to be false by her legal team.
"Better to be thought a nonce, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"
Guilty McGuiltface.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 16 Feb 22 at 22:34
|
I am absolutely sure that there are cases where the rich and famous decide to settle in advance even though they are not guilty. Being dragged through the courts is no fun for anyone and can be very costly emotionally and financially, as well as career impacting etc.
I also feel that in this particular case a guilty verdict would be more or less a given, whatever the evidence. As per many of the posts in this thread, who have preconceived views. Also Jeffrey Epstein sounded a nasty piece of work so guilty by association too.
FWIW I think he was guilty as charged too but I also believe she had a good idea of what she was doing at the time (so her friend said anyway) and she seems to have done alright out of it - which I know doesn't absolve him but it does provide a possible motive if she were that way inclined.
|
The settled case was a civil action so the concepts of guilt/innocence are not applicable; rather it's liability and recompense. Agree though that him 'getting off' if it went in front of a jury was pretty remote. His lawyers must have told him he'd not a snowball's and the figures rumoured suggest she had a slam dunk case. Only went to the cusp of his being deposed because of his own arrogance.
As to her reactions at the time v now I'd cut her a very great deal of slack.
As a teenager from a disturbed background finding herself hobnobbing with Royalty, in and out of London's nightspots and living the high life on Private Jets must have seemed like a dream. If she was getting into various beds as a 'good time girl' was the price then it was OK.
Later, married and more mature and with a significant change in culture she saw the extent to which Maxwell, Epstein and all the rest had exploited her then I don't see any contradiction.
The allegation (or inference) of gold digging is, IMHO, well wide of the mark.
|
>> The allegation (or inference) of gold digging is, IMHO, well wide of the mark.
Not in my mind it's not. She already has enough money from previous cases (some not publicised) and there are more to come.. Money does not cure PTSD. The split of the money Charity / Persona 20/80 shows it's just a smokescreen.
She is either a money grabbing hobag or still being manipulated by someone behind the scenes.*
Take your pick
*not that I have the slightest sympathy for Mr Windsor, he is a despicable slimeball of the highest order
You may have noticed it very black and white in my world, I don't deal in nuances.
|
>> Not in my mind it's not. She already has enough money from previous cases (some
>> not publicised) and there are more to come.. Money does not cure PTSD. The split
>> of the money Charity / Persona 20/80 shows it's just a smokescreen.
Well that's where your mind and mine differ.
Money doesn't cure lost limbs or traumatic brain injury either but it sure as hell makes living with the consequences better
Also, I thrive on nuance!!
|
Gold-digging, seeking justice/vengeance, outing a scumbag, or whatever motive(s) are behind the case are not mutually exclusive with the DOY being a nonce.
|
I tend towards the gold digger view.
At 17 years old she may have been overwhelmed by the high life. She may have been given money - small by Epstein standards but probably generous by hers.
That she had a troubled upbringing is irrelevant. That may explain, but is not a reason to excuse her subsequent actions. She did not need to wait over a decade before taking action. The sums she extracted in the process are out of all proportion to the offence allegedly committed.
Andrew almost certainly justifies his soubriquet "randy Andy". I do not believe his protestations of innocence despite no proof of guilt being in the public domain.
A nice cartoon is doing the rounds showing people queueing outside Buckingham Palace with the caption - "People have heard that Andrew is giving away millions to people he has never met"
|
Go on then Terry, provide the evidence to support that "Andrew almost certainly justifies his soubriquet "randy Andy". ", as you have challenged an actual link I've posted.
Btw - nonce a slang term for paedophile, which given she was 17 or so at the time of the alleged events is probably inaccurate. Doesn't make it right but paedophilia is in a completely different league IMO.
|
Paedophile = someone with a sexual interest in children.
In the UK a child is legally defined as someone who is under 18yrs of age.
|
>> Paedophile = someone with a sexual interest in children.
>>
>> In the UK a child is legally defined as someone who is under 18yrs of
>> age.
The age of consent is 16. 16-18 exploitation factors are illegal.
|
Just commenting on Smokie's remark about whether the Duke of Nonce qualifies for the name.
17 is a child who can consent to sex.
|
But consensual sex with a 17 yo isn't paedophilia is it? ( - putting aside whether this was or wasn't consensual). Not in the legal sense anyway, in this country.
Nothing magically changes when the clock strikes 12 on the eve of your 18th birthday either, so it's all a bit arbitrary anyway. But I do get that there has to be a line somewhere.
|
>>
>>
>> In the UK a child is legally defined as someone who is under 18yrs of
>> age.
>>
>>
Which is actually rubbish. I went to work at fifteen and I was treated as a young adult, not a child and myself and my peers would have been mortified if we had been.
As for girls, while not doubting that 16 -17 year olds can be coerced into a sexual relationship with an older man, there are plenty who know exactly what they are doing and can be quite manipulative and cunning about it.
Back in the day I knew girls who were in relationships with their teachers or other men in their thirties and were often the instigators of the affair and were quite happy with the situation.
As for Andrewgate, who knows the real situation?
|
As for Andrewgate, who knows the real situation?
The balance of probabilities ia that he had sex with a 17yr old when he was 41 on more than one occasion.
The 17 yr old had been procured/groomed by a convicted child sex offender whose then girlfriend has been found guilty of aiding amd abetting him.
I doubt Duke Nonceford knew about that part of the proceedings as surely even he isn't that thick/evil...
|
>> As for Andrewgate, who knows the real situation?
>>
>> The balance of probabilities ia that he had sex with a 17yr old when he
>> was 41 on more than one occasion.
>>
>>
>>
Illegal if it was in the US, not if it happened here.
|
>>Illegal if it was in the US, not if it happened here.
Also alleged to have happened in Epstein's NY apartment, and his private island in the US Virgin Islands.
|
>>
>>
>> Also alleged to have happened in Epstein's NY apartment, and his private island in the
>> US Virgin Islands.
>>
>>
>>
Why hasn't she made a formal complaint to the police?
|
>>Why hasn't she made a formal complaint to the police?
Statute of limitations for statutory rape in New York is 10-20 years depending upon the level of the offence.
|
>>
>>
>> Statute of limitations for statutory rape in New York is 10-20 years depending upon the
>> level of the offence.
>>
>>
>
The offences were alleged to have taken place in 2001, she made the allegations well before that.
I'm not defending Andrew who deserves everything he gets, but this whole business is not just black and white.
|
>>I'm not defending Andrew who deserves everything he gets, but this whole business is not just black and white.
It's a dirty, sordid, sorry affair and I am sure there are plenty of rich/powerful people in a bit of a sweat right now.
I suspect the architects of it all were not the teenagers involved though.
|
And why oh why was a royal prince doing a young girl?
I’m sure he doesn’t go to these places at the time without protection officers?
He should have known better.
|
>>Illegal if it was in the US, not if it happened here.
Doesn't the age of consent in the USA vary from 16 to 18, depending on the state?
|
"In the UK a child is legally defined as someone who is under 18yrs of age."
And it always struck me as bizarre when reporting them for car or motorcycle offences that we had to go through the routine of informing and obtaining details of parents/Guardians.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 17 Feb 22 at 22:29
|
>> A nice cartoon is doing the rounds
Just seen the "mum'll fix it" one, with Andrew dressed like Jimmy Saville giving a thumbs up, wearing a "Mum fixed it for me" medallion.
|
I don't think the term gold digger is appropriate here with its connotation of pretending love and affection when money is the attraction. It has too much of "blame the victim" about it.
She might well have been gold digging at 17, or thought she was, but more recently she is seeking redress/compensation/revenge/justice, I don't know which.
Nothing much can be read into the out of court settlement. I think it happens in 99.5% of high profile, high value actions of this kind because liable or not, reputations are trashed and costs are astronomical if it goes to court.
|
Reputations are trashed anyway - we won't see Andy back in the public spotlight any time soon.
A 41 year old having sexual intimacy with a 17 year old is unremarkable. Only if the older of the two individuals is exploiting a position of authority (eg: teacher, police officer etc) would any sanction follow.
The reported £12m settlement is completely disproportionate to the wrong that may have been done. It arises only because of the deep pockets of the (family of the) defendant, and his high pubic profile. It achieves nothing save to enrich the claimant and her lawyers.
|
>>It achieves nothing save to enrich the claimant and her lawyers.
Might encourage a few early settlements of course
|
>>
>>
>> The reported £12m settlement is completely disproportionate to the wrong that may have been done.
>> It arises only because of the deep pockets of the (family of the) defendant, and
>> his high pubic profile. It achieves nothing save to enrich the claimant and her lawyers.
>>
I'll agree with that. Reasonable compensation is one thing, a lottery win is something else.
|
There is absolutely no evidence of a settlement of $12 million dollars. An American lawyer I heard said an award of one to two million was most likely. Of course we will never know.
K
|
It is widely reported as 12 million in UK and US press. 10 to her, 2 to her charity. He wouldn't have had to sell his chalet AND get a hand out from mummy for 2 mil.
And costs of course.
|
OH! Cynical me - sooty123
