Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.

hurfdurf said:

The statue shaggers who think you learn history from statues that celebrate people are going to be care mad about this.
Click to expand...

I'd only be annoyed if a band of people arrived, tied a rope around it, pulled it down and threw it in the river... That would be criminal damage.

And, yes, I know you'll retort with the "well the jury didn't think so" argument so we will have to disagree on the semantics of it and leave it at that.

It can be done properly and officially... It happens quite often - Nelson Mandela Place in Glasgow being one of the more famous ones... You know, named after a terrorist :p
 
Hades said:
That's hard to say. I think the current queen has been very good at the role as she has stayed out of politics. But we have no idea how Charlie or Willy would act. I think Willly and Katie seem to be going in the right direction and are the only two members of that family that are. Everyone else is a cluster ****.
Click to expand...

She's had plenty of run-ins with bad press during her time as Queen. Unfortunately you can't please everyone in public no matter how neutral/unbiased you try to be.

I do think Will/Kate would bring a real breath of fresh air to the monarchy. They've always been dubbed the modern Royals. The fact that Will had married outside any of the royal circles. I don't think Charles will bring about any change in perceptions to the monarchy.
 

Ah yes, the big brained boot lickers itt will have to explain to me how 3D chess playing expert move this one is, an innocent man agreeing to not deny he raped someone is actually a good thing for Andrew.

It’s becoming obvious why she went the settlement route now, he’s caved on everything, the only thing he’s gotten is her silence pre his mummys big party.
 
hurfdurf said:

Ah yes, the big brained boot lickers itt will have to explain to me how 3D chess playing expert move this one is, an innocent man agreeing to not deny he raped someone is actually a good thing for Andrew.

It’s becoming obvious why she went the settlement route now, he’s caved on everything, the only thing he’s gotten is her silence pre his mummys big party.
Click to expand...
That definitely could be an explanation on what has happened.

The other possibility is that his lawyers found some evidence that severely undermined her case.

However, we will never truly know and all we have is speculation.
 
Alice In Wonderland said:
That definitely could be an explanation on what has happened.

The other possibility is that his lawyers found some evidence that severely undermined her case.

However, we will never truly know and all we have is speculation.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the old, we have found evidence that undermines your case, so therefore we will pay you £12mil and also agree that we wont deny I did it, brilliant.
 
Alice In Wonderland said:
That definitely could be an explanation on what has happened.

The other possibility is that his lawyers found some evidence that severely undermined her case.

However, we will never truly know and all we have is speculation.
Click to expand...

2nd Sentence makes no sense. If they had enough to undermine her case then just let it run through the courts. The whole paid 12 million to save the platinum jubilee line smells like dung. Either he realised that he would get crucified in the deposition, which is likely based on his performance in the Maitliss interview, or he knows that he did in fact bone her on a few occasions and therefore he will get found out as being a liar.

no way does someone who has persistently claimed to be innocent suddenly cough up 12 million and agree to never say he didn't rape someone. Just reading that last line alone is pure comedy gold.
 
hurfdurf said:

Ah yes, the big brained boot lickers itt will have to explain to me how 3D chess playing expert move this one is, an innocent man agreeing to not deny he raped someone is actually a good thing for Andrew.

It’s becoming obvious why she went the settlement route now, he’s caved on everything, the only thing he’s gotten is her silence pre his mummys big party.
Click to expand...
There could be any number of legitimate reasons reasons why he would have settled when he was innocent, we simply don't know. If I were to speculate, he could have been under pressure from the royal family to settle and get it over with, or perhaps the stress of it was affecting his health. I don't see how he has caved on everything, agreeing not to deny or comment on something isn't admitting guilt. Also, the problem with calling consensual sex with a 17 year old prostitute "rape" is that it diminishes the meaning of the word.
 
Last edited:
DeliciousStorage said:
There could be any number of legitimate reasons reasons why he would have settled when he was innocent, we simply don't know. If I were to speculate, he could have been under pressure from the royal family to settle and get it over with, or perhaps the stress of it was affecting his health. I don't see how he has caved on everything, agreeing not to deny or comment on something isn't admitting guilt. Also, the problem with calling consensual sex with a 17 year old prostitute "rape" is that diminishes the meaning of the word.
Click to expand...
The question is how "consensual" was it, and were any laws broken other than age of consent.

You can be 30+ and your "consent" to sex can be considered non valid due to circumstances.

The whole way Andrew has handled this certainly doesn't make him seem innocent, if nothing else it's shown him to be a repeated liar about the circumstances, so if it was just "consensual sex" he's really done a great job of appearing not only sleazy in the "man has sex with girl the same age as daughter in school" manner, but also dodgy as anything when he claims he didn't know who the girl was, but didn't really know the guy he had over his house repeatedly for multi day stays.
 
still waiting to see if the ghislaine re-trial request gets up-held - that's an illustration of what can go wrong with american justice,
I repeat - Ronaldo settled too.

biggest payment on epsteins criminal trial victims $5M, average $1M, so the £12M is bunkum
 
wildman said:
[..] no way does someone who has persistently claimed to be innocent suddenly cough up 12 million and agree to never say he didn't rape someone. Just reading that last line alone is pure comedy gold.
Click to expand...

It's not that uncommon for a person who is innocent to settle a civil case or even to accept a plea bargain in a criminal case. All that's required is that they don't trust a trial. Given that Prince Andrew is routinely being pre-judged guilty of crimes he hasn't even been accused of (as you have just done, for example), he would be completely justified in not trusting a trial.

How, for example, could he prove that he didn't know that a person he had sex with would in later years regret working as a prostitute? He might well not even have known she was working as a prostitute - there's no evidence that he did.

Guilt or innocence is not necessarily relevant to the outcome of a criminal case, let alone a civil case, let alone an out of court settlement. Especially not an out of court settlement, which is mainly about the media and/or legal costs and doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with guilt or innocence.
 
hurfdurf said:

Ah yes, the big brained boot lickers itt will have to explain to me how 3D chess playing expert move this one is, an innocent man agreeing to not deny he raped someone is actually a good thing for Andrew.

It’s becoming obvious why she went the settlement route now, he’s caved on everything, the only thing he’s gotten is her silence pre his mummys big party.
Click to expand...
So I went to the the source (the telegraph) and it seems like there is no specific clause that states this but a catchall clause that states details of the case cannot be discussed

From the telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ew-agrees-never-repeat-denial-raped-virginia/
A gagging clause means neither side can discuss the case or the financial deal, which was signed off at the weekend.

It prevents the Duke from even repeating his claim that he had no recollection of meeting Ms Giuffre.
Click to expand...

So yeah, standard tabloid headline.

The best bit from the article
Gloria Allred, a US lawyer who represented several of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, said the settlement meant the public “will just have to decide who they believe”.
Click to expand...
 
dowie said:
Your conclusion is flawed. Criminal trials in the UK require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases are on the balance of probabilities, it's a lower standard but it doesn't imply you're at a huge disadvantage if sued. Similar standards in the US for civil cases AFAIK.

Alleged criminals can be found not guilty even if it is more likely than not that they did commit the crime, so long as there is some reasonable doubt there then... That doesn't wash in a civil case - see for example OJ Simpson being found not guilty of murder in the criminal trial but then being successfully sued in the civil case.
Click to expand...
I could be missing something here but surely a balance of probablities is a vague statement that is difficult to "fight" against, because anything is probable.
 
So has the Queen paid some of private citizen Andrew’s legal fees?

Because if she has then she’s paid to have a(n alleged) sex offender escape justice.

Imagine how it would’ve looked if one of the Rotherham grooming gangs parents tried to pay the victims off. There’d quite rightly be uproar.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I could be missing something here but surely a balance of probablities is a vague statement that is difficult to "fight" against, because anything is probable.
Click to expand...

Eh? How is "anything probable"?

I had my first round of golf yesterday, I scored a hole in one on all 18 holes - is that "probable"?
 
dowie said:
Eh? How is "anything probable"?

I had my first round of golf yesterday, I scored a hole in one on all 18 holes - is that "probable"?
Click to expand...
I should have used the word possible not probable. Regarding your example unless there is a hole that is designed so that you have to take two shots, it is technically possible though highly improbable.

but bringing is back to this case where it is he said, she said. If there is proof that both people were at the same location at the time of incident, in a civil case I don't see how anyone can mount an effective defense. simple because she is probably telling the truth or he is probably telling the truth. If it is a balance of probabilities how does one determine whose story is more probable than the others. Unless the aim of the game is character assasination to prove your story is true.
I don't know much about civil cases, maybe more evidence is needed in a civil trial that simply being at the same location at the same time.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
The best bit from the article
Gloria Allred, a US lawyer who represented several of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, said the settlement meant the public “will just have to decide who they believe”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

that's good, maybe Telegraph took it of context(tabloids will tabloid), but she is usually outspoken/indignant on interviews I've heard,
and, if she thinks it is really down to onlooker judgement now, then, it's all over, no further public accusations.
 
I bet its been said in this thread a lot before, but I'm not trawling through OCUK style rants to find it.

What's he actually meant to be guilty of based on the thin evidence I've seen in the tabloids.
She was of legal age in the UK, she was in the UK when the picture was taken, although technically illegally in a nightclub when they met, but surely that justifies that he would have though she was 18 not 17.

None the less aside from her word, which is an embarrassment to the Monarchy, what actual evidence is there that he did anything other than have a picture taken when her at a nightclub. Even if he did "have relations", she was legal and how can anyone prove it wasn't consensual?

Obviously the fact that there is a mountain of evidence against Epstein, does that really mean that the two things instantly become related as trafficking. Seems a bit thin on the ground in a court case.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I should have used the word possible not probable. Regarding your example unless there is a hole that is designed so that you have to take two shots, it is technically possible though highly improbable.
Click to expand...

Well that's irrelevant then, a civil case isn't decided based on something being possible but rather it being the case on the balance of probabilities...

I don't know much about civil cases, maybe more evidence is needed in a civil trial that simply being at the same location at the same time.
Click to expand...

Well generally, yes.
 
wordy said:
Imagine how it would’ve looked if one of the Rotherham grooming gangs parents tried to pay the victims off. There’d quite rightly be uproar.
Click to expand...

Slightly different as they were facing a criminal trial (which would be witness tampering) whereas PA was facing a civil case.

ChroniC said:
I bet its been said in this thread a lot before, but I'm not trawling through OCUK style rants to find it.

What's he actually meant to be guilty of based on the thin evidence I've seen in the tabloids.
She was of legal age in the UK, she was in the UK when the picture was taken, although technically illegally in a nightclub when they met, but surely that justifies that he would have though she was 18 not 17.

None the less aside from her word, which is an embarrassment to the Monarchy, what actual evidence is there that he did anything other than have a picture taken when her at a nightclub. Even if he did "have relations", she was legal and how can anyone prove it wasn't consensual?

Obviously the fact that there is a mountain of evidence against Epstein, does that really mean that the two things instantly become related as trafficking. Seems a bit thin on the ground in a court case.
Click to expand...

/Gets popcorn ready for an incoming Hurfdurf tirade including obligatory inflammatory language :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom