# The prince and the sex offender



## Farneyman (Aug 23, 2019)

Not the first time a royal had close links with a known sex offender.  

Be interesting to see how it all pans out over the coming months/years...if anything at all does.

Or maybe it all fake news...

Thoughts?


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 23, 2019)

A guy I worked with, good golfer too. We played a good number of times. I ate at his house, and met his wife and family. A year or so after he left the company there was a piece on the Beeb's news page. He was part of a paedophile ring and had been sentenced to xx years.

Am I guilty by association? Hell no! I didn't even have a clue that he was into that sort of stuff.

Prince Andrew? I'll make my judgement when the authorities have done a full investigation and the results published. Until then, not bothered in the slightest.


----------



## Farneyman (Aug 24, 2019)

But the prince was still visiting his old friend after he was jailed for 18 months and released for soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution?

I would have thought he would /should have cut all ties to distance himself from it all.


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 24, 2019)

When i worked at the pit one if the lads was desperate for redundancy. He wanted a big pay off. Nowt unusual about that. He kept banging on the gaffers door. He was told not for a couple of months then dozens would be going.  He never turned up for work one day. Week went by, month. Word then came out he was part of a peado ring that had been caught and all sent down. He never got redundancy. He was sacked and lost his pension. The lads/ his pals at work would kill him if they ever caught up with him. He was taking photos of pals kids in Jacuzzis etc. Everyone thought it was normal as he sent some photos to his pals. As Hobbit says. Do we really know people. That said i think the prince story has not even started.


----------



## rudebhoy (Aug 24, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			A guy I worked with, good golfer too. We played a good number of times. I ate at his house, and met his wife and family. A year or so after he left the company there was a piece on the Beeb's news page. He was part of a paedophile ring and had been sentenced to xx years.

Am I guilty by association? Hell no! I didn't even have a clue that he was into that sort of stuff.

Prince Andrew? I'll make my judgement when the authorities have done a full investigation and the results published. Until then, not bothered in the slightest.
		
Click to expand...

Bit different in this case, Andrew has been socialising with Epstein AFTER he came out of jail for child prostitution. He must have known about that but chose to ignore it.



Farneyman said:



			But the prince was still visiting his old friend after he was jailed for 18 months and released for soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution?

I would have thought he would /should have cut all ties to distance himself from it all.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. He knew what Epstein had been up to and still socialised with him.

Interesting that the press is now turning on PA. Front page of the Sun today saying he has slept with over a 1000 women. Also read that has been accused in a Barbados court of molesting a 14yo. The guy is a sleazeball.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 24, 2019)

Farneyman said:



			But the prince was still visiting his old friend after he was jailed for 18 months and released for soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution?

I would have thought he would /should have cut all ties to distance himself from it all.
		
Click to expand...

You asked for my thoughts. You got them. When there's more than salacious speculation I'll decide then. And if Andrew is guilty of a crime I'll bang the drum with you. Andrew isn't exactly squeaky clean in many things but what law has he broken? Until then its almost lynch mob mentality. 

He's put out a statement today. Until there's more beyond that that proves otherwise...


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Aug 24, 2019)

Mrs Shark used to work as a nanny for Ghislane Maxwell when her kids were really young.  I told her to make up a story about her and phone the press.
R


----------



## Fish (Aug 25, 2019)

Maybe he didnâ€™t see anything untoward, itâ€™s pretty difficult looking out of those soft leather eye slit masks ðŸ˜œ


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 25, 2019)

Fish said:



			Maybe he didnâ€™t see anything untoward, itâ€™s pretty difficult looking out of those soft leather eye slit masks ðŸ˜œ
		
Click to expand...

The voice of experience ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 25, 2019)

no smoke without fire, too many things don't add up.

initial investigation over here looks like a bit of a cover up TBH


----------



## gmc40 (Aug 25, 2019)

Wasnâ€™t he pals with someone involved in another similar scandal a few years ago? Or was that Epstein as well?


----------



## Farneyman (Nov 11, 2019)

Just aired on the 10th Nov on Austrialian tv

From about 17:30 is interesting...Is she making it all up? Will he ever have testify do you think?

 This could run for a while and doesn't look like going away just yet.


----------



## Fish (Nov 11, 2019)

I wouldnâ€™t drive under any underpasses if I was him ðŸ˜³


----------



## Farneyman (Nov 12, 2019)

Fish said:



			I wouldnâ€™t drive under any underpasses if I was him ðŸ˜³
		
Click to expand...

Best check his breaks before driving lol


----------



## Farneyman (Nov 16, 2019)

Great interview on BBC this evening by the prince and at least it clears up any wrong doing on his part...


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 16, 2019)

Farneyman said:



			Great interview on BBC this evening by the prince and at least it clears up any wrong doing on his part...
		
Click to expand...

ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ yep just a big miss understanding


----------



## Leftie (Nov 16, 2019)

To paraphrase a bit as I can't recall the exact words......"I have this erm unusual medical condition where I don't sweat" then realising that his brow may have been glistening under the lights "erm well I didn't then ...."

Of course I believe him.  Every word.  After all, he is The Queen's son.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 16, 2019)

Think the Mrs Rooney & Mrs Vardey â€œscandalâ€ got more attention in the press than this. ðŸ¤”


----------



## Smiffy (Nov 17, 2019)

Many years ago, I was a member of a motorbike forum. We used to meet up for rideouts, Christmas do's that sort of thing.
The Missus and I became friendly with a couple who lived near Windsor. 
The husband worked on the Windsor Estate. He told me something about Andrew that I found difficult to believe at the time, but recent events seem to bear out what he was saying.


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 17, 2019)

I'm not sure Pizza Express in Woking came out of that interview very well.


----------



## spongebob59 (Nov 17, 2019)

Swango1980 said:



			I'm not sure Pizza Express in Woking came out of that interview very well.
		
Click to expand...



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195838875610030080


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 17, 2019)

Playing devils advocate here a lot. but discussing the Prince Andrew thing with my better half. For the moment, letâ€™s ignore Epstein, the interview and any procurement. And forget for the moment that he is a Royal.

In 2001 Andrew was not married, that ended in 1996. Therefore he was single.

The lady in question was 17, above the age of consent in the UK, where the alleged acts took place, but under the age of consent in the States where she is from. Which takes precedence legally? 

Trammps  nightclub had an over 18â€™s policy. 

So if you are a single bloke and you meet a woman in a club and things advance, has HE actually done anything wrong?

Now the questions start, did he know her age? Does it matter (see above)
Was she procured, did he know?
Why has this blown up nearly 20 years later? 

I have no liking for Andrew, and the interview was a massive huge and incredible misjudgment as was his continued relationship with Epstein. 
Big thumbs up for Emily Maitlis though 

But is he another example of a social media hurricane? Where everyone jumps on the bandwagon.

Now by doing this interview he has opened up a can of worms, lost the little credibility he had left, but was he forced to do it by the unrelenting media pressure? 

Needing to satisfy my honourable British notion of fair play.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 17, 2019)

didn't see the whole interview, correct he appears to have not broken the law in that this young lady was not underage in this country, but lets not forget he carried no his friendship with a convicted sex offender and pedo and was unrepentant on that.

just shows up the feeling of self entitlement of some of the upper classes have and how they are above any law or sense of right and wrong.


i'd heard stuff about him back in the day, looks like they was some truth in that.


----------



## Wolf (Nov 17, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Playing devils advocate here a lot. but discussing the Prince Andrew thing with my better half. For the moment, letâ€™s ignore Epstein, the interview and any procurement. And forget for the moment that he is a Royal.

In 2001 Andrew was not married, that ended in 1996. Therefore he was single.

The lady in question was 17, above the age of consent in the UK, where the alleged acts took place, but under the age of consent in the States where she is from. Which takes precedence legally?

Trammps  nightclub had an over 18â€™s policy.

So if you are a single bloke and you meet a woman in a club and things advance, has HE actually done anything wrong?

Now the questions start, did he know her age? Does it matter (see above)
Was she procured, did he know?
Why has this blown up nearly 20 years later?

I have no liking for Andrew, and the interview was a massive huge and incredible misjudgment as was his continued relationship with Epstein.
Big thumbs up for Emily Maitlis though

But is he another example of a social media hurricane? Where everyone jumps on the bandwagon.

Now by doing this interview he has opened up a can of worms, lost the little credibility he had left, but was he forced to do it by the unrelenting media pressure?

Needing to satisfy my honourable British notion of fair play.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like you had the exact same conversation as I had with my good lady.. 

Not in anyway defending or attacking what he has done, I'm actually very neutral in this whole debate. But if you, me or anyone was single in a late night drinking establishment where 18 is the legal minimum age to enter and they have staff working the doors checking this  policy is adhered to and we met a lady, had a few drinks and were invited back per se would anyone really say "hang on a minute love can I check your I.D first". I'm sorry but I'm not convinced that anyone would at all, because like you said Tramps has an over 18 policy so has he really done anything wrong. 

Whether people think morally he has or not imo is irrelevant, I think the real thing that matters in this case is has he done anything legally wrong. Based on UK laws no he hasn't committed any crime, which as you say then comes down to what is the age of consent in the US, which isn't strictly true as being 18! The US allows its individual states to govern the age of consent and they each in turn set it at either 16, 17, or 18. Now if the woman in question is from Florida where from what I've seen her father is from so my assumption is that is her home state then the age of consent there is currently 18!

I really don't know how this should play out based on that legal point alone and which takes precedence, my only experience of this is when I was based in Germany we were all given a talk on the pitfalls of age of consent as out there its 14 for going out drinking, clubbing and sexual activities but as British military personnel we were to govenerned on the British age of 16 minimum. 

The other fact here is now that because he defended the relationship with Epstein and awkwardness of the interview means regardless of what can or cannot be proven he'll be tainted of guilt by associations


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 17, 2019)

The whole â€œI was incapable of sweating at the timeâ€ defence wasnâ€™t genius ðŸ¤£


----------



## rulefan (Nov 17, 2019)

Smiffy said:



			Many years ago, I was a member of a motorbike forum. We used to meet up for rideouts, Christmas do's that sort of thing.
The Missus and I became friendly with a couple who lived near Windsor.
The husband worked on the Windsor Estate. He told me something about Andrew that I found difficult to believe at the time, but recent events seem to bear out what he was saying.
		
Click to expand...

Fake news?


----------



## Backache (Nov 17, 2019)

Farneyman said:



			Best check his breaks before driving lol
		
Click to expand...

I think it's more important to check the breaks before putting.


----------



## 3offTheTee (Nov 17, 2019)

Backache said:



			I think it's more important to check the breaks before putting.
		
Click to expand...

Probably has @Aimpoint!


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Nov 17, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Playing devils advocate here a lot. but discussing the Prince Andrew thing with my better half. For the moment, letâ€™s ignore Epstein, the interview and any procurement. And forget for the moment that he is a Royal.

In 2001 Andrew was not married, that ended in 1996. Therefore he was single.

The lady in question was 17, above the age of consent in the UK, where the alleged acts took place, but under the age of consent in the States where she is from. Which takes precedence legally?

Trammps  nightclub had an over 18â€™s policy.

So if you are a single bloke and you meet a woman in a club and things advance, has HE actually done anything wrong?

Now the questions start, did he know her age? Does it matter (see above)
Was she procured, did he know?
Why has this blown up nearly 20 years later?

I have no liking for Andrew, and the interview was a massive huge and incredible misjudgment as was his continued relationship with Epstein.
Big thumbs up for Emily Maitlis though

But is he another example of a social media hurricane? Where everyone jumps on the bandwagon.

Now by doing this interview he has opened up a can of worms, lost the little credibility he had left, but was he forced to do it by the unrelenting media pressure?

Needing to satisfy my honourable British notion of fair play.
		
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and have plenty of sympathy with those arguements, however I have grave concerns about any man of the that age (at the time of these events) that  entertains any sort of physical action with a girl so young in comparison and only just over legal age. It may not be illegal, but morally and ethically I find it wrong. I also doubt he didn't know how old she really was.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 17, 2019)

@Hobbit says it for me.


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 17, 2019)

Wolf said:



			Sounds like you had the exact same conversation as I had with my good lady..

Not in anyway defending or attacking what he has done, I'm actually very neutral in this whole debate. But if you, me or anyone was single in a late night drinking establishment where 18 is the legal minimum age to enter and they have staff working the doors checking this  policy is adhered to and we met a lady, had a few drinks and were invited back per se would anyone really say "hang on a minute love can I check your I.D first". I'm sorry but I'm not convinced that anyone would at all, because like you said Tramps has an over 18 policy so has he really done anything wrong.

Whether people think morally he has or not imo is irrelevant, I think the real thing that matters in this case is has he done anything legally wrong. Based on UK laws no he hasn't committed any crime, which as you say then comes down to what is the age of consent in the US, which isn't strictly true as being 18! The US allows its individual states to govern the age of consent and they each in turn set it at either 16, 17, or 18. Now if the woman in question is from Florida where from what I've seen her father is from so my assumption is that is her home state then the age of consent there is currently 18!

I really don't know how this should play out based on that legal point alone and which takes precedence, my only experience of this is when I was based in Germany we were all given a talk on the pitfalls of age of consent as out there its 14 for going out drinking, clubbing and sexual activities but as British military personnel we were to govenerned on the British age of 16 minimum.

The other fact here is now that because he defended the relationship with Epstein and awkwardness of the interview means regardless of what can or cannot be proven he'll be tainted of guilt by associations
		
Click to expand...

If she had been 14/15, but happened to get into the nightclub, I'm not sure how the "I've done nothing wrong because the doormen let her in" if you had to defend yourself in a court of law?


----------



## Wolf (Nov 17, 2019)

Swango1980 said:



			If she had been 14/15, but happened to get into the nightclub, I'm not sure how the "I've done nothing wrong because the doormen let her in" if you had to defend yourself in a court of law?
		
Click to expand...

As I've said in my post I'm not defending him nor condemning him, I'm merely pointing out what is factually known to be true and that is that legally under UK law he has done nothing wrong. If she had been 14/15 that's a different conversation to the one at hand and yes should be punished by the law regardless of where they met, but also the establishment where they met should face sanctions as well for allowing minors to be there. 

But your what if point Could easily be turned around as say what if she had been 20/21 would it even make the news because she wasn't a teenager.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 17, 2019)

Swango1980 said:



			If she had been 14/15, but happened to get into the nightclub, I'm not sure how the "I've done nothing wrong because the doormen let her in" if you had to defend yourself in a court of law?
		
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. A guy I used to work with got chatting to a girl in a club. She drove him home from the club and they spent the night together. Next morning it turned out that she was 15 and had "borrowed" her parents car as they were away on holiday. We were never sure if her driving him home would be a good enough defence for him thinking she was older.


----------



## AmandaJR (Nov 17, 2019)

I kept thinking how he hasn't aged well and his hair looked kinda weird!

In all seriousness I wanted to believe him but it all seemed a bit off somehow. His look of shock and surprise at some of the allegations - they were all clearly stated previously so he must have known about them. Then the things he recalled with certain clarity compared to those he couldn't be sure about.

Plus - you dump someone "honourably" by travelling to New York and spending 4 days breaking the news...all because you're "too honourable" - hmmm.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 17, 2019)

He was eating Pitza at the time.  No sweat.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 17, 2019)

I didnâ€™t get he was adamant he had never met her but there have been photos in the media for a long time.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 17, 2019)

i went to wokingham once, but i don;t remember the Pizza Express... and i love pizza


----------



## Maninblack4612 (Nov 17, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			I didnâ€™t get he was adamant he had never met her but there have been photos in the media for a long time.
		
Click to expand...

He didn't say that. He said he couldn't recall meeting her & suggested that there was no way of proving whether the photo was fake.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 17, 2019)

sad when you can't remember the faces of the women you have slept with.... well he was known as Randy Andy after all so maybe not a suprise


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 17, 2019)

Wolf said:



			As I've said in my post I'm not defending him nor condemning him, I'm merely pointing out what is factually known to be true and that is that legally under UK law he has done nothing wrong. If she had been 14/15 that's a different conversation to the one at hand and yes should be punished by the law regardless of where they met, but also the establishment where they met should face sanctions as well for allowing minors to be there.

*But your what if point Could easily be turned around as say what if she had been 20/21 would it even make the news because she wasn't a teenager*.
		
Click to expand...

I expect the son of the queen of England sleeping with a girl procured by his friend who was also a convicted sex offender who also sexually abused those girls would have made the news. No matter what age the girl was.

Not entirely sure her exact age or the fact that some places let underage drinkers in is the worrying thing here...


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			I expect the son of the queen of England sleeping with a girl procured by his friend who was also a convicted sex offender who also sexually abused those girls would have made the news. No matter what age the girl was.

Not entirely sure her exact age or the fact that some places let underage drinkers in is the worrying thing here...
		
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with all of that but would ask the question did he know that the girl had been procured? Did he know that the girl had been sexually abused? Or did he think that the girl was a bit like a pop group groupie, actively wanting to be there?

That said, what a massive error of judgement staying friends with someone convicted of 'sex crimes.' Bearing in mind the negative publicity around that plea deal down in Florida, it could even be a hugely arrogant dismissive attitude to society, thinking he was above the law, assuming he knew exactly how the girls were procured.


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 18, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I pretty much agree with all of that but would ask the question did he know that the girl had been procured? Did he know that the girl had been sexually abused? Or did he think that the girl was a bit like a pop group groupie, actively wanting to be there?

That said, what a massive error of judgement staying friends with someone convicted of 'sex crimes.' Bearing in mind the negative publicity around that plea deal down in Florida, it could even be a hugely arrogant dismissive attitude to society, thinking he was above the law, assuming he knew exactly how the girls were procured.
		
Click to expand...

In terms of your 1st paragraph, that's probably the main reason he is in the news. We don't have those answers, so that's why the questions are being asked. He may well be innocent of any actual crimes, but probably at the very least he is guilty of incredibly poor judgement.


----------



## Smiffy (Nov 18, 2019)

rulefan said:



			Fake news?
		
Click to expand...

Probably.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 18, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			I expect the son of the queen of England sleeping with a girl procured by his friend who was also a convicted sex offender who also sexually abused those girls would have made the news. No matter what age the girl was.

Not entirely sure her exact age or the fact that some places let underage drinkers in is the worrying thing here...
		
Click to expand...

Every pub and club in the country has had underage drinkers in at some time.

His entitlement shone through in that interview.
His main defence was he couldnâ€™t remember, really.
But he knew he was in a pizza restaurant on a certain day.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Every pub and club in the country has had underage drinkers in at some time.

His entitlement shone through in that interview.
His main defence was he couldnâ€™t remember, really.
But he knew he was in a pizza restaurant on a certain day.
		
Click to expand...

The can't remember just shows his attitude to the common people. To not remember who you've had sex with... not a nice person.


----------



## AmandaJR (Nov 18, 2019)

Incredibly none of the political guests on the BBC this morning had seen the programme so of course couldn't comment...


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 18, 2019)

wonder if cutting him off from the Public purse would jog his memory?


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 18, 2019)

I am guessing he has not yet been seen in court is because there is not any credible evidence he has broken the law...
Even if you only believe half of the rumours an absolute lowlife...


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Nov 18, 2019)

patricks148 said:



			wonder if cutting him off from the Public purse would jog his memory?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps his ex wife could sub him a few quid from those food mixers she sold


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 18, 2019)

AmandaJR said:



			Incredibly none of the political guests on the BBC this morning had seen the programme so of course couldn't comment...
		
Click to expand...

Itâ€™s a very easy thing to say something silly and end up losing your job .
So itâ€™s no surprise really.
They have enough to get on with without commenting on the royals.
I am just wondering if the yanks want to talk to him, will he go there?


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Itâ€™s a very easy thing to say something silly and end up losing your job .
So itâ€™s no surprise really.
They have enough to get on with without commenting on the royals.
I am just wondering if the yanks want to talk to him, will he go there?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps an opportunity for quid pro quo. The Americans send over the diplomat's wife that killed the motorcyclist by driving on the wrong side of the road, and the UK sends Andrew over.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2019)

KPMG Accountancy has 'ditched' Prince Andrew because of adverse publicity...


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 18, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Perhaps an opportunity for quid pro quo. The Americans send over the diplomat's wife that killed the motorcyclist by driving on the wrong side of the road, and the UK sends Andrew over.
		
Click to expand...

I was going to post just that scenario.
But can you really see us extraditing him.
More to the point could we? Would the queen let that happen.?

But itâ€™s a sad state of affairs that to get justice for a young mans life we need to do deals with our â€œfriendsâ€.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Nov 18, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			I was going to post just that scenario.
But can you really see us extraditing him.
More to the point could we? Would the queen let that happen.?
		
Click to expand...

He might be a greasy so and so, but extradited he won't be. We don't extradite young men with asbergers or whatever it was who hack into NASA and other agencies, so we wont extradite someone who gets monies from the public purse over here and who  hasn't commited anything illegal even if morally he is corrupt.


----------



## gmc40 (Nov 18, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I pretty much agree with all of that but would ask the question did he know that the girl had been procured? Did he know that the girl had been sexually abused? Or did he think that the girl was a bit like a pop group groupie, actively wanting to be there?

That said, what a massive error of judgement staying friends with someone convicted of 'sex crimes.' Bearing in mind the negative publicity around that plea deal down in Florida, it could even be a hugely arrogant dismissive attitude to society, thinking he was above the law, assuming he knew exactly how the girls were procured.
		
Click to expand...

Re: your second paragraph, youâ€™ve changed your tune since post 6.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2019)

gmc40 said:



			Re: your second paragraph, youâ€™ve changed your tune since post 6.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty certain we since heard from the horse's mouth, i.e. Prince Andrew, rather than just read various newspapers.


----------



## gmc40 (Nov 18, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Pretty certain we since heard from the horse's mouth, i.e. Prince Andrew, rather than just read various newspapers.
		
Click to expand...

It was public knowledge that they remained in contact after the conviction.


----------



## drdel (Nov 18, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Pretty certain we since heard from the horse's mouth, i.e. Prince Andrew, rather than just read various newspapers.
		
Click to expand...

IMO 'twas a car crash interview. 

Personally I thought it was bit out of order to ask him if he knew anything about how the guy died in prison!  But I was left wondering were these girls 'imprisoned' or freely able to leave? - Not kept too much of an eye on the story but I've not read any claims of rape/violence/GBH etc, seems mostly about whether they were above age of consent either in UK or US. The photos seem to show fairly mature/extrovert characters - not making excuses; just wondering.

All seems a bit sleazy but he was a 'single' man almost 20 years ago!

IMO he would best advised to keep completely quite - the media will just spin which ever way they feel despite any 'facts'


----------



## gmc40 (Nov 19, 2019)

drdel said:



			IMO 'twas a car crash interview.

Personally I thought it was bit out of order to ask him if he knew anything about how the guy died in prison!  But I was left wondering were these girls 'imprisoned' or freely able to leave? - Not kept too much of an eye on the story but I've not read any claims of rape/violence/GBH etc, seems mostly about whether they were above age of consent either in UK or US. The photos seem to show fairly mature/extrovert characters - not making excuses; just wondering.

All seems a bit sleazy but he was a 'single' man almost 20 years ago!

IMO he would best advised to keep completely quite - the media will just spin which ever way they feel despite any 'facts'
		
Click to expand...

Some of the girls involved with Epstein were 13 or 14 werenâ€™t they? And he plead guilty to child sex abuse. Not sure whether them being â€œfreely able to leaveâ€ comes into it.


----------



## Farneyman (Nov 19, 2019)

No matter what spin folk try to put on this story the key thing to remember is a royal spent time at a convicted paedophiles house 2 years after the guy was convictied and jailed (if you want to call it a jail term)...

He was pictured in the park in way back in Dec 2010 and never publicly spoke about but thats all changed this summer when the video of him at the door emerged - why/who kept the footage for so long and what other footage is out there?


----------



## woofers (Nov 19, 2019)

Hmmm, one or two institutions dropping him as a patron. 
I wonder if any of the 27 golf clubs and societies that he is associated with are considering cutting ties with him ?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 19, 2019)

Heâ€™s not been convicted of anything yet.
No matter what people think!
He is innocent unless proven otherwise.
But mud sticks these days and you are guilty by media/twitter.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 19, 2019)

Farneyman said:



			No matter what spin folk try to put on this story the key thing to remember is a royal spent time at a convicted paedophiles house 2 years after the guy was convictied and jailed (if you want to call it a jail term)...

He was pictured in the park in way back in Dec 2010 and never publicly spoke about but thats all changed this summer when the video of him at the door emerged - why/who kept the footage for so long and what other footage is out there?
		
Click to expand...

Fergie is my guess!


----------



## USER1999 (Nov 19, 2019)

Revenge of the toe sucker. They could make a movie out of that.


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 19, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Heâ€™s not been convicted of anything yet.
No matter what people think!
He is innocent unless proven otherwise.
But mud sticks these days and you are guilty by media/twitter.
		
Click to expand...

According to Boris Johnson, the royals are â€œbeyond reproachâ€. Make of that what you will.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 19, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			According to Boris Johnson, the royals are â€œbeyond reproachâ€. Make of that what you will.
		
Click to expand...

Heâ€™s a nob so thatâ€™s par for him.
But he has to face the queen so that might influence his opinion.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 19, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			Revenge of the toe sucker. They could make a movie out of that.
		
Click to expand...

Sucker or suckee (is that a word)?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 19, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Heâ€™s a nob so thatâ€™s par for him.
But he has to face the queen so that might influence his opinion.
		
Click to expand...

But according to the UK courts he's already lied to her so does he really care about what the Queen thinks?


----------



## Backache (Nov 19, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Heâ€™s not been convicted of anything yet.
No matter what people think!
He is innocent unless proven otherwise.
But mud sticks these days and you are guilty by media/twitter.
		
Click to expand...

In the UK at least I'm not sure that anyone thinks a crime has taken place.
A lot of people are questioning his character judgement and moral probity for visiting a convicted paedophile following their conviction and when giving an interview expressing no sorrow at all for the victims of Epstein.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 19, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			But according to the UK courts he's already lied to her so does he really care about what the Queen thinks?
		
Click to expand...

Not all the courts ,some of them said â€œit wasnâ€™t their business to make political judgments â€œ
Boris doesn't care what anyone thinks so probably not.
Sheâ€™s only a figurehead anyway


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 20, 2019)

Is the Monarchy fit for purpose...?

"The institution of the Monarchy is beyond reproach"

Really?

Much more accurate I suggest that it "needs a bit of improvement"


----------



## harpo_72 (Nov 20, 2019)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Is the Monarchy fit for purpose...?

"The institution of the Monarchy is beyond reproach"

Really?

Much more accurate I suggest that it "needs a bit of improvement"
		
Click to expand...

Ah Andrew is a just a spare and now he is further down the spare list. In the old days he would have been a vicar/soldier/sailor .. but I was loving the Ant and Dec jokes about the sweating!
I suspect he opened up because the initial fall out would be intense but then the politics of the election would take over again.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 20, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			But according to the UK courts he's already lied to her so does he really care about what the Queen thinks?
		
Click to expand...

He never 'Lied' to her. He asked her to prorogue parliament, that wasnt a lie it was a request to which she agreed.  The High Court agreed he could do it, does that mean they lied as well?  The supreme court when deciding on an appeal interpreted the constitution in that he should not  have prorogued for such a long period. It was nothing to do with lieing, you could say he misinterpreted his use of prorogretive powers but how can this be a Iie to the queen? 
I have read that because he did not get the UK to leave the EU at the end of October he lied to the Public when he said he would, if I agreed to meet my wife at the railway station ay 11:00 o clock but someone locked me in the cellar would I have lied to her.  I am a bit tired of many of the accusations being blanded around at the moment and not only towards Johnson but many others. Seems a symptom of how so much is dramatised these days.


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 20, 2019)

Andrew stepping back from royal duties..

Does he still mis use army helicopters?


----------



## Farneyman (Nov 20, 2019)

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/1120/1094033-prince-andrew/

Did he ask his ma or was he told???


----------



## Wolf (Nov 20, 2019)

Farneyman said:



https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/1120/1094033-prince-andrew/

Did he ask his ma or was he told???
		
Click to expand...

Would assume her Maj has had a motherly/regal style word of having a word telling him to withdraw and issue the statement and in the process make it known he will help law enforcement.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 20, 2019)




----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 20, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			Andrew stepping back from royal duties..

Does he still mis use army helicopters?
		
Click to expand...

? He was in the Navy


----------



## Farneyman (Nov 20, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			Andrew stepping back from royal duties..

Does he still mis use army helicopters?
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



			? He was in the Navy
		
Click to expand...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...5-000-taxpayers-money-helicopter-journey.html

Possibly referring to this from a few years ago???

Not surprised to be honest that he'd think this was acceptable.


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 20, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			? He was in the Navy
		
Click to expand...

So what.


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 20, 2019)

Farneyman said:



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...5-000-taxpayers-money-helicopter-journey.html

Possibly referring to this from a few years ago???

Not surprised to be honest that he'd think this was acceptable.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah great use of our money.
He's probably wondering why his subjects are allowed to give him such a hard time.


----------



## drdel (Nov 20, 2019)

Quite probably a sleaze, but I thought the basis of the UK was innocent until proven guilty!


----------



## harpo_72 (Nov 20, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			Andrew stepping back from royal duties..

Does he still mis use army helicopters?
		
Click to expand...

Metaphorically yes ... I have a large chopper that has seen a lot of action


----------



## Backache (Nov 20, 2019)

drdel said:



			Quite probably a sleaze, but I thought the basis of the UK was innocent until proven guilty!
		
Click to expand...

Might be true for legal cases, in general for most things, people probably make judgements on the balance of evidence available to them or just on prejudice.


----------



## gmc40 (Nov 21, 2019)

drdel said:



			Quite probably a sleaze, but I thought the basis of the UK was innocent until proven guilty!
		
Click to expand...

Yeah we know. Posts 63 and 70 have already covered this.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 21, 2019)

Please note , potentially libellous unsubstantiated allegations will be removed and the perps Fraggered .


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 21, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			So what.
		
Click to expand...

Didnt follow your post, i mentioned him being in thr Navy as he flew helicopters in the navy.  Regarding the ones he flew from the Royal flight I dont believe they are Army and are funded by the Queens income.  I have no reason to defend him but lets get it right.


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 21, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Didnt follow your post, i mentioned him being in thr Navy as he flew helicopters in the navy.  Regarding the ones he flew from the Royal flight I dont believe they are Army and are funded by the Queens income.  I have no reason to defend him but lets get it right.
		
Click to expand...

Get what right? His abuse of his position?


----------



## Beezerk (Nov 21, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			and the perps Fraggered .
		
Click to expand...

At first glance I thought it said Faraged, whatever that means ðŸ¤£


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 21, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			Get what right? His abuse of his position?
		
Click to expand...

I dont like him but you have to be fair about it.  If the cost to fly a visiting politician in a helecopter supplied for royal use and was part of the queens allowance then what's the problem.  Dont mix the issues.


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 21, 2019)

Beezerk said:



			At first glance I thought it said Faraged, whatever that means ðŸ¤£
		
Click to expand...

At first glance I thought it said pervs.


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 21, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			I dont like him but you have to be fair about it.  If the cost to fly a visiting politician in a helecopter supplied for royal use and was part of the queens allowance then what's the problem.  Dont mix the issues.
		
Click to expand...

Clearly you have a soft spot for him.
Oof
There's a reason he's known as air miles Andy


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 23, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			Clearly you have a soft spot for him.
Oof
There's a reason he's known as air miles Andy
		
Click to expand...

I have no spot at all for him, im not a royalist and would be quite happy to see him and his entitled type binned. What I am in favour of though is pointing out that you are making unfounded accusations.


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 23, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			I have no spot at all for him, im not a royalist and would be quite happy to see him and his entitled type binned. What I am in favour of though is pointing out that you are making unfounded accusations.
		
Click to expand...

Is this like how you don't support Boris Johnson, but spend your days supporting Boris Johnson 
ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚
As ever do some research and stop expecting to be spoon fed
I'd say Andrews inappropriate use of helicopters is the least of his problems.
ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 23, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			Is this like how you don't support Boris Johnson, but spend your days supporting Boris Johnson
ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚
As ever do some research and stop expecting to be spoon fed
I'd say Andrews inappropriate use of helicopters is the least of his problems.
ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚
		
Click to expand...

As much  as I dont want to get into childish spates I have to say you act like a child on here and just have provoke people. Please grow up.


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 23, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			As much  as I dont want to get into childish spates I have to say you act like a child on here and just have provoke people. Please grow up.
		
Click to expand...

ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚
Same old, always the wronged one.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 23, 2019)

Guys, can we please cut out the personal jibes

Criticize ideas and opinions, not the people who have them

They hold these opinions for a reason and until you have walked in their shoes, you have no idea how these opinions were reached

General warning to all, lets keep the debate going, but keep it clean please


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 25, 2019)

Things not getting any better for our helicopter loving friend of a paedophile.
Completely withdrawing from being an active royal.
Everyone falling over each other  to distance themselves from him
And now it seems his fave  golf club, Royal Perth, are going to ditch him too.
oof


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 25, 2019)

It seems through the grapevine a lot of Royal clubs that carried a picture of Andrew have removed them or moved them to a less prominent location. Seems ours has gone from the entrance hall into to office. Seems a little petty


----------



## user2010 (Nov 25, 2019)

I hope the main witness in all this isn't planning any trips to Paris anytime soon....


----------



## Farneyman (Aug 5, 2020)

A year later and this is still rumbling on...wonder if he's starting to sweat now?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 5, 2020)

Farneyman said:



			A year later and this is still rumbling on...wonder if he's starting to sweat now?
		
Click to expand...

Well with Ghislaine Maxwell in custody...But no matter.  Trump continues to wish her well (hmmm...) so maybe she'll not spill the beans as she'll be hoping for a pardon by Trump.


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 5, 2020)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well with Ghislaine Maxwell in custody...But no matter.  Trump continues to wish her well (hmmm...) so maybe she'll not spill the beans as she'll be hoping for a pardon by Trump.
		
Click to expand...

Think then Prince Andrew is the fall guy. Although my understanding was the lady or girl was 17, and was paid by Epstein to entertain him ... now she had a choice, she could have done a little song and dance or said no .. have I missed something here? Was the prince deliberately indulging in and seeking activities with minors ?


----------



## Farneyman (Aug 5, 2020)

harpo_72 said:



			Think then Prince Andrew is the fall guy. Although my understanding was the lady or girl was 17, and was paid by Epstein to entertain him ... now she had a choice, she could have done a little song and dance or said no .. have I missed something here? Was the prince deliberately indulging in and seeking activities with minors ?
		
Click to expand...

I think the best thing anyone can do if not familar with the details is spend some time researching it and then decide for yourself. A good start may be to watch his recent interview and take it from there...


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 5, 2020)

Farneyman said:



			I think the best thing anyone can do if not familar with the details is spend some time researching it and then decide for yourself. A good start may be to watch his recent interview and take it from there...
		
Click to expand...

Trial by media .. seems like a fair way to deal with it all. I have not seen any hard evidence that suggests any other than he was manipulated and used. When will we see trump and Clinton under interview regards their relationship with Epstein? I think we are just seeing the American’s throwing their weight around. Just ignore them, let them adopt a new strategy.
 Our media is no better they are just selling Speculation and hearsay. Yeah he was uncomfortable but he did not prepare.. should have just looked Reporter in the eye and said yes and be done with it and just be honest, he is a clueless muppet that did not know she was deemed a minor by US law. It was pretty much a honey trap, giving Epstein some control.


----------



## williamalex1 (Aug 5, 2020)

Sounds like the name of a blockbuster adult Disney film , he'll be pleased about that


----------



## Dan2501 (Aug 5, 2020)

harpo_72 said:



			Trial by media .. seems like a fair way to deal with it all. I have not seen any hard evidence that suggests any other than he was manipulated and used. When will we see trump and Clinton under interview regards their relationship with Epstein? I think we are just seeing the American’s throwing their weight around. Just ignore them, let them adopt a new strategy.
Our media is no better they are just selling Speculation and hearsay. Yeah he was uncomfortable but he did not prepare.. should have just looked Reporter in the eye and said yes and be done with it and just be honest, he is a clueless muppet that did not know she was deemed a minor by US law. It was pretty much a honey trap, giving Epstein some control.
		
Click to expand...




harpo_72 said:



			Think then Prince Andrew is the fall guy. Although my understanding was the lady or girl was 17, and was paid by Epstein to entertain him ... now she had a choice, she could have done a little song and dance or said no .. have I missed something here? Was the prince deliberately indulging in and seeking activities with minors ?
		
Click to expand...

He and Epstein were very close. Partied together at Mar-a-Lago, Pictured in Thailand with topless girls on holiday and stayed on Epstein's island on a number of occasions. Think he's innocent or being made out to be the fall-guy all you like, but Epstein was a horrendous man who along with Maxwell manipulated large numbers of young girls from underprivileged backgrounds into having intercourse with not only Epstein but his many high-society acquaintances across the world. Prince Andrew was one of those acquaintances, he knew exactly what was going on and was almost certainly involved with some of the girls groomed by them - there is evidence and a number stories to back that up.

You say she could have said no, but I think you're grossly misunderstanding the situation these girls were put in. They were roped in under the pretenses of giving Jeffrey a massage and then are farmed out to his friends. These were young, innocent, impressionable young girls who were manipulated by a powerful, immensely rich and domineering man who would frighten them with threats of his power if they didn't do as he and Maxwell instructed. They would also manipulate them with promises of a better life, in the case of the girl pictured with Prince Andrew at Maxwell's house, she was promised an expensive massage qualification if she did as they instructed, and being sent to Thailand to gain said qualification was what allowed her to escape from Epstein. It's not as simple as just "she had a choice" or could have "said no", you grossly misunderstand the situation and the power Epstein and Maxwell had over these girls.

Being involved with this awful man and his similarly dreadful partner Maxwell means he absolutely deserves the "trial by media" he's getting. Watch the documentary about Epstein on Netflix and maybe you'll begin to understand what these girls went through, what Prince Andrew was involved in and who he was involved with.


----------



## Farneyman (Aug 5, 2020)

Dan2501 said:



			He and Epstein were very close. Partied together at Mar-a-Lago, Pictured in Thailand with topless girls on holiday and stayed on Epstein's island on a number of occasions. Think he's innocent or being made out to be the fall-guy all you like, but Epstein was a horrendous man who along with Maxwell manipulated large numbers of young girls from underprivileged backgrounds into having intercourse with not only Epstein but his many high-society acquaintances across the world. Prince Andrew was one of those acquaintances, he knew exactly what was going on and was almost certainly involved with some of the girls groomed by them - there is evidence and a number stories to back that up.

You say she could have said no, but I think you're grossly misunderstanding the situation these girls were put in. They were roped in under the pretenses of giving Jeffrey a massage and then are farmed out to his friends. These were young, innocent, impressionable young girls who were manipulated by a powerful, immensely rich and domineering man who would frighten them with threats of his power if they didn't do as he and Maxwell instructed. They would also manipulate them with promises of a better life, in the case of the girl pictured with Prince Andrew at Maxwell's house, she was promised an expensive massage qualification if she did as they instructed, and being sent to Thailand to gain said qualification was what allowed her to escape from Epstein. It's not as simple as just "she had a choice" or could have "said no", you grossly misunderstand the situation and the power Epstein and Maxwell had over these girls.

Being involved with this awful man and his similarly dreadful partner Maxwell means he absolutely deserves the "trial by media" he's getting. Watch the documentary about Epstein on Netflix and maybe you'll begin to understand what these girls went through, what Prince Andrew was involved in and who he was involved with.
		
Click to expand...


A much better reply than I could have managed. Very well put.

Be interesting to see what happen when/if Maxwell reaches court.


----------



## harpo_72 (Nov 24, 2020)

Farneyman said:



			A much better reply than I could have managed. Very well put.

Be interesting to see what happen when/if Maxwell reaches court.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t think that was the answer it was a lot of emotion about an emotive topic. Is it unfair to suggest that services were sold and bought, and those decisions were made at the time wrong or right, they were agreed. 
Obviously Epstein isn’t a pleasant person but we seem to be missing a lot of unsavoury characters male and female who have participated in this and those that were seeking to profit on both sides.. 
I would leave it


----------



## jim8flog (Nov 24, 2020)

Nice quip about Netflix Series The Crown last week

" I cannot wait for the scenes from Pizza Hut, Woking"


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 29, 2021)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-59435616

Maxwell guilty


----------



## fundy (Dec 29, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-59435616

Maxwell guilty
		
Click to expand...


assume Andrews trial starts next week then...........

and 100s if not 1000s of others.............


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 29, 2021)

fundy said:



*assume Andrews trial starts next week then*...........

and 100s if not 1000s of others.............
		
Click to expand...

I doubt there'll ever be one!

And there'll be untold appeals before Maxwell is actually fully incarcerated!

FWIW..Do I think she's guilty?...Hell yes!


----------



## road2ruin (Dec 29, 2021)

fundy said:



			assume Andrews trial starts next week then...........

and 100s if not 1000s of others.............
		
Click to expand...

Possibly for some but I’ve read that the case against Prince Andrew is actually weakened by this result. Government didn’t call Virginia Giuffre as a witness against Maxwell so it’s inferred that they didn’t see her as reliable.


----------



## Tashyboy (Dec 29, 2021)

Yesterdays news re Prince Andrew was that his defence team was asking that Ms Guiffres case is thrown out because  they are saying that she is not an American, they are saying that she has spent 17 of the last 19 years living in Australia. A quick Google shows she was born in the USA and has joint citizenship. According to US law. A case involving two foreign nationals cannot be heard in the US. 
Personally I think they are grasping at straws.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Dec 29, 2021)

Hope they get Andrew on trial & see if he really does sweat.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 29, 2021)

Tashyboy said:



			...
Personally I think they are grasping at straws.
		
Click to expand...

That's all part of the legal process! The lawyers wouldn't be doing their job if they did otherwise!


----------



## Tashyboy (Dec 29, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			That's all part of the legal process! The lawyers wouldn't be doing their job if they did otherwise!
		
Click to expand...

Cannot blame them when there on £50 an hour can you 👍


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 29, 2021)

Tashyboy said:



			Cannot blame them when there on £50 an hour can you 👍
		
Click to expand...

Your keyboard seems to have a fault with the 'zero' key!


----------



## Jimaroid (Dec 29, 2021)

This’ll drag out for years on appeal but it’s certainly going to be interesting.


----------



## spongebob59 (Dec 29, 2021)

See how much G.Maxwell spills now she's been found guilty.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 30, 2021)

spongebob59 said:



			See how much G.Maxwell spills now she's been found guilty.
		
Click to expand...

Zilch!
But that'll be after appeals anyway.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Dec 30, 2021)

Tashyboy said:



			Cannot blame them when there on £50 an hour can you 👍
		
Click to expand...

They’ll be on a lot more than that to get a nonce off


----------



## Swango1980 (Dec 30, 2021)

Tashyboy said:



			Cannot blame them when there on £50 an hour can you 👍
		
Click to expand...

£50 an hour? Surely much much more


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 30, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			£50 an hour? Surely much much more
		
Click to expand...

Junior Barrister fees start around £150+vat per hour. Typical senior’s fees are around £500+vat per hour. £4,000 a day, £20,000 a week.

Pocket change for premiership footballers.


----------



## IanM (Dec 30, 2021)

See.... the nerdy kids should have tried harder in PE

I have a school buddy who is now a QC.  He earns more than that!  Brain the size of a planet!!


----------



## Pin-seeker (Dec 30, 2021)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1476572121463758852


----------



## BiMGuy (Dec 30, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			Zilch!
But that'll be after appeals anyway.
		
Click to expand...

She’ll be dead before she spills anything. I’m surprised she’s not already.


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 30, 2021)

BiMGuy said:



			She’ll be dead before she spills anything. I’m surprised she’s not already.
		
Click to expand...

Wonder where her" little black book" is?


----------



## theoneandonly (Jan 13, 2022)

Poor old Andrew.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 13, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Poor old Andrew.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935

Click to expand...

Can't quite see him needing to look for a job though.


----------



## theoneandonly (Jan 13, 2022)

saving_par said:



			Can't quite see him needing to look for a job though.
		
Click to expand...

No sadly not. Once Liz dies we should become a republic and they can all work for a living.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 13, 2022)

Another for Charles to Bankroll.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 13, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Another for Charles to Bankroll.
		
Click to expand...

Andrew is selling his £32m chalet in the Swiss alps. At his age, £32m should last him.


----------



## Billysboots (Jan 13, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			Andrew is selling his £32m chalet in the Swiss alps. At his age, £32m should last him.
		
Click to expand...

I’ll be surprised if he sees much change from that in legal fees.


----------



## Fade and Die (Jan 13, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			Andrew is selling his £32m chalet in the Swiss alps. At his age, £32m should last him.
		
Click to expand...

Turns out it’s £17M and he has to pay someone who sued him last year £7M so it leaves him “only” £10M Wonder how much he is going to try to bung Ginny to settle?

https://www.the-sun.com/news/4411228/prince-andrew-sold-swiss-chalet-legal-battle/amp/


----------



## pauljames87 (Jan 13, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			No sadly not. Once Liz dies we should become a republic and they can all work for a living.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair the queen works harder than a lot of the population and she's 95!!! Not to mention how much they generate in tourism.


----------



## theoneandonly (Jan 13, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			To be fair the queen works harder than a lot of the population and she's 95!!! Not to mention how much they generate in tourism.
		
Click to expand...

Works 😂😂 and the French do ok as the most visited country and I'm fairly sure they dont have royal family. They're a drain on us all and  as Andrew has shown an embarrassment.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 13, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Works 😂😂 and the French do ok as the most visited country and I'm fairly sure they dont have royal family. They're a drain on us all and  as Andrew has shown an embarrassment.
		
Click to expand...

And they’re a drain how? This discussion bubbles to the surface every so often. Have a look at what they receive via the Privy Purse, and then have a look at what income tax and corporation tax they pay on their private businesses. All for reducing the Privy Purse and excluding the likes of Andrew and Edward but at least a bit of education on what the Queen and Charles pay back to the state wouldn’t go amiss.


----------



## Dando (Jan 13, 2022)




----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 13, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Works 😂😂 and the French do ok as the most visited country and I'm fairly sure they dont have royal family. They're a drain on us all and  as Andrew has shown an embarrassment.
		
Click to expand...

France has a few advantages. Like the weather. I bet a holiday in Nice is a more attractive prospect than one in Inverness. 

Also, it is probably us Brits that provide France a nice boost in tourism in the first place.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 13, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Works 😂😂 and the French do ok as the most visited country and I'm fairly sure they dont have royal family. They're a drain on us all and  as Andrew has shown an embarrassment.
		
Click to expand...

If France is so popular why are so many trying desperately to get out of there.


----------



## BrianM (Jan 13, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			France has a few advantages. Like the weather. I bet a holiday in Nice is a more attractive prospect than one in Inverness.

Also, it is probably us Brits that provide France a nice boost in tourism in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t be so sure, Inverness and the Highlands in general is booming with Tourism 😀


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 13, 2022)

BrianM said:



			Wouldn’t be so sure, Inverness and the Highlands in general is booming with Tourism 😀
		
Click to expand...

I'd take the Highlands any day of the week over France, beautiful place 👍


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 13, 2022)

Old Skier said:



			If France is so popular why are so many trying desperately to get out of there.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the French that are trying desperately to get out of there!


----------



## GreiginFife (Jan 13, 2022)

BrianM said:



			Wouldn’t be so sure, Inverness and the Highlands in general is booming with Tourism 😀
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Where else could they go to see a massive monster…

Indigo Club of course… (not even sure if that’s still there 🤣🤣)


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 13, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			To be fair the queen works harder than a lot of the population and she's 95!!! Not to mention how much they generate in tourism.
		
Click to expand...

Works????
Yeah she’s a right grafter 😂😂😂


----------



## pauljames87 (Jan 13, 2022)

Pin-seeker said:



			Works????
Yeah she’s a right grafter 😂😂😂
		
Click to expand...

I'd wager she works harder than most on here considering how much time they have to post during working hours.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 13, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			I'd wager she works harder than most on here considering how much time they have to post during working hours.
		
Click to expand...

Working hours are?
Bet she’s never done a night shift.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 13, 2022)

There is a list of all the titles that Andrew has had taken away On the Sky news site. I never knew he was a golfer.
associations he has been relieved of.
Quote.

They included the Army Officers' Golfing Society.
And
On Thursday it was revealed he had lost his honorary titles at Royal Portrush and Royal County Down golf clubs in Northern Ireland.


----------



## davidy233 (Jan 13, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			There is a list of all the titles that Andrew has had taken away On the Sky news site. I never knew he was a golfer.
associations he has been relieved of.
Quote.

They included the Army Officers' Golfing Society.
And
On Thursday it was revealed he had lost his honorary titles at Royal Portrush and Royal County Down golf clubs in Northern Ireland.
		
Click to expand...

Was captain of the R&A in 2003


----------



## Wildboy370 (Jan 13, 2022)

Glad the biggest free loader in modern times has finally got his come uppance. Was on same ship as him for short time what a complete w anchor to say the least the very least.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 13, 2022)

I wonder if he still has his, Jim fixed it for me badge


----------



## davidy233 (Jan 13, 2022)

Still listed as patron of several forum members golf clubs on the Royals website


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 13, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			And they’re a drain how? This discussion bubbles to the surface every so often. Have a look at what they receive via the Privy Purse, and then have a look at what income tax and corporation tax they pay on their private businesses. All for reducing the Privy Purse and excluding the likes of Andrew and Edward but a*t least a bit of education on what the Queen and Charles pay back to the state wouldn’t go amiss*.
		
Click to expand...

But that would get in the way of the usual cheap snipe.


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 14, 2022)

davidy233 said:



			Still listed as patron of several forum members golf clubs on the Royals website
		
Click to expand...

He ...is or was earl of Inverness and president of Inverness golf club, they had a big portrait of the knob in the entrance hall. Hear it had been removed.
He used to turn up at nairn quite often and there were a couple of pictures of him and the captain of the day during the walker Cup.  On one occasion when I was first a member, he wanted to play with Robin Fyfe the pro, but Robin was having none of it and his excuse was he usually went shopping with the wife on Wednedays🤣


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jan 14, 2022)

davidy233 said:



			Still listed as patron of several forum members golf clubs on the Royals website
		
Click to expand...

Sadly patron of my club although his picture is now in a store cupboard gathering dust


----------



## clubchamp98 (Jan 14, 2022)

Is all this really right.
He’s a nasty piece of work . Imo but it’s only an opinion.
But it is still only an allegation.!!
All what’s going on seems to presume he’s guilty.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty.
This happens to often to ordinary people accused of crimes only to find they didn’t do it but their lives are ruined.
Trial by media and Twitter seems the norm here now.


----------



## backwoodsman (Jan 14, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Is all this really right.
He’s a nasty piece of work . Imo but it’s only an opinion.
But it is still only an allegation.!!
All what’s going on seems to presume he’s guilty.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty.
This happens to often to ordinary people accused of crimes only to find they didn’t do it but their lives are ruined.
Trial by media and Twitter seems the norm here now.
		
Click to expand...

 ^^^^ 

I've always been of the opinion he's pompous, arrogant, and out to get what he can from his elevated position - ie a git. But that doesn't mean he's guilty. Let's let the trial take its course and we'll see.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Jan 14, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			^^^^ 

I've always been of the opinion he's pompous, arrogant, and out to get what he can from his elevated position - ie a git. But that doesn't mean he's guilty. Let's let the trial take its course and we'll see.
		
Click to expand...

Yes spot on .
One thing it shows is how many titles and positions he’s been given just because of his birth.
Did he earn all those medals ?
People fawn over these royals maybe that needs to stop from now on.


----------



## babylonsinger (Jan 14, 2022)

Whilst I feel he'll no doubt get off on some technicality or by paying her off his lack of genuine remorse and awareness speaks volumes. You reap what you sow when you spend half your life sucking up to various people of dubious morals


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 14, 2022)

I confess I don't like him, BUT.... I do not trust the American judiciary in any way with it's blatantly political control. I also don't understand how an Australian citizen can take legal proceedings against a Brit in an American court.
It all looks very much like a money chasing excersize to me, even if I don't trust or like Andrew.


----------



## GreiginFife (Jan 14, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I confess I don't like him, BUT.... I do not trust the American judiciary in any way with it's blatantly political control. I also don't understand how an Australian citizen can take legal proceedings against a Brit in an American court.
It all looks very much like a money chasing excersize to me, even if I don't trust or like Andrew.
		
Click to expand...

She’s a dual citizen is she not? Born in the US but lives in Aus and granted Aus citizenship but still retains US citizen status?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 14, 2022)

GreiginFife said:



			She’s a dual citizen is she not? Born in the US but lives in Aus and granted Aus citizenship but still retains US citizen status?
		
Click to expand...

Don't know.....


----------



## spongebob59 (Jan 14, 2022)

I'm sure once all the staff at Woking Pizza Express confirm his story all will be forgotten


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 14, 2022)

For a while this morning I was wondering who this Andrew Windsor geezer was.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 14, 2022)

spongebob59 said:



			I'm sure once all the staff at Woking Pizza Express confirm his story all will be forgotten
		
Click to expand...

Surely, if his alibi is accurate then either a bank statement showing a receipt or the security services confirming his location knocks this whole thing down stone dead doesn't it?


----------



## bobmac (Jan 14, 2022)

Which Prince?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...made-paedophile-bishop-peter-ball-impregnable


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I confess I don't like him, BUT.... I do not trust the American judiciary in any way with it's blatantly political control. I also don't understand how an Australian citizen can take legal proceedings against a Brit in an American court.
...
		
Click to expand...

She was born in USA.
US citizenship can be renounced (by the citizen), but not revoked (by the Government). Revocation would violate the 14th Amendment.
And, fwiw, it's really only the Supreme Court that's under 'blatantly political control. Lower courts tend to rule on law or make rulings that can be appealed to a higher court, with the Supreme Court being the highest - and where members are appointed by politicians.


----------



## Fade and Die (Jan 14, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			She was born in USA.
US citizenship can be renounced (by the citizen), *but not revoked (by the Government)*. Revocation would violate the 14th Amendment.
		
Click to expand...

Hoda Muthana and her family might disagree. 
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/americas-shamima-begum-isis-brides-14037182


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

Fade and Die said:



			Hoda Muthana and her family might disagree.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/americas-shamima-begum-isis-brides-14037182

Click to expand...

She and they did! And the consequent court case(s) either ruled against her or refused to hear her case.
She was deemed not to have been a birthright citizen - associated with her father's diplomatic status.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 14, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			She was born in USA.
US citizenship can be renounced (by the citizen), but not revoked (by the Government). Revocation would violate the 14th Amendment.
And, fwiw, it's really only the Supreme Court that's under 'blatantly political control. Lower courts tend to rule on law or make rulings that can be appealed to a higher court, with the Supreme Court being the highest - and where members are appointed by politicians.
		
Click to expand...

I've watched "Making a Murderer" on Netflix. The US criminal system is corrupt to the core


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 14, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			She was born in USA.
US citizenship can be renounced (by the citizen), but not revoked (by the Government). Revocation would violate the 14th Amendment.
And, fwiw, it's really only the Supreme Court that's under 'blatantly political control. Lower courts tend to rule on law or make rulings that can be appealed to a higher court, with the Supreme Court being the highest - and where members are appointed by politicians.
		
Click to expand...

Are judges not chosen by the ruling President/their office's minions or voted into office?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I've watched "Making a Murderer" on Netflix. The *US criminal system* is corrupt to the core 

Click to expand...

I can't comment on a documentary I haven't seen. But do you mean 'the US criminal system' or the US Courts system'? Different things to me.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 14, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			I can't comment on a documentary I haven't seen. But do you mean 'the US criminal system' or the US Courts system'? Different things to me.
		
Click to expand...

In terms of the documentary, both.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Are judges not chosen by the ruling President/their office's minions or voted into office?
		
Click to expand...

Some, not all.
https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states
Federal judges are appointed by the President and/but confirmed by The Senate


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			In terms of the documentary, both.
		
Click to expand...

Might watch it some time then.
Of course, it's an opinion/case presentation, not necessarily one that's correct.
I certainly have more faith in the UK court system than the US one.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 14, 2022)

The Royal Family as an institution has recognised a cancer in its midst and has cut it out.  Has me thinking.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 14, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Some, not all.
https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states
Federal judges are appointed by the President and/but confirmed by The Senate
		
Click to expand...

Therefore political selections take place


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Therefore political selections take place

Click to expand...

Agreed, I never disputed that. But not all. And some were (politically) rejected.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 14, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			^^^^ 

I've always been of the opinion he's pompous, arrogant, and out to get what he can from his elevated position - ie a git. But that doesn't mean he's guilty. Let's let the trial take its course and we'll see.
		
Click to expand...

👍
I have followed this with a bit of interest, suffice to say  there are some serious questions on both sides that I am interested to hear the answers to.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 14, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I confess I don't like him, BUT.... I do not trust the American judiciary in any way with it's blatantly political control. I also don't understand how an Australian citizen can take legal proceedings against a Brit in an American court.
It all looks very much like a money chasing excersize to me, even if I don't trust or like Andrew.
		
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, she was born in the USA and has a joint citizenship.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 14, 2022)

With the amount of money he’s got he can more than afford a decent defence counsel. Why didn’t he jump at the chance to get into court and shout his innocence? He’s tried to dodge it at every opportunity… gut feel, guilty as sin.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 14, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			With the amount of money he’s got he can more than afford a decent defence counsel. Why didn’t he jump at the chance to get into court and shout his innocence? He’s tried to dodge it at every opportunity… gut feel, guilty as sin.
		
Click to expand...

C'mon Brian, this is an esteemed, and valued, member of our Royal family.................. sorry ! It's the (infraction) formerly known as Prince


----------



## rulefan (Jan 14, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			With the amount of money he’s got he can more than afford a decent defence counsel. Why didn’t he jump at the chance to get into court and shout his innocence? He’s tried to dodge it at every opportunity… gut feel, guilty as sin.
		
Click to expand...

As it's now a civil case she'll probably settle for the $5m


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			With the amount of money he’s got he can more than afford a decent defence counsel. Why didn’t he jump at the chance to get into court and shout his innocence? He’s tried to dodge it at every opportunity… gut feel, guilty as sin.
		
Click to expand...

Still a risk. Better (for him) to avoid a court case altogether - removing any risk!


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 14, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			With the amount of money he’s got he can more than afford a decent defence counsel. Why didn’t he jump at the chance to get into court and shout his innocence? He’s tried to dodge it at every opportunity… gut feel, guilty as sin.
		
Click to expand...

If these matters are decided by a jury, I don't blame him for the current tactics.  Given the perverse verdicts recently returned by UK juries, even if he is innocent why run the risk if you don't have to?  Do you think an American jury will be more likely to be sympathetic to an American citizen or a descendant of the repressive monarchy against whom they rebelled?

I'm not saying your gut feeling is wrong, just taking the pragmatic approach to dealing with the issue.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 14, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			There is a list of all the titles that Andrew has had taken away On the Sky news site. I never knew he was a golfer.
associations he has been relieved of.
Quote.

They included the Army Officers' Golfing Society.
And
On Thursday it was revealed he had lost his honorary titles at Royal Portrush and Royal County Down golf clubs in Northern Ireland.
		
Click to expand...

He was President at Royal North Devon a few years ago.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 14, 2022)

*Mod Note*
Gents. 
Can we watch our comments please.
Avoiding anything that can be construed as  libellous.

He has not been found guilty of anything yet and until such time as this changes, we need to keep our comments factual.

Ta


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 14, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			Andrew is selling his £32m chalet in the Swiss alps. At his age, £32m should last him.
		
Click to expand...

Fergie will be grabbing a big bunch of those spondulas.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 14, 2022)

Do you reckon the US will do a deal and if Andrew goes over to face the courts that the diplomats wife who hit Harry Dunn can be sent back the other way 🤔


----------



## fundy (Jan 14, 2022)

now nicknamed Tottenham Hotspur due to his lack of titles......


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jan 14, 2022)

If he is formerly know as Prince will he now be known as squiggle as per the musician


----------



## drdel (Jan 14, 2022)

In UK its innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is trial by media and it seems likely IMO that an untainted jury might be like rocking horse sh...


----------



## Imurg (Jan 14, 2022)

drdel said:



			In UK its innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is trial by media and it seems likely IMO that an untainted jury might be like rocking horse sh...
		
Click to expand...

oes?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



*Mod Note*
Gents.
...
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't this apply to the Ladies too?


----------



## Dando (Jan 14, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Doesn't this apply to the Ladies too? 

Click to expand...

Only if they pay the same fees 🤣🤣


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

drdel said:



			In UK its innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is trial by media and it seems likely IMO that an untainted jury might be like rocking horse sh...
		
Click to expand...

But trial is in US, not UK.
Not quite so much (percentage) interest there, but still plenty.


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 14, 2022)

drdel said:



			In UK its innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is trial by media and it seems likely IMO that an untainted jury might be like rocking horse sh...
		
Click to expand...

He hasn't tried to put any argument for his innocence, but just tried to weasel out of any charge on any technicality he could. Maybe if he had shown any gumption he could  show  up and proved his innocents rather than hide behind mummy's skirt. He was and stayed friends with a proven pedophile even after he was found guilty.. classy


----------



## Dando (Jan 14, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			He hasn't tried to put any argument for his innocence, but just tried to weasel out of any charge on any technicality he could. Maybe if he had shown any gumption he could  show  up and proved his innocents rather than hide behind mummy's skirt. He was and stayed friends with a proven pedophile even after he was found guilty.. classy
		
Click to expand...

It gets worse, apparently he used iron covers and pink castle tees


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 14, 2022)

Dando said:



			It gets worse, apparently he used iron covers and pink castle tees
		
Click to expand...

And wears black socks with shorts.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 14, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			He hasn't tried to put any argument for his innocence, but just tried to weasel out of any charge on any technicality he could. Maybe if he had shown any gumption he could  show  up and proved his innocents rather than hide behind mummy's skirt. He was and stayed friends with a proven pedophile even after he was found guilty.. classy
		
Click to expand...

He hasn’t been charged with anything - the law courts haven’t charged him , the police haven’t charged him - this is a civil case being brought forward by one single lady and it’s looking like to be a case of her word against his. 

Right now he is guilty by association by the media and one single photo


----------



## Dando (Jan 14, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			And wears black socks with shorts.
		
Click to expand...

If he changes his shoes in the car park then hang the bugger


----------



## Leftitshort (Jan 14, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			He hasn’t been charged with anything - the law courts haven’t charged him , the police haven’t charged him - this is a civil case being brought forward by one single lady and it’s looking like to be a case of her word against his.

Right now he is guilty by association by the media and one single photo
		
Click to expand...

 He’s had a chance to put his side of the story. It went terribly in a pre prepared interview. 🍕 anyone
the use of the Epstein gagging order defence is shameful. Even his own family don’t believe him, hence no longer an HRH


----------



## drdel (Jan 14, 2022)

Leftitshort said:



			He’s had a chance to put his side of the story. It went terribly in a pre prepared interview. 🍕 anyone
the use of the Epstein gagging order defence is shameful. Even his own family don’t believe him, hence no longer an HRH
		
Click to expand...

Just suppose he is innocent and has no recollection of the person  why should he need to prove anything?


----------



## Leftitshort (Jan 14, 2022)

drdel said:



			Just suppose he is innocent and has no recollection of the person  why should he need to prove anything?
		
Click to expand...

Yes just suppose, he can’t remember the person but can remember where he was when he couldn’t remember the person. Very specific about what he could recall


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

drdel said:



			Just suppose he is innocent and has no recollection of the person  why should he need to prove anything?
		
Click to expand...

Trial by tabloid. Certainly sells newspapers!
And give ammo to 'Royaly Haters'.


----------



## Leftitshort (Jan 14, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Trial by tabloid. Certainly sells newspapers!
And give ammo to 'Royaly Haters'.
		
Click to expand...

There will be no trial by jury. The civil case though. The burden of proof is less. OJ got off on a criminal trial, found culpable in a civil trial. He was hard done by also 🤣


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 14, 2022)

Leftitshort said:



			There will be no trial by jury. The civil case though. The burden of proof is less. OJ got off on a criminal trial, found culpable in a civil trial. He was hard done by also 🤣
		
Click to expand...

As far as I know, US Civil cases can be 'by Jury'. Agree re burden of proof though.
Btw. My 'trial by tabloid' was unrelated to the actual court case. And hopefully it will not influence potential jurors.


----------



## srixon 1 (Jan 15, 2022)

Wildboy370 said:



			Glad the biggest free loader in modern times has finally got his come uppance. Was on same ship as him for short time what a complete w anchor to say the least the very least.
		
Click to expand...

I was on the same Lynx squadron as him at Portland in the 80’s. A few of the older guys that had also worked with Charlie in previous years said their personalities were like chalk and cheese. Not hard to guess which one they thought was the friendliest.


----------



## RichA (Jan 15, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			He hasn’t been charged with anything - the law courts haven’t charged him , the police haven’t charged him - this is a civil case being brought forward by one single lady and it’s looking like to be a case of her word against his. 

Right now he is guilty by association by the media and one single photo
		
Click to expand...

Did he not refuse to even be interviewed by the US investigating authorities? He certainly hasn't cooperated, other than giving his side to the media.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 15, 2022)

RichA said:



			Did he not refuse to even be interviewed by the US investigating authorities? He certainly hasn't cooperated, other than giving his side to the media.
		
Click to expand...

Many seem to be forgetting that although she may have been 17 when the "photo" was taken, she wouldn't have been illegal in this country (which is from where the photo being pushed about and is supposed to have been taken).
It may be distasteful, but not illegal.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 15, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Many seem to be forgetting that although she may have been 17 when the "photo" was taken, she wouldn't have been illegal in this country (which is from where the photo being pushed about and is supposed to have been taken).
It may be distasteful, but not illegal.
		
Click to expand...

The alleged incidents also happened in New York, and sex trafficking is also alleged. No charges are filed for any UK incidents. The picture is to refute the response that he never met her.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 15, 2022)

I'm watching Jerry Lee Lewis on Sky Arts just now.
I seem to remember him marrying a 13 year old , way in the 60s.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 15, 2022)

Not to mention Elvis and Pricilla


----------



## Fade and Die (Jan 15, 2022)

williamalex1 said:



			Not to mention Elvis and Pricilla 

Click to expand...

And Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith. She was 13!


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 15, 2022)

Fade and Die said:



			And Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith. QUOTE]
Well she was just 17 you know what I mean .
		
Click to expand...


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 15, 2022)

Not PC, but watching Benard Manning Ungagged on YouTube is cringingly funny.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 16, 2022)

RichA said:



			Did he not refuse to even be interviewed by the US investigating authorities? He certainly hasn't cooperated, other than giving his side to the media.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not on his side but why would he if there was no criminal charge involving him?


----------



## drdel (Jan 16, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I'm not on his side but why would he if there was no criminal charge involving him?
		
Click to expand...

That is the issue. People are taking 'sides' based on media conjecture and/or anti-royal sentiments.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 16, 2022)

drdel said:



			That is the issue. People are taking 'sides' based on media conjecture and/or anti-royal sentiments.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing new there then


----------



## RichA (Jan 16, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I'm not on his side but why would he if there was no criminal charge involving him?
		
Click to expand...

A criminal charge comes after an investigation, not before it.
An interview is part of an investigation.
If someone wants to clear their name, they might agree to an interview. If someone wishes to deny investigators the opportunity to ask them questions, they would obviously decline.
He declined.

If I was falsely accused, I wouldn't  be able to give my side of the story fast enough. Wouldn't you?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 16, 2022)

He doesn't need to say anything, it's up to the person bringing the case to provide evidence that he's committed an offence.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 16, 2022)

RichA said:



			A criminal charge comes after an investigation, not before it.
An interview is part of an investigation.
If someone wants to clear their name, they might agree to an interview. If someone wishes to deny investigators the opportunity to ask them questions, they would obviously decline.
He declined.

If I was falsely accused, I wouldn't  be able to give my side of the story fast enough. Wouldn't you?
		
Click to expand...

As I understand it this is a civil case. The police authorities are not involved and seemingly have chosen not to get involved. 
"_He certainly hasn't cooperated_". How do you know this?  Was he interviewed as a possible witness in the Maxwell/Epstein case or with a view to charging him with something? Did they interview him at all?
Of course it may not even get to court at all if there is a settlement.


----------



## RichA (Jan 16, 2022)

rulefan said:



			As I understand it this is a civil case. The police authorities are not involved and seemingly have chosen not to get involved. 
"_He certainly hasn't cooperated_". How do you know this?  Was he interviewed as a possible witness in the Maxwell/Epstein case or with a view to charging him with something? Did they interview him at all?
Of course it may not even get to court at all if there is a settlement.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. The Maxwell prosecutors (criminal, not civil) wanted to interview him. After initially saying that he would be happy to be interviewed as a witness, he apparently stonewalled formal requests from them and later the FBI. It was widely reported a year or 2 ago.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Jan 16, 2022)

RichA said:



			A criminal charge comes after an investigation, not before it.
An interview is part of an investigation.
If someone wants to clear their name, they might agree to an interview. If someone wishes to deny investigators the opportunity to ask them questions, they would obviously decline.
He declined.

If I was falsely accused, I wouldn't  be able to give my side of the story fast enough. Wouldn't you?
		
Click to expand...

You'd think so, wouldn't you, but we live in a world where lawyers advise otherwise.
And why?  Could be just to be awkward? Could be to keep to the principle in this Country that it is for the accuser to prove the accusation, not for the accused to prove his innocence.
That might seem unnecessarily obstructive if you haven't done what is alleged.
And it can certainly seem evasive.

But, what if your proof of your innocence involves embarrassing revelations  of you or some other person, or confidentialities being revealed?
There are all sorts of reasons why you may wish to "not cooperate "

And don't forget Cassandra.  Condemned   - always to tell the truth, but never to be believed.


There are many people, alas, who will believe or not believe you, based not on fact, but on their political leanings/agendas , or just because they don't like the way someone looks, or the colour of their hair, or who their relatives are, etc.
Nevertheless, in criminal matters, if there is reasonable suspicion that someone has committed an offence, then I am of the opinion that the law should require explanations to be given in a proper and verifiable manner.
(Unlike now)
Reasonable suspicion should mean more than one word against another, and some corroboration

And for clarity, I am not a Royalist.


----------



## theoneandonly (Jan 16, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			You'd think so, wouldn't you, but we live in a world where lawyers advise otherwise.
And why?  Could be just to be awkward? Could be to keep to the principle in this Country that it is for the accuser to prove the accusation, not for the accused to prove his innocence.
That might seem unnecessarily obstructive if you haven't done what is alleged.
And it can certainly seem evasive.

But, what if your proof of your innocence involves embarrassing revelations  of you or some other person, or confidentialities being revealed?
There are all sorts of reasons why you may wish to "not cooperate "

And don't forget Cassandra.  Condemned   - always to tell the truth, but never to be believed.


There are many people, alas, who will believe or not believe you, based not on fact, but on their political leanings/agendas , or just because they don't like the way someone looks, or the colour of their hair, or who their relatives are, etc.
Nevertheless, in criminal matters, if there is reasonable suspicion that someone has committed an offence, then I am of the opinion that the law should require explanations to be given in a proper and verifiable manner.
(Unlike now)
Reasonable suspicion should mean more than one word against another, and some corroboration

And for clarity, I am not a Royalist.
		
Click to expand...

He comes from a family that are supposed to be better than us normal people. That's why we bow and curtsey and all that, they are better than us.
So to get himself in such a postion is discgraceful and disgusting and not somethinng to be expected after all they are royalty and are special.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 16, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			He comes from a family that are supposed to be better than us normal people. That's why we bow and curtsey and all that, they are better than us.
So to get himself in such a postion is discgraceful and disgusting and not somethinng to be expected after all they are royalty and are special.
		
Click to expand...

Who says the are 'better'?
But what proof have you that he has done anything wrong?
Surely 'innocent until proved guilty' is a pillar of our society rather than birth?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jan 16, 2022)

Given the litigious nature of the US it is perhaps no surprise at the ferocity this case is being pursued. All that seems to do is feed the media and social media frenzy which does nothing to give Andrew a chance of a fair and unprejudiced hearing. Not sure innocent until proven guilty has entered into too many peoples thoughts in this case. Surely if the case goes against Andrew there would be some basis of appeal given this trial by media going on


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 17, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



*He comes from a family that are supposed to be better than us normal people.* That's why we bow and curtsey and all that, they are better than us.
So to get himself in such a postion is discgraceful and disgusting and not somethinng to be expected after all they are royalty and are special.
		
Click to expand...

I'd like to know who said this? Is this the official opinion from the Royal Palace? Can I find it on their website? Or, are you confusing wealth, fame or what sort of house someone lives in as a definition of being better than someone else? Bowing and curtseying are simply traditional. If I go to a golf union dinner, we stand when the LUGC officials walk into the room and do a slow clap. I never thought we did it because the LUGC officials are better people than the rest of us, just like any other traditional routine. It is about respect, just like shaking hands after a round of golf.

Again, you are judging the position he got himself into based on media stories. It may well be disgraceful, or maybe not depending on what he did and what he was aware of.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 15, 2022)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60393843

If Prince Andrew was in it’s a knockout he has just played his Joker. For me he will forever be tarnished.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 15, 2022)

You just beat me to it.

Out of court settlement, nicely before the Jubilee. I guess everyone will go back to loving Prince Andrew now?...


----------



## patricks148 (Feb 15, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			You just beat me to it.

Out of court settlement, nicely before the Jubilee. I guess everyone will go back to loving Prince Andrew now?...
		
Click to expand...

Wonder where the money came from for the pay off, esp as he appears to be skint...as if I didn't know🙄


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 15, 2022)

It’s not surprising but it all confuses me 

If she is that sure that he assaulted her then why accept a settlement? 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493620814624833538


----------



## woofers (Feb 15, 2022)

If he is so sure he was innocent, why settle?


----------



## rulefan (Feb 15, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If she is that sure that he assaulted her then why accept a settlement?
		
Click to expand...




woofers said:



			If he is so sure he was innocent, why settle?
		
Click to expand...

Money talks


----------



## patricks148 (Feb 15, 2022)

It's a civil case so no charges likely to come from it anyway always going to be a payout/ damages.

Strange though how someone who denied ever even meeting the person has settled?
😉


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 15, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			It'ds a civil case so no charges likely to come from it anyway always going to be a payout/ damages.

Strange though how someone who denied ever even meeting the person has settled?
😉
		
Click to expand...

Why didn’t the police charge him ? Why not a criminal case ?


----------



## rulefan (Feb 15, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why didn’t the police charge him ? Why not a criminal case ?
		
Click to expand...

Not enough real evidence


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 15, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Not enough real evidence
		
Click to expand...

That’s the crux of it - people will call him guilty yet there was not enough real evidence to charge him with any crime 

Has he settled just to make it go away because he doesn’t want anymore exposure or negative press ? Is a settlement an admission of guilt ?

He will be called guilty yet the girl ? Maybe you could say that has managed to get more money out of it ?

Guess it’s hard to come to conclusions


----------



## Robster59 (Feb 15, 2022)

My issue with these out-of-court settlements is that somebody has sacrificed justice for cash. 
I had the same misgivings when I heard that some parents had been paid money by Michael Jackson for alleged offences against their children.  It may benefit them financially, but it does not prevent the perpetrator from repeating the offence.  And in the case of potential child abuse, that does not sit right with me at all.
Whether Andy did or didn't do this, well, it didn't really look that good for him beforehand, and it looks like a case will come to court.  Unless, of course, there's someone else in the background with more revelations...................
I think we will see very little of him in the public life now, but of course he'll still get his money from the public purse.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 15, 2022)

If he was guilty, I am guessing she'd be happy to settle because there is always the chance he would not be proven guilty, if there was not enough evidence. Therefore, at least she gets compensation, and the fact he settled out of court does not prove his innocence.

If he was innocent, I am guessing he was nervous that he could be wrongly convicted, and even if he wasn't a lot more things could be revealed about his private life that he'd like to keep covered up. Therefore, handing over money would ensure he is never proven guilty, albeit his reputation will be permanently stained (although it pretty much was anyway).

So, if you have access to a lot of money, it can always bail you out of a situation that most of us could not. Mind you, it also could make you a target to some people, whereas most of us would be pretty safe, even if we were less than angels.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Feb 15, 2022)

I know one thing,if I was innocent no way would I settle.
I d want to clear my name 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 15, 2022)

All very unsatisfactory. It puts it to bed, in a way, but I don't know that that anyone comes well out of it. It's sad that money takes precedent.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 15, 2022)

Pin-seeker said:



			I know one thing,if I was innocent no way would I settle.
I d want to clear my name 🤷‍♂️
		
Click to expand...

Boot on the other foot, you want to expose the perpetrator as well wouldn't you? 

I totally agree with your post by the way. It's why this type of agreement doesn't sit well.


----------



## funkycoldmedina (Feb 15, 2022)

The stripping of his titles and this outcome makes me think there's much more known behind the scenes. 
If this was a he said she said case you think 
the royals would have seen how it played it out. The taking away of the titles etc is a very major move by the royal family


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 15, 2022)

Pin-seeker said:



			I know one thing,if I was innocent no way would I settle.
I d want to clear my name 🤷‍♂️
		
Click to expand...

True. although he may feel he has more to lose. Also, given the amount of media attention so far, and the media attention after any verdict, would there be grounds in his law team thinking he would not get a fair trial? Not something we'd have to worry about, unless we were accused of something horrific that made the media.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 15, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			It's a civil case so no charges likely to come from it anyway always going to be a payout/ damages.

Strange though how someone who denied ever even meeting the person has settled?
😉
		
Click to expand...

Ave never met him Either.  hopefully he will settle out of court and donate to my charity begins at home. 🤔😳😁👍


----------



## RichA (Feb 15, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Boot on the other foot, you want to expose the perpetrator as well wouldn't you?

I totally agree with your post by the way. It's why this type of agreement doesn't sit well.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with all of it in principle but, if it was my daughter, I would say settle - take the money, spare yourself a trial. Good luck to her.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 15, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			If he was guilty, I am guessing she'd be happy to settle because there is always the chance he would not be proven guilty, if there was not enough evidence. Therefore, at least she gets compensation, and the fact he settled out of court does not prove his innocence.

If he was innocent, I am guessing he was nervous that he could be wrongly convicted, and even if he wasn't a lot more things could be revealed about his private life that he'd like to keep covered up. Therefore, handing over money would ensure he is never proven guilty, albeit his reputation will be permanently stained (although it pretty much was anyway).

*So, if you have access to a lot of money, it can always bail you out of a situation that most of us could not.* Mind you, it also could make you a target to some people, whereas most of us would be pretty safe, even if we were less than angels.
		
Click to expand...

This unfortunately is so true.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 15, 2022)

Let’s be honest many said he was guilty before the settlement based on a picture and association so the chances of a fair trial would be very slim and he does have a lot more to lose and risk so there is just as much chance that he has decided against taking that risk and gone for the settlement - it might have been exactly what the girl was looking for

how many of us would take the risk ? And not pay our way out if we had the means 

But the guilt has been decided by some



funkycoldmedina said:



			The stripping of his titles and this outcome makes me think there's much more known behind the scenes.
If this was a he said she said case you think
the royals would have seen how it played it out. The taking away of the titles etc is a very major move by the royal family
		
Click to expand...

I didn’t think the titles were stripped permanently- it was only when he decided to fight the case on his own and as a citizen as opposed to a royal

Wouldnt be surprised to see the titles resorted at some point


----------



## CliveW (Feb 15, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			All very unsatisfactory. It puts it to bed, in a way, *but I don't know that that anyone comes well out of it. *It's sad that money takes precedent.
		
Click to expand...

I bet the lawyers have!


----------



## rksquire (Feb 15, 2022)

It was a Civil case, brought by one party against another - the bar is lower, and in this case, if the Judge ruled against Andrew it would likely be a monetary punishment.  By receiving and accepting a settlement - whilst the figure may be lesser - the outcome is very similar, albeit it comes with no admission of guilt which is very different to being 'not guilty'.

All said though, as the comments already show, 'doubts' remain in the public opinion of both sides and I think, from Andrew's point of View, that is the best case scenario.... going through with the case and having enough evidence to remain below a low bar was going to be difficult, ultimately having to make a payout anyway along with the associated judgement would mean a lot of the 'doubt' would have evaporated.  In Virginia G's case, accepting a settlement - depending on the amount - has a similar outcome to actually going through with the case along with the subsequent statements, it's likely the majority of public opinion will be that she was 'right'.


----------



## rulefan (Feb 15, 2022)

This was a civil claim where the burden of proof is far lower that that in a criminal court. The Prosecutor obviously though the criminal case was short on hard evidence. Both parties thought the was a chance they could lose a civil case so a settlement was reached.
Has now has no record of guilt.  Whatever some people may say or think, no one has seen any evidence that may or not have been presented to the civil court. Everything in the public domain is innuendo or rumour.
She has got a lot (presumably) of money and no doubt feels justified that she made the case and that his reputation is blasted.
I have no opinion either way other than to say he should never have got mixed up with Epstein and Maxwell. But no one outside the immediate case knows the truth.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 15, 2022)

CliveW said:



			I bet the lawyers have!
		
Click to expand...

I believe both sets have just bought prime location villa plots in Barbados next to the Rooney and Vardy legal teams 🤣

(This may not be entirely accurate if any legal bods are reading this 👀


----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 15, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I believe both sets have just bought prime location villa plots in Barbados next to the Rooney and Vardy legal teams 🤣

(This may not be entirely accurate if any legal bods are reading this 👀
		
Click to expand...

Yes and the ongoing legal cost was probably part of the thought process.
Wonder what the total is now?
Does he have to pay her legal bill as part of the settlement?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Feb 15, 2022)

So he always said he was determined to clear his name and she always said it wasn't about money. With an out of court settlement he has totally failed to clear his name and she has banked (what is likely to be) a large sum of money.


----------



## BrianM (Feb 15, 2022)

You’ve got to wonder if Maxwell will spill the beans on all the shenanigans that went on to try and save her own skin….


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 15, 2022)

ColchesterFC said:



			So he always said he was determined to clear his name and she always said it wasn't about money. With an out of court settlement he has totally failed to clear his name and she has banked (what is likely to be) a large sum of money.
		
Click to expand...

His Mother's money.


----------



## Imurg (Feb 15, 2022)

Isn't all the money going to her Victim's Charity..?
So she's not "backed down"....


----------



## Jimaroid (Feb 15, 2022)

So it looks like he does sweat after all.


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 15, 2022)

BrianM said:



			You’ve got to wonder if Maxwell will spill the beans on all the shenanigans that went on to try and save her own skin….
		
Click to expand...

I would imagine that would have the exact opposite effect!


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 15, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			All very unsatisfactory. It puts it to bed, in a way, but I don't know that that anyone comes well out of it. It's sad that money takes precedent.
		
Click to expand...

It was only ever a civil case, what possible outcome is there other than financial?


----------



## BrianM (Feb 15, 2022)

Canary_Yellow said:



			I would imagine that would have the exact opposite effect!
		
Click to expand...

I thought in the States they do plea bargains to get the most lenient sentence, maybe I watched too much Bosch 😂😂


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 15, 2022)

BrianM said:



			I thought in the States they do plea bargains to get the most lenient sentence, maybe I watched too much Bosch 😂😂
		
Click to expand...

Criminal cases only!


----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 15, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Criminal cases only!
		
Click to expand...

I thought Maxwells was a Criminal case?


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 15, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			I thought Maxwells was a Criminal case?
		
Click to expand...

It was! 
But this is a different case!


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 15, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			It was!
But this is a different case!
		
Click to expand...

You’ve got your wires crossed


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 15, 2022)

BrianM said:



			I thought in the States they do plea bargains to get the most lenient sentence, maybe I watched too much Bosch 😂😂
		
Click to expand...

They do, but my point was if she starts blabbing about Epstein‘s chums her skin is likely to be in grave danger rather than saved!


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 15, 2022)

Canary_Yellow said:



			You’ve got your wires crossed
		
Click to expand...

Utter Twaddle.


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 15, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Utter Twaddle.
		
Click to expand...

What is?


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 15, 2022)

Canary_Yellow said:



			What is?
		
Click to expand...

Your post that I quoted!
Why do you think I had my wires crossed?


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 15, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Your post that I quoted!
Why do you think I had my wires crossed?
		
Click to expand...

Re-read the posts. Brian is talking about Maxwell, your post about plea deals applying only to criminal cases was irrelevant, because he was talking about a criminal case. Clearly you confused clubchamp with your reply.

I can see plenty of twaddle, it's not coming from me.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 15, 2022)

1q



Canary_Yellow said:



			Re-read the posts. Brian is talking about Maxwell, your post about plea deals applying only to criminal cases was irrelevant, because he was talking about a criminal case. Clearly you confused clubchamp with your reply.

I can see plenty of twaddle, it's not coming from me.
		
Click to expand...

Then it's likely you that has crossed wires!


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 15, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			1q
Then it's likely you that has crossed wires!
		
Click to expand...

Utter Twaddle.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 15, 2022)

Canary_Yellow said:



			Utter Twaddle.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## 3offTheTee (Feb 15, 2022)

£7.5 m settlement according to The Mail. That is  what Mrs 3OTT said


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 15, 2022)

Canary_Yellow said:



			It was only ever a civil case, what possible outcome is there other than financial?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps the truth would come out?


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 15, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Perhaps the truth would come out?
		
Click to expand...

I doubt it ever really would. I think there would always be a bit of he said she said about it


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 15, 2022)

Canary_Yellow said:



			I doubt it ever really would. I think there would always be a bit of he said she said about it
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are right. Maybe we would have learnt a little more though. Some of the claims of guilt and innocence put under a little more scrutiny, some claimed facts checked?


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Feb 15, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It’s not surprising but it all confuses me 

If she is that sure that he assaulted her then why accept a settlement? 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493620814624833538

Click to expand...

Huh?
As I understand it,they ( the two Parties) are involved in civil proceedings.
A finding for her in such a Court gives her damages, yes?. 
The settlement is giving her that ,I should think😳


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Feb 15, 2022)

Pin-seeker said:



			I know one thing,if I was innocent no way would I settle.
I d want to clear my name 🤷‍♂️[/QUOTE

Many have financially ruined themselves being sure they are completely right and went to Court(s) to "prove" it.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 15, 2022)




----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 15, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			It was!
But this is a different case!
		
Click to expand...

No it wasn’t it was a direct quote about Maxwells case.
If she would spill the beans for a plea bargain.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 15, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			No it wasn’t it was a direct quote about Maxwells case.
If she would spill the beans for a plea bargain.
		
Click to expand...

Over 35 posts into a discussion about PA/AW v VG, where discussion on the previous case ended almost a month ago!
Wires weren't crossed; they had been disconnected!


----------



## chico (Feb 16, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It’s not surprising but it all confuses me 

If she is that sure that he assaulted her then why accept a settlement? 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493620814624833538

Click to expand...

It was a civil case, always about the money. I'm very surprised he's paid out so much when he is so obviously innocent.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Feb 16, 2022)

Think I’d take that chance rather than being known as a sex offender


----------



## Junior (Feb 16, 2022)

RichA said:



			I agree with all of it in principle but, if it was my daughter, I would say settle - take the money, spare yourself a trial. Good luck to her.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you.   Spare the pain from the trial.   

That said, If it was your daughter , would you have let her be groomed by Epstein and Maxwell and fly all over the world on private jets partying with dirty old men?  I know i wouldnt. 

Apparanly her claim was that Andrew "sexually assaulted her" 3 times.    She was 17 when it all happened.  Its not far removed from the Rochdale Grooming gangs, just in fancy hotels and nightclubs instead of above a takeaway in Rochdale.  I just don't know why she (and others like her) didn't walk away from it all.


----------



## Dando (Feb 16, 2022)

Junior said:



			I agree with you.   Spare the pain from the trial.  

That said, If it was your daughter , would you have let her be groomed by Epstein and Maxwell and fly all over the world on private jets partying with dirty old men?  I know i wouldnt.

Apparanly her claim was that Andrew "sexually assaulted her" 3 times.    She was 17 when it all happened.  Its not far removed from the Rochdale Grooming gangs, just in fancy hotels and nightclubs instead of above a takeaway in Rochdale.  I just don't know why she (and others like her) didn't walk away from it all.
		
Click to expand...

its completely different to Rochdale and sexual assault and rape are different 

if you read about the victims of the grooming gangs, they were threatened or threats were made about their families so it wasn't that easy to walk away from it.

As for VG, i am sure she was paid for her company.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 16, 2022)

Pin-seeker said:



			Think I’d take that chance rather than being known as a sex offender
		
Click to expand...

Officially he is now not a sex offender. Unofficially, he is a guilty as sin. His life and flimsy career done.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 16, 2022)

Junior said:



			I agree with you.   Spare the pain from the trial.

*That said, If it was your daughter , would you have let her be groomed by Epstein and Maxwell and fly all over the world on private jets partying with dirty old men?*  I know i wouldnt.

Apparanly her claim was that Andrew "sexually assaulted her" 3 times.    She was 17 when it all happened.  Its not far removed from the Rochdale Grooming gangs, just in fancy hotels and nightclubs instead of above a takeaway in Rochdale.  I just don't know why she (and others like her) didn't walk away from it all.
		
Click to expand...

If it was your daughter, would you know this was happening? Did her parents know this was happening (I've not heard tracked what their side of the story was). Or, did they just assume she was working with high profile people legitimately? I think it is unfair to claim someone else would have acted differently as a parent in hindsight, when you may have no clue what was going on at the time. And, even if you suspected it, would a daughter agree to everything their parents tell them, or would that not sound overly controlling? Unless the daughter shared everything that she got up to with her parents, then it is difficult for the parents to do a lot unless they can find out what is going on by other means. And, if somebody is grooming a girl, I am sure part of that process is making sure the girl does not tell anyone what is really going on.

Why did she not walk away? Again, surely if it was that easy then you could say that about the vast majority of these types of cases? Unless the girl is physically kidnapped and locked up, you could always say "why did they not leave?". I'm no expert psychologist, but surely at the time kids at that age are extremely impressionable? They'll feel important and that they are being cared for. Even if bad things happen, they'll be convinced that this is just normal in that sort of life. They'll fear leaving and then losing out financially, or these people who appear nice to them, to suddenly ostracise them. They'll feel they do not have much to run away to, people they feel will look after them as much as they think these people are. I reckon when you are a teenager, you are still immature. You want to look for independence and find your place in the world, but you have no settled life experiences to truly understand the rights and wrongs in everything. So, if you come across some very powerful, successful and charismatic adults, it is so easy to think they are well respected and decent people. I think you'd struggle to even determine that what they get you to do is illegal, or that you'd never be believed.

Also, these people were friends with the likes of Bill Clinton. With such powerful friends, ir could be difficult for a youngster to even suspect they are rotten to the core. In fact, it would be difficult for an adult to suspect this, unless the adult saw this with their own eyes, or took advantage of it themselves by breaking the law and assaulting these girls.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 16, 2022)

Dando said:



			its completely different to Rochdale and sexual assault and rape are different

if you read about the victims of the grooming gangs, they were threatened or threats were made about their families so it wasn't that easy to walk away from it.

As for VG, i am sure she was paid for her company.
		
Click to expand...

Not wanting to go off on tangents. But Ave travelled a bit. On me travels Ave seen dirty Old old men walking hand in hand with teenagers going places in Havana. Ave seen the seedy side of Thailand. Young women are exploited
 ( or are they)? all over the world. Andrew and his scum of the earth pals took it to another level. 
Somehow I have a gut feeling this is not done yet.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 16, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			Not wanting to go off on tangents. But Ave travelled a bit. On me travels Ave seen dirty Old old men walking hand in hand with teenagers going places in Havana. Ave seen the seedy side of Thailand. Young women are exploited
( or are they)? all over the world. Andrew and his scum of the earth pals took it to another level.
Somehow I have a gut feeling this is not done yet.
		
Click to expand...

Interestingly, and golf related, my friend has just returned to live in the UK after spending a few years working in Singapore. 

He often nipped across to Malaysia to play golf. He told me that, when you get there, there are very young girls, wearing very little, dancing around the golf buggies. You can hire them to be your caddy, and their job is to make the golfer feel comfortable (get them a drink, wipe their brow, and even accompany them into the evening). It is no secret they offer special services. He refused this, he said that she said she was 17, but she looked much much younger than that.

I think that is crazy, that this sort of thing is done so openly and not even seen as a problem in some countries. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 16, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Interestingly, and golf related, my friend has just returned to live in the UK after spending a few years working in Singapore.

He often nipped across to Malaysia to play golf. He told me that, when you get there, there are very young girls, wearing very little, dancing around the golf buggies. You can hire them to be your caddy, and their job is to make the golfer feel comfortable (get them a drink, wipe their brow, and even accompany them into the evening). It is no secret they offer special services. He refused this, he said that she said she was 17, but she looked much much younger than that.

I think that is crazy, that this sort of thing is done so openly and not even seen as a problem in some countries. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes my “radar is not switched on “ as Missis T says. When we saw the old guy walking hand in hand in Havana. I turned my stomach. In the Far East some of the things that are the norm. Well if that’s acceptable norm then am
A Utd fan.


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 16, 2022)

Dando said:



			its completely different to Rochdale and sexual assault and rape are different

if you read about the victims of the grooming gangs, they were threatened or threats were made about their families so it wasn't that easy to walk away from it.

As for VG, i am sure she was paid for her company.
		
Click to expand...

They were grooming vulnerable girls. It's not that simple.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 16, 2022)

I don’t believe these Civil cases should be allowed to settle out of court, both sets of lawyers will have done their sums and advised their client on the risks.

He looked guilty, imo, before she brought this case and him settleing does nothing to change it.

I thought she was more interested in bringing him to account than financial reward.

Neither come out of it looking good.


----------



## phillarrow (Feb 16, 2022)

pauldj42 said:



			I don’t believe these Civil cases should be allowed to settle out of court, both sets of lawyers will have done their sums and advised their client on the risks.

He looked guilty, imo, before she brought this case and him settleing does nothing to change it.

I thought she was more interested in bringing him to account than financial reward.

Neither come out of it looking good.
		
Click to expand...

Don't forget, she has not accepted anything in this settlement. The entire sum is going to victim's charities. In my view, she has come out of it looking exactly as she wanted to, i.e. the victim in this sordid affair.

And for those saying she should have just walked away, come on. That's as tone deaf as it comes! It shows a complete and total ignorance of what goes on in the grooming/manipulation of vulnerable people. Do you guys also have little sympathy with victims of domestic violence for staying with their partner? Or with abused children for not running away from home?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 16, 2022)

phillarrow said:



*Don't forget, she has not accepted anything in this settlement. The entire sum is going to victim's charities.* In my view, she has come out of it looking exactly as she wanted to, i.e. the victim in this sordid affair.

And for those saying she should have just walked away, come on. That's as tone deaf as it comes! It shows a complete and total ignorance of what goes on in the grooming/manipulation of vulnerable people. Do you guys also have little sympathy with victims of domestic violence for staying with their partner? Or with abused children for not running away from home?
		
Click to expand...

Re the bit in bold, not sure what you’re saying is entirely correct:
"The money is being used in three ways. The first part is to pay compensation to Virginia Giuffre.

"The second is to pay off her lawyers' expenses and such like.

"And the third is, of course, that she's leveraged his profile and there's a large sum going to her personal charity to fight for the victims of sex trafficking and sexual abuse.

Totally agree on the rest of your post.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 16, 2022)

"Oh, 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..."


----------



## Dando (Feb 16, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			"Oh, 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..."



Click to expand...

we can shut the internet now as this will never be bettered


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 16, 2022)

Canary_Yellow said:



			It was only ever a civil case, what possible outcome is there other than financial?
		
Click to expand...

Can a civil case prove a law has been broken?  If it can and a guilty verdict was passed then I assume a criminal sentence could be passed?


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Feb 16, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Can a civil case prove a law has been broken?  If it can and a guilty verdict was passed then I assume a criminal sentence could be passed?
		
Click to expand...

It's a different threshold, so you could have one and not the other, but they're completely separate processes. You'd think a civil case could only happen after the decision has been made not to have a criminal case, otherwise, how could there ever be a fair criminal trial if a jury has already decided the outcome for civil purposes? Dunno if that's the case though, this is the US of A we're dealing with afterall.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 16, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Can a civil case prove a law has been broken?  If it can and a guilty verdict was passed then I assume a criminal sentence could be passed?
		
Click to expand...

It's a different level of proof required so unlikely. It doesn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt, just highly likely. Just saying it was likely does not say for certain that a law was broken.

Even when OJ lost his civil case there was no criminal sentence and that related to murder.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 16, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			It's a different level of proof required so unlikely. It doesn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt, just highly likely. Just saying it was likely does not say for certain that a law was broken.

Even when OJ lost his civil case there was no criminal sentence and that related to murder.
		
Click to expand...

I don't understand the legal position, maybe someone here does have experience of this.  

Let's say in the UK a law is broken and the DPP decides it's not worth the cost to take to court. If a citizen then decided they are not happy with this and takes out a private court case and wins, could the person losing be sentenced for breaking a law?   It seems logical that this could be the case.


----------



## GB72 (Feb 16, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			I don't understand the legal position, maybe someone here does have experience of this. 

Let's say in the UK a law is broken and the DPP decides it's not worth the cost to take to court. If a citizen then decided they are not happy with this and takes out a private court case and wins, could the person losing be sentenced for breaking a law?   It seems logical that this could be the case.
		
Click to expand...

Not necessarily in the UK. For a civil action to be a success, the case only needs be proved on the balance of probabilities and that is a far lower burden than proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal proceedings. Basically the difference between 'it is more likely than not' that he did it and 'it is certainly that he did it'. THe CPS have to look at matters based on whether they can be proved to the higher standard and a ruling in a civil court would do little to change such a judgement. Even if they did, it would not be difficult for a defendent to prove that he could not be tried fairly if the results of a well publicised civil case were all over the papers as it would be hard to find a jury not swayed by those reports. 

What you have to look at as well is the tarnishing of an institution that would be inevitable with a long, drawn out, muck raking civil trial with the possibility of members of the royal family being deposed for evidence. Whilst not supporting Andrew in any way shape or form, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he was, to all intents and purposes, ordered to make it go away by paying up. His reputation would be shot but the stench of the whole thing would not spread as far amongst the whole family.


----------



## Junior (Feb 16, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



*If it was your daughter, would you know this was happening? *Did her parents know this was happening (I've not heard tracked what their side of the story was). Or, did they just assume she was working with high profile people legitimately? I think it is unfair to claim someone else would have acted differently as a parent in hindsight, when you may have no clue what was going on at the time. And, even if you suspected it, would a daughter agree to everything their parents tell them, or would that not sound overly controlling? Unless the daughter shared everything that she got up to with her parents, then it is difficult for the parents to do a lot unless they can find out what is going on by other means. And, if somebody is grooming a girl, I am sure part of that process is making sure the girl does not tell anyone what is really going on.

Why did she not walk away? Again, surely if it was that easy then you could say that about the vast majority of these types of cases? Unless the girl is physically kidnapped and locked up, you could always say "why did they not leave?". I'm no expert psychologist, but surely at the time kids at that age are extremely impressionable? They'll feel important and that they are being cared for. Even if bad things happen, they'll be convinced that this is just normal in that sort of life. They'll fear leaving and then losing out financially, or these people who appear nice to them, to suddenly ostracise them. They'll feel they do not have much to run away to, people they feel will look after them as much as they think these people are. I reckon when you are a teenager, you are still immature. You want to look for independence and find your place in the world, but you have no settled life experiences to truly understand the rights and wrongs in everything. So, if you come across some very powerful, successful and charismatic adults, it is so easy to think they are well respected and decent people. I think you'd struggle to even determine that what they get you to do is illegal, or that you'd never be believed.

Also, these people were friends with the likes of Bill Clinton. With such powerful friends, ir could be difficult for a youngster to even suspect they are rotten to the core. In fact, it would be difficult for an adult to suspect this, unless the adult saw this with their own eyes, or took advantage of it themselves by breaking the law and assaulting these girls.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, of course I would.  She was 17 not 25.  You raise a good point though.  She might not even have had any parents or adult role models.  As such , it made her a perfect target for the likes of Maxwell and Epstein. 

Please don't think I'm condoning anything that happened.  I think Andrew, Maxwell and Epstein are scum.   She was impressionable and the poor girl got swept away in a lifestyle that appeared lavish (private jets, fancy hotels) but in reality is vulger, seedy and disgusting.


----------



## bobmac (Feb 16, 2022)

GB72 said:



			Not necessarily in the UK. For a civil action to be a success, the case only needs be proved on the balance of probabilities and that is a far lower burden than proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal proceedings. Basically the difference between 'it is more likely than not' that he did it and 'it is certainly that he did it'. THe CPS have to look at matters based on whether they can be proved to the higher standard and a ruling in a civil court would do little to change such a judgement. Even if they did, it would not be difficult for a defendent to prove that he could not be tried fairly if the results of a well publicised civil case were all over the papers as it would be hard to find a jury not swayed by those reports.

What you have to look at as well is the tarnishing of an institution that would be inevitable with a long, drawn out, muck raking civil trial with the possibility of members of the royal family being deposed for evidence. Whilst not supporting Andrew in any way shape or form, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he was, to all intents and purposes, ordered to make it go away by paying up. His reputation would be shot but the stench of the whole thing would not spread as far amongst the whole family.
		
Click to expand...

So he would take one for the team


----------



## GB72 (Feb 16, 2022)

bobmac said:



			So he would take one for the team  

Click to expand...

I actually typed that phrase then thought better of it.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 16, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Over 35 posts into a discussion about PA/AW v VG, where discussion on the previous case ended almost a month ago!
Wires weren't crossed; they had been disconnected!
		
Click to expand...

Disscusion evolves.
But think the Twaddle comment didn’t help things!


----------



## rulefan (Feb 16, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			If a citizen then decided they are not happy with this and takes out a private court case and wins, could the person losing be sentenced for breaking a law?
		
Click to expand...

No. Civil action and criminal prosecution are entirely separate.
And most/many civil cases don't have a jury.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Feb 16, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			"Oh, 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..."



Click to expand...

Second verse........

Oh, the grand old Duke of York,
He claimed he couldn't sweat,
He gave some girl 12 million quid,
And he hoped we'd all forget


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Feb 16, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Can a civil case prove a law has been broken?  If it can and a guilty verdict was passed then I assume a criminal sentence could be passed?
		
Click to expand...

Seems there are a lot on here who don't realise this is a civil case and not a criminal one

Wrong,!


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Feb 16, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			I don't understand the legal position, maybe someone here does have experience of this.  

Let's say in the UK a law is broken and the DPP decides it's not worth the cost to take to court. If a citizen then decided they are not happy with this and takes out a private court case and wins, could the person losing be sentenced for breaking a law?   It seems logical that this could be the case.
		
Click to expand...

No, not exactly. They are two different levels of proof required.
In your example,you are talking about a private prosecution.
That is not a civil case. That is still a prosecution in a court of criminal law and there would have to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 
There would still be charges against the criminal law.

In civil cases, allegations are made claiming damages. The allegations ,if refuted , are heard in a civil court. The allegations can be found to be true on a balance of probabilities and if so, damages can be awarded.
If that happens there is still no conviction of a criminal offence, there is no criminal record.

There are rules of evidence strictly adhered to in criminal law cases.
IIRC, those rules do not necessarily apply in civil cases.
It is likely that evidence not allowed in criminal cases may be allowed in civil ones.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 16, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Seems there are a lot on here who don't realise this is a civil case and not a criminal one

Wrong,!
		
Click to expand...

I understand the conceptual difference but am asking the question as I have heard of people bringing cases against dangerous drivers for example who they feel didn't receive suitable sentences.
Most of us aren't in the legal profession.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 16, 2022)

I have seen rumours and suggestions, that as senior royal Charles said to Andrew it needed to be done and done now. I am sure there is a grain of truth in that as no-one wants a court case overshadowing the queens platinum celebrations. Also there were concerns on how good he'd have been in court https://news.sky.com/story/prince-a...-gone-to-court-royal-biographer-says-12543306

Whether he did it or not and whether Virgina Giuffre and he did meet will obviously be open to conjecture for many years. I am pleased that a large proportion is going to a charity and the big hope is that the money will go on and do some real good so at least something positive can come out of this mess


----------



## chrisd (Feb 16, 2022)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Whether he did it or not and whether Virgina Giuffre and he did meet will obviously be open to conjecture for many years.
		
Click to expand...

I doubt it will be open to conjecture for more than a few moments


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 16, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			I understand the conceptual difference but am asking the question as I have *heard of people bringing cases against dangerous drivers for example who they feel didn't receive suitable sentences.*
Most of us aren't in the legal profession.
		
Click to expand...

This ☹️👍 It was something that was considered by a family member. Money once more bought suitable sentence.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 16, 2022)

I wonder how much scrutiny will happen to see if taxpayers money is involved in any way.
Can see some newspapers not letting this go.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 16, 2022)

chrisd said:



			I doubt it will be open to conjecture for more than a few moments
		
Click to expand...

Yes the photo of them together has never been proved a fake as far as I know.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 16, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			This ☹️👍 It was something that was considered by a family member. Money once more bought suitable sentence.
		
Click to expand...

Can you expand? Were they originally charged with Dangerous Driving? And what was the charge, and consequence, in the Civil (presumably) Court?


----------



## Jimaroid (Feb 16, 2022)

HomerJSimpson said:



			whether Virgina Giuffre and he did meet will obviously be open to conjecture for many years.
		
Click to expand...

You have seen the photo of them together right? You must know the one, it’s the one where he’s got his arm around her and with Ghislain Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker, in shot too? That one? The photo of them actually together? 😂


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 16, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			You have seen the photo of them together right? You must know the one, it’s the one where he’s got his arm around her and with Ghislain Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker, in shot too? That one? The photo of them actually together? 😂
		
Click to expand...

Yes I've seen that one. The point is what happened after that?


----------



## PieMan (Feb 16, 2022)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Yes I've seen that one. The point is what happened after that?
		
Click to expand...

I would imagine Prince Andrew said "It's really nice to meet you"!!! 😀


----------



## Jimaroid (Feb 16, 2022)

Yeah to be fair we’ve absolutely no idea what might have happened in the privacy of a convicted sex trafficker’s home. Other than forcing girls into sex I admit I don’t actually know what a sex trafficker does?


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 16, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			Yeah to be fair we’ve absolutely no idea what might have happened in the privacy of a convicted sex trafficker’s home. Other than forcing girls into sex I admit I don’t actually know what a sex trafficker does?
		
Click to expand...

Traffics sex


----------



## Beezerk (Feb 16, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			I wonder how much scrutiny will happen to see if taxpayers money is involved in any way.
Can see some newspapers not letting this go.
		
Click to expand...

From what I heard on the radio this morning,  non of it is from tax payers money. Then again the bloke on the radio was a royal spokesperson or something 🤔


----------



## Dando (Feb 16, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			You have seen the photo of them together right? You must know the one, it’s the one where he’s got his arm around her and with Ghislain Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker, in shot too? That one? The photo of them actually together? 😂
		
Click to expand...

But some daft old bint has said it’s faked 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Jimaroid (Feb 16, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Traffics sex
		
Click to expand...

Well I never. You really do learn something every day.


----------



## rulefan (Feb 16, 2022)

Dando said:



			But some daft old bint has said it’s faked 🤣🤣🤣🤣
		
Click to expand...

It is suggested that his left hand was disproportionally too far from his shoulder and that his hand was photoshopped.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 16, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Can you expand? Were they originally charged with Dangerous Driving? And what was the charge, and consequence, in the Civil (presumably) Court?
		
Click to expand...

Ave mentioned it before on here Foxy, a guy was driving home ( from golf)  he had alcohol and drugs in his system but not over the limit, fell asleep went across road and killed sister in law. He never got a custodial. Tagged for Six months. It was suggested to Bro he could take it further on appeal.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 16, 2022)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Yes I've seen that one. The point is what happened after that?
		
Click to expand...

The real point is that, despite the photo, he claimed he had never met her. The photo and other recent evidence suggests that Andrew might have just not been totally truthful


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Feb 16, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			I understand the conceptual difference but am asking the question as I have heard of people bringing cases against dangerous drivers for example who they feel didn't receive suitable sentences.
Most of us aren't in the legal profession.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, but to address what you say here about the dangerous driving.
If someone felt the sentence for dangerous driving was too lenient, then only two things can happen.
1. The sentence for dangerous driving would have been given in a criminal court as the result of a conviction for dangerous driving. The prosecution would have been almost certainly undertaken by the State, I,e the CPS.
The CPS may in theory appeal that sentence.? I question if that is possible for such a relatively minor offence . If they could , I doubt very much that would happen. Not a severe enough matter. Murder yes, road traffic offence , no.   If it did happen, we are still talking about the criminal law. Criminal law rules apply.
2. However, after a conviction for dangerous driving, if the "victim" felt the sentence was too lenient ( or even if they didn't), the victim can still sue the driver in the Civil courts, for damages, I.e money compensation for injuries, upset, expenses etc etc. 

Again, two entirely different things, but yes, arising out of the same circumstances.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 16, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			Ave mentioned it before on here Foxy, a guy was driving home ( from golf)  he had alcohol and drugs in his system but not over the limit, fell asleep  went across road and killed sister in law. He never got a custodial. Tagged for Six months. It was suggested to Bro he could *take it further on appeal*.
		
Click to expand...

That's different from what SR was suggesting then.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Feb 16, 2022)

chrisd said:



			The real point is that, despite the photo, he claimed he had never met her. The photo and other recent evidence suggests that Andrew might have just not been totally truthful
		
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, he said that he didn’t remember meeting her. He obviously did meet her, but then again when you consider the number of parties and engagements he would have attended, and the numbers of people he would have met and had photos with, it is quite possible that he cannot remember every individual he met

Playing devils advocate a bit, but it does   Bring an element of doubt into the equation.

I have no idea if he is guilty or not, but he has seen his chums Epstein and Maxwell jailed and with public opinion against him, the chances of not losing a civil case in the states where damages can be incredibly high, looked slim.

It could be that he doesn’t remember, and hasn’t done anything wrong, but his friendship with Epstein means that he is guilty by association and put in an impossible position.

Or he could be as guilty as sin and has managed to wriggle out of it

Ultimately whatever happens, he is finished as a senior royal, reputation tarnished forever, no regiment or charity would want to be associated with him.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 16, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



			If I remember correctly, he said that he didn’t remember meeting her. He obviously did meet her, but then again when you consider the number of parties and engagements he would have attended, and the numbers of people he would have met and had photos with, it is quite possible that he cannot remember every individual he met

Playing devils advocate a bit, but it does   Bring an element of doubt into the equation.

I have no idea if he is guilty or not, but he has seen his chums Epstein and Maxwell jailed and with public opinion against him, the chances of not losing a civil case in the states where damages can be incredibly high, looked slim.

It could be that he doesn’t remember, and hasn’t done anything wrong, but his friendship with Epstein means that he is guilty by association and put in an impossible position.

Or he could be as guilty as sin and has managed to wriggle out of it

Ultimately whatever happens, he is finished as a senior royal, reputation tarnished forever, no regiment or charity would want to be associated with him.
		
Click to expand...

There was a news story yesterday where an employee of Epstein Steve Scully, working on Epsteins' private island and who hadn't given any an interview before, claimed he saw Andrew and the girl together on the island "playing around" together.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Feb 17, 2022)

chrisd said:



			There was a news story yesterday where an employee of Epstein Steve Scully, working on Epsteins' private island and who hadn't given any an interview before, claimed he saw Andrew and the girl together on the island "playing around" together.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe that’s why he decided to settle.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Feb 17, 2022)

If he hadn't reached an out of court settlement would he have had to have travelled to the US for the court case? If so then was he at risk of arrest by the US authorities who have been looking to question him?


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 17, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			That's different from what SR was suggesting then.
		
Click to expand...

Not really. To. cut a long story very short. When SIL was killed my bro was given a police support worker. He was very good. He in turn put my bro in touch with a group who support people have lost loved ones through deaths like this. They gave him all options to my brother once the sentence had been given. He decided to not pursue it any further. Again that’s a long story.


----------



## bobmac (Feb 17, 2022)

The trouble is, this is about a senior member of the royal family. The ''system'' will close ranks and make it go away so as not to tarnish the institution any further so we will never know what really happened.
It may not be right and you may not like it but it is what it is.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 17, 2022)

bobmac said:



			The trouble is, this is about a senior member of the royal family. The ''system'' will close ranks and make it go away so as not to *tarnish the institution *so we will never know what really happened.
It may not be right and you may not like it but it is what it is.
		
Click to expand...

I think with Charlie and Andrews current problems along with many others over the years. That ship sailed years ago. Lord knows what royalty will be like once Lilibet is no longer with us. ☹️


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 17, 2022)

rulefan said:



			It is suggested that his left hand was disproportionally too far from his shoulder and that his hand was photoshopped.
		
Click to expand...

If true ....where could his hand be.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 17, 2022)

chrisd said:



			There was a news story yesterday where an employee of Epstein Steve Scully, working on Epsteins' private island and who hadn't given any an interview before, claimed he saw Andrew and the girl together on the island "playing around" together.
		
Click to expand...

Wonder why this person didn’t go to the police and instead went to a paper 🤔


----------



## chrisd (Feb 17, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Wonder why this person didn’t go to the police and instead went to a paper 🤔
		
Click to expand...

Loyal employee?


----------



## spongebob59 (Feb 17, 2022)




----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 17, 2022)

ColchesterFC said:



			If he hadn't reached an out of court settlement would he have had to have travelled to the US for the court case? If so then was he at risk of arrest by the US authorities who have been looking to question him?
		
Click to expand...

It was reported that he would have given evidence, answered questions etc via video link in the UK. No need to travel to the US.


----------



## drdel (Feb 17, 2022)

It is a settlement agreed between the two parties.

Prince Andrew has not been proven to have committed any wrong doing but he has lost many roles and privileges because of the accusations.

The lady does not appear to have been imprisoned at anytime and her reputation is not that of Snow White. She may have suffered in some way and is being compensated in a way she is happy with!

On the basis of being innocent until PROVEN guilty I would PA has still lost a great deal more despite a the lack of any demonstrable proof. He may not be a likeable character and is privileged but that isn't how 'justice' should work.


----------



## RichA (Feb 17, 2022)

drdel said:



			It is a settlement agreed between the two parties.

Prince Andrew has not been proven to have committed any wrong doing but he has lost many roles and privileges because of the accusations.

The lady does not appear to have been imprisoned at anytime and her reputation is not that of Snow White. She may have suffered in some way and is being compensated in a way she is happy with!

On the basis of being innocent until PROVEN guilty I would PA has still lost a great deal more despite a the lack of any demonstrable proof. He may not be a likeable character and is privileged but that isn't how 'justice' should work.
		
Click to expand...

This court action wasn't about justice. It was about litigation for damages.
The two things are separate.


----------



## drdel (Feb 17, 2022)

RichA said:



			This court action wasn't about justice. It was about litigation for damages.
The two things are separate.
		
Click to expand...

Well aware of difference, thanks but your are wrong.

In both the Courts/legal system is seeking justice for the parties in dispute. In one it the state v the accused in the second the Courts judge on the basis, of  probability, if one party 'damaged' the other and then if the 'wrong'  may  be corrected and deserves some form of compensation


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2022)

RichA said:



			This court action wasn't about justice. *It was about litigation for damages.*
The two things are separate.
		
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as a *just* settlement.


----------



## RichA (Feb 17, 2022)

drdel said:



			Well aware of difference, thanks but your are wrong.

In both the Courts/legal system is seeking justice for the parties in dispute. In one it the state v the accused in the second the Courts judge on the basis, of  probability, if one party 'damaged' the other and then if the 'wrong'  may  be corrected and deserves some form of compensation
		
Click to expand...

I mean justice as in Criminal Justice and a criminal conviction, as opposed to civil justice and a decision in one party's favour and damages. 
The previous conversations suggested that some believe there is an overlap or that they are the same.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 17, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			Well I never. You really do learn something every day.
		
Click to expand...

No probs. Happy to help 👍


----------



## rulefan (Feb 17, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Can you expand? Were they originally charged with Dangerous Driving? And what was the charge, and consequence, in the Civil (presumably) Court?
		
Click to expand...

Dangerous Driving would never appear in a civil court - it would be in a criminal court. ie it is a criminal offence


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 17, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Dangerous Driving would never appear in a civil court - it would be in a criminal court. ie it is a criminal offence
		
Click to expand...

I knew/know/agree! That's why I asked the question(s)!


----------



## Pin-seeker (Feb 17, 2022)




----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 17, 2022)




----------



## drdel (Feb 17, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



View attachment 41260

Click to expand...

Rather proves the potential point about photographic evidence !


----------

