Chomper Higgot

You need to read the docket. If only to acquaint yourself with the sex crimes against a minor that your are obfuscating.

Civil cases are all about monitory compensation. She went in looking for $5million and came out with £12million++ She thrashed him hollow.

There are many kinds of justice. She got a lot more than £12millian out of Prince Andrew, he humiliated himself to the point he’s been stripped of his royal titles, honors, public offices and place on the boards of scores of charities. He didn’t simply meet his match, he was destroyed, and all by the choices he made.

You could have just cut to your last sentence.

I at least admire your honesty in admitting you see this as a threat to you personally. Others are not so overt on the matter, though nevertheless transparent.

Once again, you are free to speak for yourself.

It’s a ‘free thinker’ thing, they all do it.

Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Darwin. Right then and right now.

This forum is dedicated to COVID, Vaccines and related matters. Hardly surprising that many members seek advice on where to get vaccines. It’s also focussed on Expats in Thailand, many of whom are married here, have extended Thai families and extensive Thai social connections. These people can measure your claims of Thai attitudes towards the disease and vaccines against their own knowledge of attitudes amongst their own Thai families and friends.

I did not say you had. Others however have, and in general have not been challenged by Andrew’s supporters’ when they have done so.

From which people, myself included, are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

I you didn’t not, nor did I suggest you did. I was responding to BritManToo. Here is lies an issue. I get the ‘let’s be fair minded and give Andrew the benefit of the doubt’ thing. But it leaves the door open for trivializing the crimes to which this relates, victim blaming, attacks on the character of his accuser and an under-swell of blaming women in general. Refer numerous posts in the thread above.

The negotiated settlement was 300% of what was being sought in the civil action. I believe that to be a clue as to who was desperate not to take the stand.

On the evidence of posts from some it appears to my reading of many posts here, that the argument being considered is the flip. If this could happen to Andrew it could happen to [me]. But to correct you: The allegations made against Prince Andrew relate to human trafficking, sex trading of minors and statutory rape. These are not in any sense ‘trivial offenses’.

I didn’t say he was charged, I laid out the basis of the crimes and I have illustrated in an earlier post there are many examples of people who committed heinous crimes who died or committed suicide before being charged, let alone found guilty. One well known individual, recipient of honors comes to mind, his crimes were only investigated after his death, nobody in their right mind would argue he did not commit heinous crimes on the basis that he was never charged. Why Andrew was never charged is a completely different matter, but certainly deserving of investigation.

At last we are getting somewhere: She was trafficked to the UK at age 17 for purposes of sex. As you agree Prince Andrew had sex with her at that time in the UK. She’s an American citizen and therefore trafficking her to the UK at age 17 was a federal crime. She’s a US citizen and therefore not legally competent to consent to paid sex - paid sex with her at that time was therefore by definition statutory rape - a Federal crime (regardless of who it was who paid). The jurisdiction of the US justice system for both the crime of human trafficking and rape Federal extend globally. Regardless of whether or not Andrew was indicted or prosecuted, paid sex with Giuffre when she was age 17 was a Federal crime no matter where it occurred and no matter who paid.

Not at all surprising if she started the charity. Unlike her respondent who is being thrown out of charities by the score: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9584227/Prince-Andrew-removed-50-patronages-charities-rush-distance-him.html

Well you’re a member of the public, you have your opinion, I have mine. I doubt my opinion carries much persuasive weight with the general public, though I believe it aligns with that of the majority.

Correct, public opinion matters, it matters very much more to people and institutions that rely on public support.

Not quite. You fail to accept that public opinion is a very valid and important aspect of this case. Public opinion cannot be dismissed by the observation that Andrew was neither charged nor found guilty. As per the example(s) I suggest you consider.

Innocent until proven guilty is a principal very rightly applied within the justice system, personal and public opinions are not bound by this principle. I can think of a number of public and or otherwise famous individuals who were accused of crimes, often heinous crimes, who died or took their own life before being convicted. I’ll not take the discussion off topic by naming any of them, but I’m sure we can all think of at least one famous personality who was alleged to have committed heinous crimes, who died before ever being charged, never found guilty but who nobody in their right mind would claim was innocent. People make up their own minds on guilt and innocence, and for a public figure like Andrew public opinion matters.

Let’s see if Andrew shows his face at the Jubilee, life continuing as usual and all that.

What kind of personality finds the OP’s report something to laugh about?

Since the report comes secondhand I suspect something got lost between translation and people hearing what they imagined. Multiple reports on this forum attest to how well organized and efficient the vaccination centers are. Everything is being done to procedure. There might be a rogue misinformed individual but it’s more likely people are being turned back because they haven’t yet met their respective ‘date’.