Chomper Higgot

If she went to trial she might have lost her $5million claim, she didn’t (for whatever reason) go to trial and trebled what she was seeking. If you can’t work that out stay away from the poker table.

And trebled her winnings at the same time. Your argument doesn’t add up.

She was trafficked for sex at age 17 when she was not legally competent to consent to paid sex. Quit obfuscating.

Again, go read the docket.

Best wishes to HM Queen Elizabeth for a speedy and full recovery. Regardless of any views on monarchy Queen Elizabeth has dedicated her life to the people of the UK and Commonwealth, a fabulous example of selfless public service.

It doesn’t matter who paid for the sex, he had sex with a minor who had been trafficked and paid by others for the purposes of sex. Try dealing with these facts.

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.