Chomper Higgot

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’.

It’s been explained to you many times, she 17 and trafficked across a state line for the purposes of paid sex. 1. Trafficked across a state line. 2. not legally competent to consent to paid sex. You cannot conclude that because an individual is not charged that they did not commit a crime. Nor can you conclude anything from something not being reported in the media.

It his defenders here are all men.

Once again, she’s a smart cookie. Prince Andrew demanded take this before a jury, that didn’t happen either. Prince Andrew is not a smart cookies. He’s done.

He’s done and you know he is.

Which does not stop some here engaging in attacks upon her. Figure that.

She set off to get $5million and wound up getting over £12million + a formal apology. Well done!

Here’s a better summary. Prince Andrew settled out of court for £millions and a formal apology to Giuffre. Just the bare facts will do nicely.

Again, replete with your own assumptions.

An assumption on your part.

Who got the £millions and who had to apologize to whom?

We’ll all that’s left for Prince Andrew’s defenders is to attack the woman he has been forced to apologize to and to whom he must now hand over £millions. One has to ask, Prince Andrew clearly decided doing so was in his very best interest, so why the incandescent rage from his male supporters? Read their comments and decide for yourself.

Public opinion is already demanding Prince Andrew be stripped of titles and duties, it’s also playing into growing Republicanism. Your man paid up, he’s lost in the court of public opinion, he’s done.

The fallacy of your continual references to the non applicable English law has been explained to you more than once. Your man paid up, he’s done.