24 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Ms Maxwell is no doubt not a very nice person. Prince Andrew too. But what irks me, is she is the first person to have been convicted of trafficking minors when we are not told WHO she trafficked these minors too. And why are we not permitted to learn the names of the men she trafficked minors too? Could it be that they are the super rich, super connected high level politicians and media moguls that own the news outlets and control the MSM narratives? And other people above criticism such as the founder of a "fruity" sounding big tech company? Hmmmmmmmm

Probably because a Clinton would still like to be President.

28 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Probably because a Clinton would still like to be President.

You forgot someone else.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-judge-rejects-prince-andrews-bid-dismiss-sex-abuse-accusers-lawsuit-2022-01-12/

On 1/2/2022 at 1:00 PM, couchpotato said:

P Andrew is an alleged abuser of very young women, so he should be held accountable. Whether there is a trial or not, his reputation and the rest of his life is tarnished. Royal family need to get rid of him now--embarrassment to the Queen and country.

.......Cat O' nine tails......

Don't you think he should be tried and found guilty before a court first?

 

4 hours ago, Chris.B said:

Don't you think he should be tried and found guilty before a court first?

 

He’s not being tried in a criminal court (well not yet anyway).

 

He is however on trial in the court of public opinion and his efforts to avoid a civil hearing, failed as they have, are not helping the commonly held verdict against him.

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He is however on trial in the court of public opinion and his efforts to avoid a civil hearing, failed as they have, are not helping the commonly held verdict against him.

'Court of public opinion!'! hahaha???? What do you read then.... The Sun or The Beano??

 

1 hour ago, Chris.B said:

'Court of public opinion!'! hahaha???? What do you read then.... The Sun or The Beano??

 

Neither, but if you think the ‘court of public opinion’ doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter, watch what happens to Prince Andrew.

 

He’s already losing his positions as head of charities and foundations.

 

He’s in a world of hurt right now and almost all of it relates to the impact of this case on his public image and the image of an institution into which he was born.

 

 

18 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Neither, but if you think the ‘court of public opinion’ doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter, watch what happens to Prince Andrew.

 

He’s already losing his positions as head of charities and foundations.

 

He’s in a world of hurt right now and almost all of it relates to the impact of this case on his public image and the image of an institution into which he was born.

 

 

That didn’t take long:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/veterans-ask-queen-to-strip-prince-andrew-of-honorary-military-titles

Apparently a financial settlement will not be enough to satisfy Miss Giuffre - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/virginia-giuffre-unlikely-to-accept-settlement-to-end-prince-andrew-lawsuit

 

Will this be enough ? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/veterans-ask-queen-to-strip-prince-andrew-of-honorary-military-titles

 

Many wonder why she has waited 20 years to pursue this matter - has she already spent the $500,000 settlement given to her by Epstein ?

 

No excuses for Andrew, good riddance I say. BUT, the then Miss Roberts, could certainly have passed for 18 at the time of their first alleged meet, in which she apparently rejoiced, saying to another 'victim', that she "got to 'be with' him" (edited) - quite as a happy achievement in fact. This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun.

 

When their meets moved to a different location where the age of consent was lower, I wonder what the legal position is,  that relationship already being sexually established in a 'legal' location ? (Legal in the sense that Andrew might reasonably have thought her to be 18, the age at which money can pass hands in the UK. Begging the question as to who 'passed' the money?).

 

There must be thousands of couples in the USA who first 'joined' legally in Countries where the consent age was lower, but continued on arriving in the USA . . .  I wonder what their position is?

 

IMHO, Giuffre is on a ruthless money grabbing exercise and I hope she gets nothing more. Andrew is ruined anyway. The Royal Family can't escape it. What a mess !

Edited January 14, 20224 yr by TorquayFan

40 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Apparently a financial settlement will not be enough to satisfy Miss Giuffre - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/virginia-giuffre-unlikely-to-accept-settlement-to-end-prince-andrew-lawsuit

 

Will this be enough ? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/veterans-ask-queen-to-strip-prince-andrew-of-honorary-military-titles

 

Many wonder why she has waited 20 years to pursue this matter - has she already spent the $500,000 settlement given to her by Epstein ?

 

No excuses for Andrew, good riddance I say. BUT, the then Miss Roberts, could certainly have passed for 18 at the time of their first alleged meet, in which she apparently rejoiced, saying to another 'victim', that she "got to 'be with' him" (edited) - quite as a happy achievement in fact. This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun.

 

When their meets moved to a different location where the age of consent was lower, I wonder what the legal position is,  that relationship already being sexually established in a 'legal' location ? (Legal in the sense that Andrew might reasonably have thought her to be 18, the age at which money can pass hands in the UK. Begging the question as to who 'passed' the money?).

 

There must be thousands of couples in the USA who first 'joined' legally in Countries where the consent age was lower, but continued on arriving in the USA . . .  I wonder what their position is?

 

IMHO, Giuffre is on a ruthless money grabbing exercise and I hope she gets nothing more. Andrew is ruined anyway. The Royal Family can't escape it. What a mess !

A mess of Andrew’s own making.

 

But blame his victim why don’t you!

43 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Apparently a financial settlement will not be enough to satisfy Miss Giuffre - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/virginia-giuffre-unlikely-to-accept-settlement-to-end-prince-andrew-lawsuit

 

Will this be enough ? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/veterans-ask-queen-to-strip-prince-andrew-of-honorary-military-titles

 

Many wonder why she has waited 20 years to pursue this matter - has she already spent the $500,000 settlement given to her by Epstein ?

There is a great deal of documentation about why minors fail to file complaints against rich and powerful men who abuse them.

 

43 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

 

No excuses for Andrew, good riddance I say. BUT, the then Miss Roberts, could certainly have passed for 18 at the time of their first alleged meet, in which she apparently rejoiced, saying to another 'victim', that she "got to 'be with' him" (edited) - quite as a happy achievement in fact. This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun.

She was a minor.

 

43 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

 

When their meets moved to a different location where the age of consent was lower, I wonder what the legal position is,  that relationship already being sexually established in a 'legal' location ? (Legal in the sense that Andrew might reasonably have thought her to be 18, the age at which money can pass hands in the UK. Begging the question as to who 'passed' the money?).

The legal position is that she was a minor. What Prince Andrew thought was irrelevant. He also had the wherewithal to establish her true age in a heart beat. He did not reasonably believe she was 18.

 

43 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

 

There must be thousands of couples in the USA who first 'joined' legally in Countries where the consent age was lower, but continued on arriving in the USA . . .  I wonder what their position is?

Irrelevant to this case.

 

43 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

 

IMHO, Giuffre is on a ruthless money grabbing exercise and I hope she gets nothing more. Andrew is ruined anyway. The Royal Family can't escape it. What a mess !

That's the mess the self entitled invariably seem to get themselves into.

Higgot - "A mess of Andrew’s own making" - agreed.

 

"But blame his victim why don’t you! " That's one interpretation of my comment - "This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun".

 

 

Ozimoron - "There is a great deal of documentation about why minors fail to file complaints against rich and powerful men who abuse them." Agreed. But she was not a 'minor' at 17, the legal age of consent is 16 and she commented to a Friend, that she "got to 'be with' him" (edited) - quite as a happy achievement in fact. The age for consent is 18 when money changes hands, was this quite that simple? As I said, "This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun".

 

"She was a minor." She was 17 and the age of consent is 16 - the rest is a grey area.

 

"He did not reasonably believe she was 18." Do you have evidence for that statement?

 

"Irrelevant to this case". I don't agree - seems important but it's just MHO

 

"That's the mess the self entitled invariably seem to get themselves into". Invariably, are you sure about that? It sounds a bit 'chip on shoulder' to me.

 

Whatever, I don't suppose you are all right, or that I'm all wrong. ATB.

 

Edited January 14, 20224 yr by TorquayFan

10 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Ozimoron - "There is a great deal of documentation about why minors fail to file complaints against rich and powerful men who abuse them." Agreed. But she was not a 'minor' at 17, the legal age of consent is 16 and she commented to a Friend, that she "got to 'be with' him" (edited) - quite as a happy achievement in fact. The age for consent is 18 when money changes hands, was this quite that simple? As I said, "This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun".

 

"She was a minor." She was 17 and the age of consent is 16 - the rest is a grey area.

 

"He did not reasonably believe she was 18." Do you have evidence for that statement?

 

"Irrelevant to this case". I don't agree - seems important but it's just MHO

 

"That's the mess the self entitled invariably seem to get themselves into". Invariably, are you sure about that? It sounds a bit 'chip on shoulder' to me.

 

Whatever, I don't suppose you are all right, or that I'm all wrong. ATB.

 

In terms of the crimes committed against her she was a minor.

 

It’s not a grey area.

Higgot - Thanks for your opinion. ATB

1 hour ago, TorquayFan said:

Ozimoron - "There is a great deal of documentation about why minors fail to file complaints against rich and powerful men who abuse them." Agreed. But she was not a 'minor' at 17, the legal age of consent is 16 and she commented to a Friend, that she "got to 'be with' him" (edited) - quite as a happy achievement in fact. The age for consent is 18 when money changes hands, was this quite that simple? As I said, "This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun".

 

"She was a minor." She was 17 and the age of consent is 16 - the rest is a grey area.

She was very obviously rewarded for her favours.

 

1 hour ago, TorquayFan said:

"He did not reasonably believe she was 18." Do you have evidence for that statement?

As I said, he had access to the secret service who could have easily told him her real age. Had be been inclined to ask them. Anybody is his position could reasonably be assumed to be doing due diligence unless they had a motive not to. It is unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

1 hour ago, TorquayFan said:

Ozimoron - "There is a great deal of documentation about why minors fail to file complaints against rich and powerful men who abuse them." Agreed. But she was not a 'minor' at 17, the legal age of consent is 16 and she commented to a Friend, that she "got to 'be with' him" (edited) - quite as a happy achievement in fact. The age for consent is 18 when money changes hands, was this quite that simple? As I said, "This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun".

 

"She was a minor." She was 17 and the age of consent is 16 - the rest is a grey area.

 

"He did not reasonably believe she was 18." Do you have evidence for that statement?

 

"Irrelevant to this case". I don't agree - seems important but it's just MHO

 

"That's the mess the self entitled invariably seem to get themselves into". Invariably, are you sure about that? It sounds a bit 'chip on shoulder' to me.

 

Whatever, I don't suppose you are all right, or that I'm all wrong. ATB.

 

["He did not reasonably believe she was 18." Do you have evidence for that statement?
 

"Irrelevant to this case". I don't agree - seems important but it's just MHO]
 

This is a civil case, not a criminal case, what ‘The Andrew, formally known as Prince Andrew’ believed at the time is an irrelevance.

 

The case will be settled on what ‘The Andrew, formally known as Prince Andrew’ can be reasonably shown to have done, not what he believed he was doing.

 

 

 

 

Ozi - "She was very obviously rewarded for her favours." "This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun".

 

'Due diligence ?' 'The 'secret service' ?' Sorry I don't get it -  "This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun".

 

There's a desperation to bury Prince Andrew - he's a sleazebag but I don't quite get the fervour unless it is because it's Prince Andrew ?

 

 

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

That's the mess the self entitled invariably seem to get themselves into.

Andrew isn't self entitled .......... His mom is Queen, he is a Prince.

That's how titles work.

10 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Ozi - "She was very obviously rewarded for her favours." "This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun".

 

'Due diligence ?' 'The 'secret service' ?' Sorry I don't get it -  "This was a savvy young Lady, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun".

 

There's a desperation to bury Prince Andrew - he's a sleazebag but I don't quite get the fervour unless it is because it's Prince Andrew ?

Unless he's afflicted by some intellectual disability attributed to royal inbreeding he would have been acutely aware of the damage to the royal reputation caused by any impropriety on his part. He also had to be aware that there was a strong possibility that the girl was under 18. Especially given Epstein's reputation. He was friends with Epstein and they no doubt shared many a secret. I just find it implausible that he would not have taken steps to find out her true age if he had half a brain but for intent. He also told the BBC in 2019 that he had no recollection of having met Giuffre. Yeah, right.

Edited January 14, 20224 yr by ozimoron

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Andrew isn't self entitled .......... His mom is Queen, he is a Prince.

That's how titles work.

I wasn't concerned by his actual title, more his mindset. Silver spoon boy if you will.

Ozi - "That's the mess the self entitled invariably seem to get themselves into". Invariably, are you sure about that? It sounds a bit 'chip on shoulder' to me.

1 minute ago, TorquayFan said:

Ozi - "That's the mess the self entitled invariably seem to get themselves into". Invariably, are you sure about that? It sounds a bit 'chip on shoulder' to me.

Call it poetic licence lol. Yeah, I'm insanely jealous that he's a prince and I'm not. What is there about ex prince Andrew that I could have a chip on my shoulder about? He is was rich so there is that.

11 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Andrew isn't self entitled .......... His mom is Queen, he is a Prince.

That's how titles work.

His title means ‘Jack’ in a US Court Room.

 

 

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

His title means ‘Jack’ in a US Court Room.

He could refuse to interact with the US court.

Nobody is going to hand him over the the US authorities.

There have been wars fought over less.

 

He could use his 'Diplomatic Passport'

Americans can run down British citizens and get away with it by using those.

 

Edited January 15, 20224 yr by BritManToo

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

His title means ‘Jack’ in a US Court Room.

 

 

More than likely meant absolutely everything to Miss Moneygrabber at the time though. Now she's truly  blown her chances of becoming a princess. 

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

He could refuse to interact with the US court.

Nobody is going to hand him over the the US authorities.

There have been wars fought over less.

 

He could use his 'Diplomatic Passport'

Americans can run down British citizens and get away with it by using those.

 

If he were entitled to diplomatic immunity he would have played that card already.

 

Meanwhile, back in the UK he’s been stripped of his ‘HRH’ title, stripped of his military Commands and you is under increasing scrutiny from the press and public.

 

What a mess he’d gotten himself into.

Prince Andrew does not have Diplomatic Immunity:

 

What next for Prince Andrew? Queen's son does NOT have diplomatic immunity over lawsuit brought by Epstein victim Virginia Roberts and will probably never set foot in America again for fear of being hauled to court

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9878463/What-Prince-Andrew-Queens-son-does-NOT-diplomatic-immunity.html

 

So is Andrew going to become a modern-day remittance man?  Cabin in the Canadian wilderness?