2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Irrelevant, she didn't marry him. My point is that it stretches credulity to think she wasn't compensated.

So if you can't imagine it then it can't possibly have happened? 

But obviously nobody has to prove what happened because you and many others are sure it must have happened.

It's a strange world out there.

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But she wasn't underage for sexual consent in New York or the US Virgin Islands, either!

She was under age for prostitution in the jurisdiction where the offense occurred.

I know that but, so what?  No one was charged with prostitution offences neither was the civil suit brought for that reason against Prince Andrew!

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So if you can't imagine it then it can't possibly have happened? 

But obviously nobody has to prove what happened because you and many others are sure it must have happened.

It's a strange world out there.

It's a civil court. The jury only needed to be convinced, nothing needed to be proved. He wouldn't stand up to the plate.

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I know that but, so what?  No one was charged with prostitution offences neither was the civil suit brought for that reason against Prince Andrew!

The complaint included an allegation that she was trafficked and raped, that was clear from the BBC article.

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I know that but, so what?  No one was charged with prostitution offences neither was the civil suit brought for that reason against Prince Andrew!

Guffrie's claim is that she did not give consent. Due to the abusive nature of the relationship between herself , Maxwell and Epstein felt compelled to comply with Maxwells request.

Anyone know why US prosecutors declined to subpoena Giuffre in the recent  Epstein-Maxwell case?

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

16 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I know that but, so what?  No one was charged with prostitution offences neither was the civil suit brought for that reason against Prince Andrew!

The complaint included an allegation that she was trafficked and raped, that was clear from the BBC article.

I know, I can read, there was no mention of prostitution charges or allegations, that was my point!

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

I know, I can read, there was no mention of prostitution charges or allegations, that was my point!

Human trafficking is prostitution.

9 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I know that but, so what?  No one was charged with prostitution offences neither was the civil suit brought for that reason against Prince Andrew!

Guffrie's claim is that she did not give consent. Due to the abusive nature of the relationship between herself , Maxwell and Epstein felt compelled to comply with Maxwells request.

I know.  What's that got to do with some poster's claim that Prince Andrew was, or should have been, sued for/charged with prostitution offences?

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I know, I can read, there was no mention of prostitution charges or allegations, that was my point!

Human trafficking is prostitution.

Prince Andrew was not charged with/sued for prostitution offences or human trafficking!

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

Prince Andrew was not charged with/sued for prostitution offences or human trafficking!

The BBC article clearly states that the allegation of human trafficking was made pertinent to the civil suit.

1. the "charity"  have to declare the donation ?
2.  

4 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Andrew's legal team decided it was best to negotatiate a settlement rather than test it in court.

How would you know that was the only factor when that information has not been officially announced anywhere?    Perhaps her legal team decided it was best to negotiate a settlement rather than test it in court, something that, very recently, she swore she would never do because she wasn't in it for the money, she just wanted justice, i.e. to win her case against Prince Andrew!

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I'm just saying that innocent people cooperate with the FBI when asked, especially royalty.

Yeah, the totally non-corrupt FBI!   No one in their right mind should co-operates with any law enforcement agency, unless they have to.

 

What makes you think that "royalty, especially", co-operate with law enforcement?

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

Yeah, the totally non-corrupt FBI!   No one in their right mind should co-operates with any law enforcement agency, unless they have to.

 

What makes you think that "royalty, especially", co-operate with law enforcement?

They have a reputation to protect, but clearly he would rather part with 12 million quid than protect his reputation. Says it all.

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Conversely, it not evidence that the respondent did not commit a crime.

Th respondent is innocent until proven guilty, have you forgotten that?   The petitioner has to prove that.

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

Th respondent is innocent until proven guilty, have you forgotten that?   The petitioner has to prove that.

Not in a civil case, that is not true. The jury only has to find that the balance of probabilities favoured the complaint. Innocent until proven guilty applies only to a criminal trial.

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

10 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No one is the civil case has been accused of paying for sex with her nor taking her across state lines for paid sex!

The civil case was settled out of court before that question could be answered. The original case was about jurisdiction, not the merits of the accusation.

B0ll0cks.  All the questions were in the petition to the court. 

 

The original case was her case against Prince Andrew, the jurisdiction argument came after her case was filed.  Obviously!   There cannot be a discussion about a case's jurisdiction if the case hasn't already been filed with the court.

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

They have a reputation to protect, but clearly he would rather part with 12 million quid than protect his reputation. Says it all.

There's more to it than just that this year.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

B0ll0cks.  All the questions were in the petition to the court. 

 

The original case was her case against Prince Andrew, the jurisdiction argument came after her case was filed.  Obviously!   There cannot be a discussion about a case's jurisdiction if the case hasn't already been filed with the court.

The jurisdiction matter had already been rejected by a judge. The upcoming civil case was about human trafficking and rape.

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Th respondent is innocent until proven guilty, have you forgotten that?   The petitioner has to prove that.

This is incorrect

 The claimant has to establish liability.

The claim was one of sexual assualt and battery under NY penal code.

The claim included 1st and 3rd degree rape, amongst others.

The claim alleges Andrew was a knowing willing participent. 

The claim also alleged Andrew was aware Giuffre was trafficked and a minor.

That there was communication evidence to support this claim.

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yeah, the totally non-corrupt FBI!   No one in their right mind should co-operates with any law enforcement agency, unless they have to.

 

What makes you think that "royalty, especially", co-operate with law enforcement?

After the Newsnight interview Andrew issued a statement declaring he would co operate.

Prior to Giuffre filing the case she offered a tolling agreement.

Andrew remained silent to FBI requests and the offer of tolling.

42 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

49 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I know that but, so what?  No one was charged with prostitution offences neither was the civil suit brought for that reason against Prince Andrew!

The complaint included an allegation that she was trafficked and raped

The suit, clearly, did not accuse Prince Andrew of human trafficking.  Maybe she was raped, maybe she wasn't, no one will ever know, the case is over and settled by mutual agreement. 

 

Obviously, neither party wanted to take it any further and that includes Giuffre who was, it's safe to assume, advised to settle, something she swore that she would never do.  Her legal team must have had very good reasons for giving her that advice.

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The suit, clearly, did not accuse Prince Andrew of human trafficking.  Maybe she was raped, maybe she wasn't, no one will ever know, the case is over and settled by mutual agreement. 

 

Obviously, neither party wanted to take it any further and that includes Giuffre who was, it's safe to assume, advised to settle, something she swore that she would never do.  Her legal team must have had very good reasons for giving her that advice.

The filed complaint didn't go away because they settled. It just wasn't heard by the court. That doesn't mean it didn't happen and the weight of public opinion remains that it did happen and forever that will be the case.

 

Labour MP Jess Phillips has expressed doubt Andrew could play a constructive role in combating trafficking.

"Those who work in sexual violence [and] human trafficking services are certainly not going to have open arms to his allyship... even if it was just finances," she said.

 

Beyond the Streets, a charity working to end sexual exploitation, said it was unlikely it would accept any support offered by Andrew.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60406159

12 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

After the Newsnight interview Andrew issued a statement declaring he would co operate.

Prior to Giuffre filing the case she offered a tolling agreement.

Andrew remained silent to FBI requests and the offer of tolling.

He may have said that, I don't know, but his legal team would never have  advised him to "co-operate with the FBI".

 

There was no reason for his legal team to want him to sign a tolling agreement.

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He may have said that, I don't know, but his legal team would never have  advised him to "co-operate with the FBI".

 

There was no reason for his legal team to want him to sign a tolling agreement.

If he was innocent they certainly would have advised him to cooperate.

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The filed complaint didn't go away because they settled. It just wasn't heard by the court. That doesn't mean it didn't happen and the weight of public opinion remains that it did happen and forever that will be the case.

The legal case is over, it has gone away, legally, because it is being settled.  Who said that "it never happened"?   

 

Public opinion has s0d all to do with it, the public has no idea what happened between the two parties even though they may want to speculate from now till kingdom come.

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

The legal case is over, it has gone away, legally, because it is being settled.  Who said that "it never happened"?   

 

Public opinion has s0d all to do with it, the public has no idea what happened between the two parties even though they may want to speculate from now till kingdom come.

and they will because he failed to defend himself.

10 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The suit, clearly, did not accuse Prince Andrew of human trafficking.  Maybe she was raped, maybe she wasn't, no one will ever know, the case is over and settled by mutual agreement. 

 

Obviously, neither party wanted to take it any further and that includes Giuffre who was, it's safe to assume, advised to settle, something she swore that she would never do.  Her legal team must have had very good reasons for giving her that advice.

It was an unequivocal win for Giuffre. Without any testing of her case ,Andrew has decided to pay a settlement to a person whom he claims to have never met. 

The optics make it almost certain Andrew will not regain any public duties.