Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which is why he’s handing over £millions

I suspect his mom paid it all, just to make it go away.

12M pounds seems a very small payout for someone whose mom owns half of England & Scotland.

Personally, I feel it was a mistake, the woke liberals will never forgive or forget any accusations.

[ozimoron]

Just now, VocalNeal said:

Again. Not a huge amount.

How does that change anything? If that's what Andrew believes then clearly it wasn't enough. Financial penalties are intended to be sufficient enough to act as a deterrent.

[VocalNeal]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

and they exert jurisdiction internationally for human trafficking offenses..

Isn't that what Interpol is for. They are after all the FEDERAL whatever. not the INTERNATIONAL whatever.

 

They exert jurisdiction internationally wherever they can sniff some money?

[ozimoron]

Just now, VocalNeal said:

Isn't that what Interpol is for. They are after all the FEDERAL whatever. not the INTERNATIONAL whatever.

 

They exert jurisdiction internationally wherever they can sniff some money?

No. Interpol do not arrest or prosecute.

[RJRS1301]

2 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

So to add some gas on to the flames, as one uppity American ex colonist.

 

Who's gonna pay for it? 

 

Is the Queen gonna sell off a few trinkets, or are all the 'subjects' have a few of their tax $(pounds) siphoned off to pay for your 'randy andy'

No, QE11 is an extremely wealthy woman in her own right, so there will be nothing from Souvereign Grant or Privy Purse.

 

[RJRS1301]

The International Criminal Police Organization

However they had absolutley nothing to do with any of this concerning Prince Andrew

[ozimoron]

Just now, RJRS1301 said:

The International Criminal Police Organization

However they had absolutley nothing to do with any of this concerning Prince Andrew

so, off topic?

[ebice]

11 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

exert jurisdiction

Exactly how do the authorities (FBI in this example) "exert" jurisdiction for crimes committed outside US soil? Crimes are prosecuted by local police forces not those that "exert"  jurisdiction.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, ebice said:

Exactly how do the authorities (FBI in this example) "exert" jurisdiction for crimes committed outside US soil? Crimes are prosecuted by local police forces not those that "exert"  jurisdiction.

International agreements backed by domestic laws.

[Rimmer]

A conspiracy troll post has been removed, also a post dragging LM law into the topic

[DaLa]

2 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

So to add some gas on to the flames, as one uppity American ex colonist.

 

Who's gonna pay for it? 

 

Is the Queen gonna sell off a few trinkets, or are all the 'subjects' have a few of their tax $(pounds) siphoned off to pay for your 'randy andy'

I’m glad you asked that. If it had gone to trial and PA had lost then the financial side of it would have been dealt with through the Transatlantic Litigation protocol.  PA, would have been the judgement debtor and the process or reclaiming the debt in the UK would have been an interesting scenario.

 

That is not the case now, and thus to a large extent the legal ramifications have been removed; simply the terms and conditions will be in the settlement agreement.

 

It must be noted that PA is now actually unemployed (either sacked or made redundant by Queenie) and presumably either on Income Support or Job Seekers Allowance (or one of the other 28 or so UK benefits). Thus I suspect he will have come to an appropriate agreement of around £10 per week.

 

Which actually is a small price to pay for dodging the bullet of marrying her and making her princess dreams come true. You have to admit Kate is looking fantastic at 40 rather than Miss failed princess at 38.

[ebice]

She claimed she was paid "extremely well" for her encounters with the Prince. It is documented in The Billionaire's Playboy Club¹

^{See page 80}

 

¹A memoir written about a young women, caught in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring. Unpublished, it was submitted as evidence against Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's Madame, in 2015. These court documents have recently been unsealed by a judge and made public.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, ebice said:

She claimed she was paid "extremely well" for her encounters with the Prince. It is documented in The Billionaire's Playboy Club¹

^{See page 80}

 

¹A memoir written about a young women, caught in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring. Unpublished, it was submitted as evidence against Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's Madame, in 2015. These court documents have recently been unsealed by a judge and made public.

Which, if proved or admitted is an indication of human trafficking given her age.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

13 hours ago, 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.

Expand  

Public opinion has everything to do with it.

No, public opinion about what it thinks happened, speculatively, is irrelevant.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And there cannot be an examination of the case until the court has determined if it has jurisdiction.

At last, a sensible comment!

[ozimoron]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

No, public opinion about what it thinks happened, speculatively, is irrelevant.

I suppose politicians and royalty have never been concerned with public opinion? I don't like the next referendum on the commonwealth's chances of maintaining the status quo in Australia.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She was trafficked to Andrew at the age of 17, which under YS law is a crime and is below the age at which she was legally competent to consent.

There was no allegation, or evidence, that she was "trafficked specifically to Prince Andrew".   She was, allegedly, introduced to him at a night club in London.  As regards the age of consent, in the UK it is 16, she was 17 and able to consent.  If you're using the age of consent in the US, then it depends on the state you select, in New York it is 17.  She was 17.  

[Liverpool Lou]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, public opinion about what it thinks happened, speculatively, is irrelevant.

I suppose politicians and royalty have never been concerned with public opinion? 

You can suppose whatever you like...I suppose.   Doesn't make speculative public opinion of the case relevant

[Chomper Higgot]

I call her a victim because she was a victim of sex trafficking when she was a minor.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There was no allegation, or evidence, that she was "trafficked specifically to Prince Andrew".   She was, allegedly, introduced to him at a night club in London.  As regards the age of consent, in the UK it is 16, she was 17 and able to consent.  If you're using the age of consent in the US, then it depends on the state you select, in New York it is 17.  She was 17.  

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.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

I think this thread is done as well.

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, public opinion about what it thinks happened, speculatively, is irrelevant.

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.

[OneMoreFarang]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I call her a victim because she was a victim of sex trafficking when she was a minor.

Summary:

With 17 she had sex with men for money and we should call her victim.

With 18 she had sex with men for money which is called prostitution.

And after that she decided rich men should pay for the rest of her life. I guess then she should be called a businesswomen.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Summary:

With 17 she had sex with men for money and we should call her victim.

With 18 she had sex with men for money which is called prostitution.

And after that she decided rich men should pay for the rest of her life. I guess then she should be called a businesswomen.

I think this is starting to flog a dead horse to be honest. You're just trying to re-litigate points which have been argued to the death.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I think this thread is done as well.

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.

[Liverpool Lou]

13 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

13 hours ago, 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.

Expand  

But the record will show Andrew paid a settlement in a case where Andrew was accused of sexuall assualt and battery

No one's disputing that, except the exaggerated part that you added, he was not being sued for "battery".   

 

Remember that the record will also show that she decided against taking it to trial, contradicting what she had long insisted she would do, "I [she] am not in it for the money"!   I wonder why her legal team advised her to accept a payout and not risk being cross-examined in a trial?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

I could provide an explanation but it would likely stir up a hornets nest.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No one's disputing that, except the exaggerated part that you added, he was not being sued for "battery".   

 

Remember that the record will also show that she decided against taking it to trial, contradicting what she had long insisted she would do, "I [she] am not in it for the money"!   I wonder why her legal team advised her to accept a payout and not risk being cross-examined in a trial?

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

[Liverpool Lou]

13 hours ago, ozimoron said:

13 hours ago, 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.

Don't forget that, obviously, she also was advised not to risk cross-examination in a trial!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Don't forget that, obviously, she also was advised not to risk cross-examination in a trial!

An assumption on your part.