17 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

In the infamous interview with Emily Maitlis on the BBC, Prince Andrew denied ever meeting her despite the photo of him with his arm round her, that interview said it all, total liar.

 

Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60407806

Wasn't it that he said something that he doesn't remember ever meeting her?

Personally I don't know how many girls I met 20 years ago. Do I remember all of them? Sure not.

And I am sure Andrew met lots of people who wanted to have a picture of themselves with a prince.

Nobody can realistically expect that he remembers all of them.

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

In the infamous interview with Emily Maitlis on the BBC, Prince Andrew denied ever meeting her despite the photo of him with his arm round her, that interview said it all, total liar.

Didn't he say  that he did not remember ever meeting her?

5 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Whilst I understand "some" money will go to the woman, the majority as I understand it will go to her designated charity.

I think that's a charity she set up that will be receiving funds, i.e. it's literally hers, controlled by her.   Make of that what you will!

On 2/18/2022 at 3:09 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

AFAIK,

No, of course not, but you asked me where I got the "gem" about the damages paid in the potential civil suit, I just schooled u on basic law whereby there are no damages awarded in an out of court settlement in a civil manner, only whats agreed to between plaintiff and Andrews. And the initial reports have indicated the following:

WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT?

In a joint statement filed in court, lawyers for Andrew, 61, and Giuffre, 38, did not disclose the sum of Andrew's payment, but said the prince would make a "substantial donation" to Giuffre's charity in support of victims' rights.

If the case had gone to trial and Giuffre won, Andrew could have been ordered to pay Giuffre damages. She had asked for an unspecified amount.

This is very basic rudimentary civil law process...

15 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Wasn't it that he said something that he doesn't remember ever meeting her?

Personally I don't know how many girls I met 20 years ago. Do I remember all of them? Sure not.

And I am sure Andrew met lots of people who wanted to have a picture of themselves with a prince.

Nobody can realistically expect that he remembers all of them.

Actually he said "It didn't happen."

 

If I was a Prince on a London night out then head to a house in Belgravia, which just happens to be Ghislaine Maxwell's house with her in the background and a blonde young girl with me with my arm round her, yes I probably would remember, he does remember he did not sweat in the nightclub..............

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Didn't he say  that he did not remember ever meeting her?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60407806

7 minutes ago, ebice said:

No, of course not, but you asked me where I got the "gem" about the damages paid in the potential civil suit, I just schooled u on basic law whereby there are no damages awarded in an out of court settlement in a civil manner, only whats agreed to between plaintiff and Andrews. And the initial reports have indicated the following:

WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT?

In a joint statement filed in court, lawyers for Andrew, 61, and Giuffre, 38, did not disclose the sum of Andrew's payment, but said the prince would make a "substantial donation" to Giuffre's charity in support of victims' rights.

If the case had gone to trial and Giuffre won, Andrew could have been ordered to pay Giuffre damages. She had asked for an unspecified amount.

This is very basic rudimentary civil law process, but not everyone can't be expected to know this.

<removed>, you haven't "schooled" anyone! 

 

I didn't say that "damages" were awarded in out-of-court settlements.

Moderator Notice

 

Nothing wrong with healthy argument and debate etc, but PLEASE lay off the personal jibes.

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

 

 

 

51 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The facts of the case relating to Prince Andrew's involvement and accusation in the civil suit have been explained to you many times also.

 

She was 18, i.e. over the age of sexual consent, when she was with Andrew in the US (New York), not 17 (but 17 is not underage, either, in NY).

 

Prince Andrew did not traffic her.   

 

It can be concluded that if a person was not charged with a crime, it is safe to assume that he has not been found guilty of it.   That you choose to assume that he is guilty of something he was not charged with is your choice, nothing more.

 

That the media didn't report that he was involved in underaged sex is a big ducking indication that he wasn't ever accused of it...apart from people revelling in their own misguided and unevidenced speculation.

Andrew was accused of engaging in non consensual sexual activity.  Was fully aware the victim was groomed and trafficked by Epstein .

On 2/16/2022 at 9:11 PM, KhaoNiaw said:

I think that's correct. If they were brought together in Florida she would have been younger than the age of consent. I don't think that has ever been her argument though. She claims to have been coerced and trafficked. Is there an age limit on that? 

but can she prove it? She wouldn't be the first woman to lie if they thought they could get a lot of money if she was lying.

29 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 Prince Andrew denied ever meeting her

 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Actually he said "It didn't happen."

Make up your mind, which one did he say?  "Denying meeting her" is not the same as "it didn't happen".

13 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Andrew was accused of engaging in non consensual sexual activity.  Was fully aware the victim was groomed and trafficked by Epstein .

Are you psychic?

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That the media didn't report that he was involved in underaged sex is a big ducking indication that he wasn't ever accused of it...apart from people revelling in their own misguided and unevidenced speculation.

IMO there is an awful lot of misguided and unevidenced speculation going on in this thread.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 

Make up your mind, which one did he say?  "Denying meeting her" is not the same as "it didn't happen".

I'll go with the facts...................... "it didn't happen" even though there was a photo of him with his arm round her in Ghislaine Maxwell's house on the same night....lol

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'll go with the facts...................... "it didn't happen" even though there was a photo of him with his arm round her in Ghislaine Maxwell's house on the same night....lol

Need more than that to prove he had sex with her.

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Need more than that to prove he had sex with her.

Well......................

 

"There are only three possible explanations then for the settlement:

Either he was lying in that response - and remembered her well

Or he genuinely had no recollection - and was adamant they hadn't met - only for his memory subsequently to be jogged

Or that he maintains his innocence, but feels the weight of legal and public opinion against him now make settling the easier option, albeit without accepting any liability."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60407806

 

I'll speculate with the first response, he was lying.

17 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Andrew was accused of engaging in non consensual sexual activity.  Was fully aware the victim was groomed and trafficked by Epstein .

Not he wasn't, this is what the suit alleged...

" Giuffre sued Andrew in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of "sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress".   

 

"Was fully aware the victim was groomed and trafficked by Epstein".

Really?  How would you know that?   Where and when was that assertion confirmed or is it just that you want to think that he was "well aware she was groomed and trafficked by Epstein"?

58 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Wasn't it that he said something that he doesn't remember ever meeting her?

Personally I don't know how many girls I met 20 years ago. Do I remember all of them? Sure not.

And I am sure Andrew met lots of people who wanted to have a picture of themselves with a prince.

Nobody can realistically expect that he remembers all of them.

I doubt I'd recognise half the Asian women I went to bed with.

And that's only in the last 10 years.

 

I can remember all the women I bedded in the UK.

But there was only 4 of them, and I never knew the name of the first of those.

I'm guessing he wasn't called 'Randy Andy' for nothing.

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'll go with the facts...................... "it didn't happen" even though there was a photo of him with his arm round her in Ghislaine Maxwell's house on the same night....lol

And the veracity of that photo was proven when?  Where has it ever been stated that that photo of a photo was taken on the same night.  You've really got to stop making up your own "facts".

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Well......................

 

"There are only three possible explanations then for the settlement:

Either he was lying in that response - and remembered her well

Or he genuinely had no recollection - and was adamant they hadn't met - only for his memory subsequently to be jogged

Or that he maintains his innocence, but feels the weight of legal and public opinion against him now make settling the easier option, albeit without accepting any liability."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60407806

 

I'll speculate with the first response, he was lying.

IMO people that can afford it settle all the time to avoid a messy court case which only arouses the usual public vitriol for someone with an unfortunate public persona. Nothing to do with lying or guilt.

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

And the veracity of that photo was proven when?  Where has it ever been stated that that photo of a photo was taken on the same night.  You've really got to stop making up your own "facts".

It's so much more fun making up the "facts", isn't it?

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO people that can afford it settle all the time to avoid a messy court case which only arouses the usual public vitriol for someone with an unfortunate public persona. Nothing to do with lying or guilt.

Yea I wonder where he got over 10 million GBP? Apparently a sum which he does not have access to although there is now an enquiry as to where it did come from, so not sure he could afford it but it does save him the same sort of interrogation that he failed at in the BBC interview

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yea I wonder where he got over 10 million GBP? Apparently a sum which he does not have access to

Queen's net worth ............... 450M pounds ($600 Million).

Prince Charles net worth .......... 300M pounds ($400 Million).

 

What are families for?

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

And the veracity of that photo was proven when?  Where has it ever been stated that that photo of a photo was taken on the same night.  You've really got to stop making up your own "facts".

Did you read the BBC article published yesterday and listen to the full interview?

Just now, BritManToo said:

Queen's net worth ............... 450M pounds ($600 Million).

Yes sure, thats what the enquiry is about, did it come from her

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not he wasn't, this is what the suit alleged...

" Giuffre sued Andrew in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of "sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress".   

 

"Was fully aware the victim was groomed and trafficked by Epstein".

Really?  How would you know that?   Where and when was that assertion confirmed or is it just that you want to think that he was "well aware she was groomed and trafficked by Epstein"?

Read the docket.

Sexuall assualt and battery under section 30 of NY penal code. Includung 1st and 3rd degree rape.

It also states that Andrew was fully aware of Giuffre age and being trafficked by communication with Epstein and Maxwell

Just now, cleopatra2 said:

Read the docket.

Sexuall assualt and battery under section 30 of NY penal code. Includung 1st and 3rd degree rape.

It also states that Andrew was fully aware of Giuffre age and being trafficked from Andrew' s communication with Epstein and Maxwell

 

8 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

 

correction under NY penal code 130

including 130. 25 and 130.35

13 hours ago, giddyup said:

Not in the UK.

Giuffre's lawsuit was not brought in a court in the UK.

Why is this even news, obviously he would get away in some form like this sooner or later. He is royal. Otherwise she would have gotten some accident surely.