It's not surprising that little Andy Windsor is a degenerate.  His family tree is full of degenerates, after all.  What is a little surprising is how stupid he is, from his association with a convicted sex offender, to his thinking he could buffalo Emily Matlis, who is leagues smarter than he, to refusing to settle the Giuffre case earlier on when even the fact of a settlement would not have been public.  Giuffre's lawyer, David Boies, totally outplayed Dukey Boy.

 

But then a royal upbringing seems more or less designed to produce psychopaths.  

9 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

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

Why would we? Listening/watching some boring interview is not what some of us live for .

9 hours ago, 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 by communication with Epstein and Maxwell

It can allege anything. Only valid if a conviction is secured.

Plenty of cases lost/ thrown out before.

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It can allege anything. Only valid if a conviction is secured.

Plenty of cases lost/ thrown out before.

"Conviction" is not a possible outcome in a civil suit in a US court.  The jury or sometimes the judge might find "for" the plaintiff, i.e. that a tort, not a crime, has occurred.

1 hour ago, ChaiyaTH said:

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.

It's in the news because she wanted to destroy him. And with MeToo and this modern idea that a woman can't possibly lie she succeeded. 

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It's in the news because she wanted to destroy him. And with MeToo and this modern idea that a woman can't possibly lie she succeeded. 

Yes she wanted to destroy him yet she settled for the money... hence my theory she would otherwise been wiped of the planet. Still strange they let it got so far though, maybe too many eyes on it.

Strange regardless, she would have gotten her justice + still a good amount of money the other way. Doubt she lied about this, epstein wasn't a random dude with a few incidents, it was his life work.

 

She destroyed his reputation regardless.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why would we? Listening/watching some boring interview is not what some of us live for .

I found it riveting yet disturbing. Also usefull for info relevant to the OP. Certainly not a boring 1 hour or so for me. However I'll not bore you further with factual comments from it that you reponded to.

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent. But as far as I know there is no evidence that he had sex with her. 

Of course there is evidence that he had sex with underage Giuffre.  Her sworn testimony is evidence.  You are not more obliged to believe that I am to believe Little Andy's poor memory, but in a court of law both testimonies are undeniably evidence.

 

See how people covertly discount the testimony of women?

43 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Of course there is evidence that he had sex with underage Giuffre.  Her sworn testimony is evidence.  You are not more obliged to believe that I am to believe Little Andy's poor memory, but in a court of law both testimonies are undeniably evidence.

 

See how people covertly discount the testimony of women?

Why would he pay such a huge amount if he was innocent after all, wasn't he the one who needed to speak in court otherwise? If he wasn't the one who did her underage, it was Epstein.

 

He had little to lose, his reputation was ruined already. Neither would it then make sense to strip him before a court judgement happened. Clearly the queen knew more already.

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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!

https://www.speakoutactreclaim.org/about-us

46 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Of course there is evidence that he had sex with underage Giuffre.  Her sworn testimony is evidence.  You are not more obliged to believe that I am to believe Little Andy's poor memory, but in a court of law both testimonies are undeniably evidence.

 

See how people covertly discount the testimony of women?

I only doubt the testimony of women, or men, when they stand to benefit financially from lying. If she went to court not wanting a financial "reward" from doing so I probably would believe her story.

6 minutes ago, ChaiyaTH said:

Why would he pay such a huge amount if he was innocent after all, wasn't he the one who needed to speak in court otherwise? If he wasn't the one who did her underage, it was Epstein.

 

He had little to lose, his reputation was ruined already. Neither would it then make sense to strip him before a court judgement happened. Clearly the queen knew more already.

Stripping him of his roles and use of HRH was decision made to allow the Palace seen to be doing something as the day came closer where he may submit to interrogation and deposition and make matters worse for The Firm. His very intimate friendship with GH was well known, and GM has stated the photgraph was legitimate .

The Lord Chamberlain assisted the senior royals to agree the settlement to take heat off before the Jubilee celebrations were ruined

6 minutes ago, ChaiyaTH said:

Why would he pay such a huge amount if he was innocent after all, wasn't he the one who needed to speak in court otherwise?

LOL. He must have known he couldn't win. Win or lose in court he has already lost in the court of social media as posts on this thread prove.

By paying her off the firm gets a reprieve from having low end papers/ media muckraking all of them.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. He must have known he couldn't win. Win or lose in court he has already lost in the court of social media as posts on this thread prove.

By paying her off the firm gets a reprieve from having low end papers/ media muckraking all of them.

I am curious to why you seem to be so convinced he is innocent while Epstein and his partner were clearly in that business, and those parties and the island specifically for it. The partner of epstein is even convicted for it already. 

The guy isn't dead without a reason, there is much more important people who would went down otherwise... Still very strange of her to accept this, as this came from years of prep.

53 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Of course there is evidence that he had sex with underage Giuffre.  Her sworn testimony is evidence.  You are not more obliged to believe that I am to believe Little Andy's poor memory, but in a court of law both testimonies are undeniably evidence.

 

See how people covertly discount the testimony of women?

Andy's poor memory did improve somewhat when it was convenient for him. For instance he remembers going to Pizza Express on the 10th March the night in question and it couldn't have been him in the nightclub as claimed as it was impossible for him to sweat...........lol

Interesting btw that his reported net worth would only be like 5-10 million british pounds, but he did buy her outside of court for an undisclosed amount. I guess the queen offered some of her cash.

13 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Welcome to the modern world.

Not from your obvious speculation no. One bad apple or should I say one major error in judgement and actions does not make a modern world. Nor does using derogatory language

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not from your obvious speculation no. One bad apple does not make a modern world. Nor does using derogatory language

The aspect of modernity to which you have not sufficiently adjusted is that none of the rest of us owes any respect at all to your pets.  

Just now, cmarshall said:

The aspect of modernity to which you have not sufficiently adjusted is that none of the rest of us owes any respect at all to your pets.  

Perhaps you've not noticed but seeing as you're not from the UK we don't care what you think about our Monarchy, besides its totally off topic. But derogatory language proves just how unadjusted to the modern world you really are.

21 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Perhaps you've not noticed but seeing as you're not from the UK we don't care what you think about our Monarchy, besides its totally off topic. But derogatory language proves just how unadjusted to the modern world you really are.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

The royals themselves do think that the discussions around His Randiness concern the institution, which is the reason for the settlement after all.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. He must have known he couldn't win. Win or lose in court he has already lost in the court of social media as posts on this thread prove.

By paying her off the firm gets a reprieve from having low end papers/ media muckraking all of them.

If he holds to his word about not remembering he ever met her then he could not "know" he would lose. There has to be more than his word against hers. Even civil trials demand more evidence than that.

 

 

Here's a great business model for a girl. Simply claim that Prince Andrew sexually assaulted you and he will give you 12 million quid without even going to court. How easy is that?

6 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

The royals themselves do think that the discussions around His Randiness concern the institution, which is the reason for the settlement after all.

You think what you want, you've already made it clear how you feel about other peoples Monarchy. I am proud of it and will continue to be so.

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Here's a great business model for a girl. Simply claim that Prince Andrew sexually assaulted you and he will give you 12 million quid without even going to court. How easy is that?

Do I have to be a girl for that?  Could do with a few million quid.  

 

2 hours ago, ChaiyaTH said:

Why would he pay such a huge amount if he was innocent after all, wasn't he the one who needed to speak in court otherwise? If he wasn't the one who did her underage, it was Epstein.

"huge amount" for you or me. But that is not a huge amount for the UK monarchy. Their luxury life will continue as usual.

It's like me giving an annoying beggar 10 Baht. Here, take it, and go away!

 

And what does it have to do with Andrew if Epstein or any other person had sex with her or anybody else?

 

Multiple off topic posts and replies have been removed topic is about:

 

Prince Andrew settles out of court.

19 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

"huge amount" for you or me. But that is not a huge amount for the UK monarchy. Their luxury life will continue as usual.

It's like me giving an annoying beggar 10 Baht. Here, take it, and go away!

 

And what does it have to do with Andrew if Epstein or any other person had sex with her or anybody else?

 

Let’s see if Andrew shows his face at the Jubilee, life continuing as usual and all that.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s see if Andrew shows his face at the Jubilee, life continuing as usual and all that.

Doubt he will be on the balcony scenes or any carriage procession.

He would possibly a covered piece of transportation for any procession, and Charles was reportedly tired of him waving to passerby on recent travels around Windsor. 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s see if Andrew shows his face at the Jubilee, life continuing as usual and all that.

And what does that prove or not?

Maybe he doesn't show his face at the party and spends the time with a girl somewhere quiet. Win/win and all that.

3 hours ago, ChaiyaTH said:

I am curious to why you seem to be so convinced he is innocent while Epstein and his partner were clearly in that business, and those parties and the island specifically for it. The partner of epstein is even convicted for it already. 

The guy isn't dead without a reason, there is much more important people who would went down otherwise... Still very strange of her to accept this, as this came from years of prep.

Where did I say he is innocent? I wasn't in the room and neither was anyone posting on here to know.

However, I have that old fashioned idea that one isn't guilty until PROVEN guilty. Lots of opinions being bandied about, but IMO no evidence except hearsay, and social media <deleted>. Associating with a criminal doesn't mean one has carried out illegal acts, and I suspect a financial motive for the plaintiff.