Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[BritManToo]

16 hours ago, puck2 said:

But if you have money or the right connections you are able to circumvent "the law"

If Andrew had been a nobody (like us), there would never have been a court case in the first place.

How many 'nobodies' do you see being taken to court 20 years after the event for trivial offences like this?

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

If Andrew had been a nobody (like us), there would never have been a court case in the first place.

How many 'nobodies' do you see being taken to court 20 years after the event for trivial offences like this?

Nobodies did not mix in the Epstein/Maxwell/asritcratic circles, unless as servers, drivers, or general factotums , or victims

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

Nobodies did not mix in the Epstein/Maxwell/asritcratic circles, unless as servers, drivers, or general factotums , or victims

and those accused of rape......................although this is another one who decided suicide was best

 

Jean-Luc Brunel, held on suspicion of supplying girls to Epstein, found hanged

 

The former boss of a French model agency accused of rape and under investigation on suspicion of supplying underage girls to the late American financier Jeffrey Epstein has been found dead in prison.

The body of Jean-Luc Brunel, 75, was reportedly found hanging in his cell in the early hours of Saturday. The French prosecutors’ office confirmed the report and said an inquiry had been opened into the exact cause of death, but early indications pointed to suicide.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/19/jean-luc-brunel-held-on-suspicion-of-supplying-girls-to-epstein-found-hanged

[tonray]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

Nobodies did not mix in the Epstein/Maxwell/asritcratic circles, unless as servers, drivers, or general factotums , or victims

Exactly...in fact testimony at Maxwell trial stated that servers and staff were instructed not even to look directly at Epstein while he was in the house and certainly never be so bold as to speak to him. He pretended to be Royalty...much like Andrew in the end

[cmarshall]

2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

However he was never charged with criminal offence anywhere, so gulity does not come into it , in a legal sense. The allegation he had sex with her anywhere is immaterial since there never was any criminal offence charges, and civil cases only find for or against a plaintiff, they do adjudicate on guilt in a criminal sense, as that is not part of the civil process.  

 

Not immaterial.  While having sex with a minor is indeed a felony, it is also a tort against the minor herself for which compensatory damages can be awarded as a result of a successful civil lawsuit.

[RJRS1301]

33 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Not immaterial.  While having sex with a minor is indeed a felony, it is also a tort against the minor herself for which compensatory damages can be awarded as a result of a successful civil lawsuit.

The damges were not "awarded" no trial so no award. There was a negotiated settlement with no admission of any guilt, however an undertaking on several matters. Negotaited settlements are completely different from awards by the courts, the negotiated settlement  was agreed to by the parties concerned and the  court.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

However he was never charged with criminal offence anywhere, so gulity does not come into it , in a legal sense. The allegation he had sex with her anywhere is immaterial since there never was any criminal offence charges, and civil cases only find for or against a plaintiff, they do adjudicate on guilt in a criminal sense, as that is not part of the civil process.  

 

I didn’t say he was charged, I laid out the basis of the crimes and I have illustrated in an earlier post there are many examples of people who committed  heinous crimes who died or committed suicide before being charged, let alone found guilty.

 

One well known individual, recipient of honors comes to mind, his crimes were only investigated after his death, nobody in their right mind would argue he did not commit heinous crimes on the basis that he was never charged.

 

Why Andrew was never charged is a completely different matter, but certainly deserving of investigation.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

If Andrew had been a nobody (like us), there would never have been a court case in the first place.

How many 'nobodies' do you see being taken to court 20 years after the event for trivial offences like this?

On the evidence of posts from some it appears to my reading of many posts here, that the argument being considered is the flip.

 

If this could happen to Andrew it could happen to [me].

But to correct you:

 

The allegations made against Prince Andrew relate to human trafficking, sex trading of minors and statutory rape.

 

These are not in any sense ‘trivial offenses’.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

The damges were not "awarded" no trial so no award. There was a negotiated settlement with no admission of any guilt, however an undertaking on several matters. Negotaited settlements are completely different from awards by the courts, the negotiated settlement  was agreed to by the parties concerned and the  court.

The negotiated settlement was 300% of what was being sought in the civil action.

 

I believe that to be a clue as to who was desperate not to take the stand.

[RJRS1301]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

On the evidence of posts from some it appears to my reading of many posts here, that the argument being considered is the flip.

 

If this could happen to Andrew it could happen to [me].

But to correct you:

 

The allegations made against Prince Andrew relate to human trafficking, sex trading of minors and statutory rape.

 

These are not in any sense ‘trivial offenses’.

 

Did I indicate anything about this was "trivial"? No

[RJRS1301]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The negotiated settlement was 300% of what was being sought in the civil action.

 

I believe that to be a clue as to who was desperate not to take the stand.

Immaterial what you believe, they are the agreed facts.

 

[RJRS1301]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I didn’t say he was charged, I laid out the basis of the crimes and I have illustrated in an earlier post there are many examples of people who committed  heinous crimes who died or committed suicide before being charged, let alone found guilty.

 

One well known individual, recipient of honors comes to mind, his crimes were only investigated after his death, nobody in their right mind would argue he did not commit heinous crimes on the basis that he was never charged.

 

Why Andrew was never charged is a completely different matter, but certainly deserving of investigation.

The fact he was never charged, therefore nothing proved in a court of law. 

The rest of your lengthy posts are opinions and remain so.

Civil juridiction is completley different from criminal jursidiction which never sought to have him stand trial

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, RJRS1301 said:

Did I indicate anything about this was "trivial"? No

 I you didn’t not, nor did I suggest you did.

 

I was responding to BritManToo.

 

Here is lies an issue. I get the ‘let’s be fair minded and give Andrew the benefit of the doubt’ thing.

 

But it leaves the door open for trivializing the crimes to which this relates,  victim blaming, attacks on the character of his accuser and an under-swell of blaming women in general. Refer numerous posts in the thread above.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Immaterial what you believe, they are the agreed facts.

 

From which people, myself included, are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 I you didn’t not, nor did I suggest you did.

 

I was responding to BritManToo.

 

Here is lies an issue. I get the ‘let’s be fair minded and give Andrew the benefit of the doubt’ thing.

 

But it leaves the door open for trivializing the crimes to which this relates,  victim blaming, attacks on the character of his accuser and an under-swell of blaming women in general. Refer numerous posts in the thread above.

 

 

 

 

I have not posted one thing about the reputation of the plaintiff in this case, let alone victim blame her 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I have not posted one thing about the reputation of the plaintiff in this case, let alone victim blame her 

I did not say you had.

 

Others however have, and in general have not been challenged by Andrew’s supporters’ when they have done so.

[cmarshall]

18 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Immaterial what you believe, they are the agreed facts.

 

However, only a fool would confine his understanding of events and crimes to what has been established by the decision of some court.  Our old friend Adolf Hitler was never charged with any crime either as you will recall.

[Doctor Tom]

On 2/17/2022 at 4:47 PM, VocalNeal said:

He's an entitled, arrogant,  dick head, combat helicopter pilot. Had he been American and in Vietnam all the seppos would have a different opinion.

He had no choice and it doesn't excuse rudeness, arrogance and entitlement.  He was very junior cannon fodder and never ceased to go on about it.  I was there too, but I dont go  rabbiting about it at every turn, he does, or did.   

[starky]

On 2/16/2022 at 5:52 PM, Sparktrader said:

2001

Prince Andrew is to face a civil case in the US over allegations he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17.

Virginia Giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he abused her in 2001.

 

Source bbc

 

 

I looked up bbc and it keeps sending me to porn sites.....

[roo860]

[puck2]

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

If Andrew had been a nobody (like us), there would never have been a court case in the first place.

How many 'nobodies' do you see being taken to court 20 years after the event for trivial offences like this?

You are defending the indefensible by an "IF". To refer "20 years after the event" being taken to court has happened in many cases i.e. in Germany. Reason: new technics - unknown 20 years befor or more - allowed it to improve sexual violence. A lot of "nobobies" had to defend themselves in the court! I guess not very different from England/GB. The most surprising thing is the fact that Anrews' behavior has NOT been critizised and publicised  when it has happened -20 years before. Furthermore, it's a fact that he isn't and wasn't a "nobody". Therefore, your "If" can be taken into the wastebox.

 

You use the word trivial for Andrews f@cking behavior. Not surprising for me and many other ASEANNOW-readers. In many, many threats one can see your favor for sexual affairs, although you are married. No surprise that you are defending Andrews' "trivial" behavior.

[ozimoron]

23 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Was there a court case that proved that she was raped?    Didn't think so, she decided against taking the stand in a trial and took much less risky route of accepting money.

Are you sure it was she who decided not to go to court or he? All the reports I have seen indicated that it was P. Andrew who decided that. It looks that he offered her a deal she couldn't / wouldn't refuse, a multiple of what she has asked for originally.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, puck2 said:

You use the word trivial for Andrews f@cking behavior. Not surprising for me and many other ASEANNOW-readers. In many, many threats one can see your favor for sexual affairs, although you are married. No surprise that you are defending Andrews' "trivial" behavior.

We're all here in Thailand banging younger women ........... can't see Andy banging a 17 year old as an earth shaking evil. I would have done it too, if I had ever fancied 17 year olds .......... but I always wanted women aged 30-35 (even when I was 17).

[Thailand]

“Would you sleep with a stranger if he paid you $1,000,000?” the lawyer asked the pretty defendant.

“Yes.”

“Would you sleep with him if he paid you only $100?”

“Certainly not! What do you think I am?”

 

“We’ve already established what you are,” came back the lawyer. “Now we are trying to establish to what extent.”

[DaLa]

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

If Andrew had been a nobody (like us), there would never have been a court case in the first place.

How many 'nobodies' do you see being taken to court 20 years after the event for trivial offences like this?

 

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

On the evidence of posts from some it appears to my reading of many posts here, that the argument being considered is the flip.

 

If this could happen to Andrew it could happen to [me].

But to correct you:

 

The allegations made against Prince Andrew relate to human trafficking, sex trading of minors and statutory rape.

 

These are not in any sense ‘trivial offenses’.

 

Whilst  BritManToo’s first sentence is in my view totally true, your response could create an interesting scenario.

 

We (the Brits) know how the US litigation firms were suffering financially as all the crazy claims of yesteryear, you know, coffee that was too hot, all those cooked cats in the microwave, people playing electric guitars and turning the amp up to 11 whilst having a bath. The type of activities that we (Brits again) avoided. Anyway, the cash dried up, so lets open up another avenue and extend the statute of limitations.

 

Now, fast forward 5 years and the Thai lawyers with their nosy little beaks to the iterweb, think….lets see.

 

Trafficking….I wonder if that that includes Korat to Pataya

Statutory rape…...at my age all (Thai) women under 40 look underage.

Taking advantage ….what like I did with my wife as she was baht-less and had a meagre existence

Proffering money for (err) favours …..oh dear now I’m in the poo.

 

And I agree human trafficking, sex trading of minors and statutory rape are not trivial offenses.

Unfortunately in this case all those were allegations and thus meaningless.

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

We're all here in Thailand banging younger women ........... can't see Andy banging a 17 year old as an earth shaking evil. I would have done it too, if I had ever fancied 17 year olds .......... but I always wanted women aged 30-35 (even when I was 17).

Once again, you are free to speak for yourself.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, DaLa said:

 

Whilst  BritManToo’s first sentence is in my view totally true, your response could create an interesting scenario.

 

We (the Brits) know how the US litigation firms were suffering financially as all the crazy claims of yesteryear, you know, coffee that was too hot, all those cooked cats in the microwave, people playing electric guitars and turning the amp up to 11 whilst having a bath. The type of activities that we (Brits again) avoided. Anyway, the cash dried up, so lets open up another avenue and extend the statute of limitations.

 

Now, fast forward 5 years and the Thai lawyers with their nosy little beaks to the iterweb, think….lets see.

 

Trafficking….I wonder if that that includes Korat to Pataya

Statutory rape…...at my age all (Thai) women under 40 look underage.

Taking advantage ….what like I did with my wife as she was baht-less and had a meagre existence

Proffering money for (err) favours …..oh dear now I’m in the poo.

 

And I agree human trafficking, sex trading of minors and statutory rape are not trivial offenses.

Unfortunately in this case all those were allegations and thus meaningless.

I at least admire your honesty in admitting you see this as a threat to you personally.

 

Others are not so overt on the matter, though nevertheless transparent.

[cleopatra2]

34 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

We're all here in Thailand banging younger women ........... can't see Andy banging a 17 year old as an earth shaking evil. I would have done it too, if I had ever fancied 17 year olds .......... but I always wanted women aged 30-35 (even when I was 17).

It is not about sleeping with younget women.

The allegation is that the sexual encounter was unwanted and Andrew at the time was aware of Giuffre being trafficked and abused.

Now you may not believe the accusations.

However the allegations constitute rape and no normal person would regard them as trivial. 

[watthong]

Also let's not loose sight of the "minor" (pun intended) details when folks are foaming at the mouth while sitting on their high horse (who should be the one foaming at the mouth instead): the alleged crime was to have happened 3 times/occasions. One of which happened in Florida aka US soil therefore under the US jurisdiction, which declares 18 is the age of consent and human sex trafficking is illegal. In other words, you can bang anyone you want in Bangkok, Thailand but not in Bangor, Maine USA.  Capisce?

[DaLa]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

It is not about sleeping with younget women.

The allegation is that the sexual encounter was unwanted and Andrew at the time was aware of Giuffre being trafficked and abused.

Now you may not believe the accusations.

However the allegations constitute rape and no normal person would regard them as trivial. 

How can ‘allegations constitute rape’?

 

I’m pretty sure many women are raped, and I don’t for a minute believe that any of us on the ‘Pro PA’ side think that rape is trivial. However speaking for myself and I’m sure most of the others there are certain features of this case that are not representative of those aforementioned rape cases.

 

That is, Giuffre didn’t report rape at the time. The case only saw the light of day when US lawyers saw a few dollar signs. The case would have never seen light of day if the defendant had no means of paying her off. The case piggybacks on the character and actions of Epstein. I doubt there’s anyone here that would support PA if he was to have kept her locked in a room for several years and physically harmed and then raped her….rape as in against her will. Ultimately the criminal legal system would have sprung into action..it didn’t.

 

She professes to have started the legal action in order to help trafficked / sexually abused individuals. Good for her, bets are on for it helping truly abused women in really dangerous situations where they are held captive and abused by thugs, pimps and gangland undesirables. I’m sure there are many women in the darkest areas of the world, held against their will, abused and treated terribly, they may even read about this and thought Giuffre’s experience and lifestyle sounded quite exciting. Royalty, private islands, international flights, after all. Anyone been in band? Its interesting how some women react to fame and fortune.

 

Only Giuffre knows the true reason she followed the course and lifestyle she took. None of us know for sure how abhorrent or pleasurable her life at the time nor how much pressure was in place to ensure her ‘captivity’ and no one knows other than PA himself what he knew of the ‘arrangements’ if indeed anything.

 

She’s got some cash, her lawyers can add another notch to their chamber’s door, PA has a bad reputation (with some), it will be mostly forgotten when another world shattering event occurs. It doesn’t affect me or any of the other PA supporters (I don’t support PA, just dislike the gutter press and kangaroo court) , or does it? Careful for what you wish.