1 hour ago, seedy said:

From the link in the OP -

sparing him the humiliation of giving evidence in a trial and protecting the royal family from further reputational damage.

 

Why is this allowed ? Courts should put a stop to this behind the scenes bargaining so a scumbag can remain hidden for the measly sum - to him - of a few million.

 

There is no "Justice" in the criminal justice system. Only $$$

This was not a ‘Criminal trial’, it was a ‘Civil Suit’.

 

Nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal justice system.

32 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You are right. Sorry I was getting confused between criminal and civil cases. But  my point stands, why when Andrew is mentioned there are boo hisses yet when Mr Gates and Mr Clinton who are on the plane logs to the depraved island of Mr Epstein, well these great men are not to be boo'ed at they are wonderful philanthropists. 

Its our old friend the double standard again I fear.

I don’t know

 where you get your information from but your claim Gates is on any flight log to ‘depraved island’ is a libelous slur.

 

You could of course check such claims before posting:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-bill-gates-epstein-island-idUSKBN22R2C4

39 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Prince Andrew was not arrested!  He was not charged with any offences, either.

No but he was well and truly nailed.

1 hour ago, PremiumLane said:

Do you know where the money is going? Guess not

Her pocket, same as when she was paid for sex ....... double bite.

Not only here you can buy your way out of jail is it. this particular non sweaty tub of lard has highlighted just how your/mothers/our money talks ???? 

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

35 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.     The age for (sexual) consent in the UK is 16.  She was not under the age of consent when she was whoring around with him.

She’s a US citizen, she was transported over state lines for sex while under the age of 18.

 

Read up on the law.

Better that you read up on this case.   There was no "transporting over state lines for sex" by Prince Andrew, which is who this thread is about, if there was, he'd have been charged.  This is a civil suit, there was no criminal case against him.

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

In his case she was an adult (a prostitute, to all intents and purposes), she was not under-aged so they were consenting adults.

You need to do some reading up.

Not me, It's you that needs to read up about the circumstances surrounding Prince Andrew's involvement and this civil case, which is what i am commenting on.  Nothing in my comment was inaccurate.

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Better that you read up on this case.   There was no "transporting over state lines for sex" by Prince Andrew, which is who this thread is about, if there was, he'd have been charged.  This is a civil suit, there was no criminal case against him.

Again, go read the law.

 

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Better that you read up on this case.   There was no "transporting over state lines for sex" by Prince Andrew, which is who this thread is about, if there was, he'd have been charged.  This is a civil suit, there was no criminal case against him.

Again, go read the law.

 

Again, go and read the context of this thread.  

16 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

Not only here you can buy your way out of jail is it. this particular non sweaty tub of lard has highlighted just how your/mothers/our money talks ???? 

This case is not a criminal case, it is a civil case, not only was there never any danger of his being jailed, he was not even subject to any criminal charges.

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Again, go and read the context of this thread.  

Erm, I started the thread.

 

Andrew at last got some good advice, on the stand giving testimony regarding sex with a trafficked minor would not have been a good look.

 

As I said a few months back, he would settle out of court, if smart he would settle immediately.

 

We all know, he’s not smart.

Wasnt she ADAMANT in press conferences that this would not be PAID OFF ? It was pincipal and he had to face what he'd done, she wanted her day in court.

 

Guess that was in the early stages of the poker game. Wait til the pot grew bigger then cash in huh.

 

He buried himself with that ridiculous TV interview.

Next public appearance for him is scheduled for March 29th. Prince Phklips memirial alongside his Mothrr zpparently.

Just now, CharlieH said:

Wasnt she ADAMANT in press conferences that this would not be PAID OFF ? It was pincipal and he had to face what he'd done, she wanted her day in court.

 

Guess that was in the early stages of the poker game. Wait til the pot grew bigger then cash in huh.

She’s a smart cookie, she knows how to bargain.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

This case is not a criminal case, it is a civil case, not only was there never any danger of his being jailed, he was not even subject to any criminal charges.

Or simply being a royal, is enough not to be charged, as many would like to keep their career.  Along with, since a prostitute, they thought finding a jury to convict would be a waste of legal proceedings and why bother.

 

Pretty hard to prove 'forced' when repeated servicing him in different locations.  Photo opts don't show any 'forcing' going on.  What prosecutor would even think about taking & losing that case.

2 hours ago, seedy said:

From the link in the OP -

sparing him the humiliation of giving evidence in a trial and protecting the royal family from further reputational damage.

 

Why is this allowed ? Courts should put a stop to this behind the scenes bargaining so a scumbag can remain hidden for the measly sum - to him - of a few million.

 

There is no "Justice" in the criminal justice system. Only $$$

it was civil case, not a criminal case

17 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Or simply being a royal, is enough not to be charged, as many would like to keep their career.  Along with, since a prostitute, they thought finding a jury to convict would be a waste of legal proceedings and why bother.

 

Pretty hard to prove 'forced' when repeated servicing him in different locations.  Photo opts don't show any 'forcing' going on.  What prosecutor would even think about taking & losing that case.

No it was never criminal jurisdiction. It was always filed as a civil case, nothing to do with his "status"

 

2 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

Do you know where the money is going? Guess not

Here maybe. ????

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm, I started the thread.

 

Andrew at last got some good advice, on the stand giving testimony regarding sex with a trafficked minor would not have been a good look.

 

As I said a few months back, he would settle out of court, if smart he would settle immediately.

 

We all know, he’s not smart.

and considering he is not footing the bill for it all.

HMQE11 will be paying for it all from her personal wealth.

 

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

No it was never criminal jurisdiction. It was always filed as a civil case, nothing to do with his "status"

 

That's one opinion

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.     The age for (sexual) consent in the UK is 16.  She was not under the age of consent when she was whoring around with him.

Law in US applies if incidents happened there. UK not relevant. Media reports 17yo

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

That's one opinion

No it is not an opinion, it is a matter of the law, it was filed in civil court.

 

1 hour ago, Meat Pie 47 said:

B/S

You mean that she, and the other girls in Eppy's gang, did not know what they were doing for the $300 they were given each time they to**ed him off.

Andy should have just come out and said YES, I sha**ed a 17 year old hooker when I was 40, and am proud of it. He was not married at the time.

9 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

You mean that she, and the other girls in Eppy's gang, did not know what they were doing for the $300 they were given each time they to**ed him off.

Andy should have just come out and said YES, I sha**ed a 17 year old hooker when I was 40, and am proud of it. He was not married at the time.

17yo is underage in some countries

9 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.     The age for (sexual) consent in the UK is 16.  She was not under the age of consent when she was whoring around with him.

Law in US applies if incidents happened there. UK not relevant. Media reports 17yo

She wasn't 17 when he allegedly "knew" her in the US, that's one of the reasons that there has been no criminal charges (anywhere) but perhaps you know better than the US legal eagles do, though it's clear that you don't know this case, which is all I am commenting on.   It's a civil case, not a criminal case!

36 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

45 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

This case is not a criminal case, it is a civil case, not only was there never any danger of his being jailed, he was not even subject to any criminal charges.

Or simply being a royal, is enough not to be charged, as many would like to keep their career.  Along with, since a prostitute, they thought finding a jury to convict would be a waste of legal proceedings and why bother.

"They" would have been ecstatic if they could have charged him but they couldn't because he did nothing that he could have been charged with.   That's why the brass had to resort to a civil case.

44 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

52 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Again, go and read the context of this thread.  

Erm, I started the thread.

 

Andrew at last got some good advice, on the stand giving testimony regarding sex with a trafficked minor would not have been a good look.

He did not have sex with a minor (in the sense of her being an underaged girl), she was over the age of consent for sex.

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She wasn't 17 when he allegedly "knew" her in the US, that's one of the reasons that there has been no criminal charges (anywhere) but perhaps you know better than the US legal eagles do, though it's clear that you don't know this case, which is all I am commenting on.   It's a civil case, not a criminal case!

I dont give a rats

You care way too much

The wealthy and elite can purchase 'justice.' 

16 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

17yo is underage in some countries

 

17 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

17yo is underage in some countries

So is 14 in others

17 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He did not have sex with a minor (in the sense of her being an underaged girl), she was over the age of consent for sex.

Were you in the room?