Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[cleopatra2]

14 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

imcorrect 

They decided other law enforcement was more equipped to deal with it

Here is the original UK Met review and its reasoning

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/europe_uk-police-explain-decision-prince-andrew-case/6180167.html

[ozimoron]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

There was no conviction, nor conclusion to the civil case that proved that he "had non-consensual sex with a minor trafficked for sex", nor that "she was not legally competent to give consent".   FACT!   Remember, she agreed to take the money and end the case before it was tried.   That's FACT also.

That's a bit different to you alleging that the sex was consensual.

[Liverpool Lou]

18 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

30 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Try dealing with these facts, he, allegedly. had consensual sex with a 17-year old in London and a 17, maybe 18-year old, in New York.   Those ages are over the age of consent for sex.   He was not charged, nor sued, for trafficking.

Incorrect.

The filed lawsuit alleges sexuall asualt with battery . includuing 1st and 3rd degree rape.

paragraphs 42 oneards of the lawsuit specify that the sex was non consensual

None of which was proven to be true as she decided to not go to trial.

[Liverpool Lou]

18 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

combined with para 42

 

' During each of the aforementioned incidents, Prince Andrew acted with intent to compel Plaintiff’s submission ' 

 

along with the prev. paragraph  constitute the allegation of engaging in prostitution.

...and not proven at trial because she decided not to go to trial but to take the money.

[JonnyF]

It was clear from the start that she was only after yet another pay day. 

 

But then what do you expect from a former sex worker that openly admitted to recruiting other young girls for sexual services? By her own admission she should be on trial herself for procuring children for sex.

 

As for Andrew, absolutely idiotic but not actually illegal since she was clearly over the age of consent in the UK (16) at the time and she was being paid handsomely for the work. You can see by the glee on her face in the photo that she wasn't being forced into anything. No different to the girls working on Soi Cowboy, except she was flying on private jets earning thousands of dollars for sex with a Prince instead taking a TukTuk and earning thousands of Baht for sex with a tourist. 

[Liverpool Lou]

18 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

20 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That is not correct, the UK police dropped the criminal case for lack of evidence, nothing to do with statutes of limitation in the UK.

imcorrect 

They decided other law enforcement was more equipped to deal with it

They dropped the case for lack of evidence.  That is correct.

[Liverpool Lou]

18 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

24 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

And that it was accepted by both sides as never proven.   She went for the money!

No 

It was agreed by both parties that Andrew would pay a settlement to settle the case.

...with no admission of guilt or liability.   It did not go to trial, no allegations were proven.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

19 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

And you are mischaracterising it as a decision solely by Prince Andrew.  It was open to Giuffre to demand a court trial, Andrew did not have the luxury of being in charge of that decision.  She agreed to not proceed with the court trial and to take the money.

I never said that, I said that you claimed the decision was hers alone, nothing more.

The decision to accept the money instead of risk cross-examination at a trial was hers alone, that is accurate, Prince Andrew, as respondent, was never in a position to end the plaintiff's case without her agreement.

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That is not correct, the UK police dropped the criminal case for lack of evidence, nothing to do with statutes of limitation in the UK.

UK police fail to prosecute member of British Royal Family.

 

Shocked I’m not.

[Liverpool Lou]

12 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

There is no age of consent for rape

 

Andrew was accused of rape

And not convicted, either criminally or in a civil case.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

...with no admission of guilt or liability.   It did not go to trial, no allegations were proven.

Sure, Andrew

Nothing inaccurate about that comment of mine.

[ozimoron]

[cleopatra2]

16 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There was no conviction, nor conclusion to the civil case that proved that he "had non-consensual sex with a minor trafficked for sex", nor that "she was not legally competent to give consent".   FACT!   Remember, she agreed to take the money and end the case before it was tried.   That's FACT also.

Prince Andrew decided it was more advantagous to  pay a settlement to maintain is tarnished reputation than go to court.

[ozimoron]

Andrew has not admitted Ms Giuffre’s allegations that she was forced to have sex with him on three occasions in 2001 when she was 17 - a minor in US law.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-facing-call-give-26243490

[ozimoron]

Express.co.uk asked its readers: “Should the Royal Family tell the public where Prince Andrew’s payoff money came from?” The poll, which ran from 9am to 3pm on Thursday, February 17, gathered a total of 1,933 votes, along with dozens of comments on the hot topic of royal funding.

In total, 1,238 people — 64 percent — voted “yes”, the source of the money should be made public

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1567768/prince-andrew-payout-poll-settlement-money-taxpayer-queen-spt

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The decision to accept the money instead of risk cross-examination at a trial was hers alone, that is accurate, Prince Andrew, as respondent, was never in a position to end the plaintiff's case without her agreement.

Ignoring the FACT that her respondent stumped up more than three times what was seeking in order to avoid going to trial.

 

Your failure to address this is laughable we’re it not allied to your attempts to obfuscate the sexual abuse and battery of a minor trafficked for sex.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

And not convicted, either criminally or in a civil case.

 Civil cases do not pass down convictions.

 

Yet another gaping hole in your understanding of the topic you are engaging in.

[Fab5BKK]

On 2/18/2022 at 12:16 AM, Thunglom said:

I think your judgement is clouded by an acceptance of royalty as something special. They aren't - it is the constitutional body - the Crown, that is important.

He has been sued, and should be sacked. We don't pay out of the public purse and we don't need him as prt of the Crown as an institution. He really is only important as ammunition for republicans.

What I was trying to say: when your only "job" is to represent a nation and when your lifestyle is funded, directly or indirectly, by taxpayers you are expected to behave.

 

Does it make any sense?

[Thunglom]

2 hours ago, Fab5BKK said:

What I was trying to say: when your only "job" is to represent a nation and when your lifestyle is funded, directly or indirectly, by taxpayers you are expected to behave.

 

Does it make any sense?

"Now, we're not talking about "Joe the commoner"." - he's just an overpaid man on "welfare" - we need to forget all the palaver about "royals" - their turds are the same colour as everyone else's and they should be equally accountable.

[cmarshall]

On 2/21/2022 at 12:11 PM, watthong said:

Credit should also goes to this take no prisoner Brit reporter. She opened the floodgate. I don't think any American colleagues of hers would possess such cojones.

I think Matlis is actually a Canadian working in the UK.  She flayed him alive.