I have no time for Andrew,he sounds a nasty piece of work,but lets face it she is just a chancer chasing the cash ,she said at the start she did not want to settle but see him in court ,well another 12 million soon made her change her mind.

People like her Andrew and Epstein are all the same.

23 minutes ago, PremiumLane said:

she is donating it all to charities involved in helping sex trafficking victims, so seems like a better person than you ???? 

Where did you read that? 

1 minute ago, bert bloggs said:

I have no time for Andrew,he sounds a nasty piece of work,but lets face it she is just a chancer chasing the cash ,she said at the start she did not want to settle but see him in court ,well another 12 million soon made her change her mind.

People like her Andrew and Epstein are all the same.

Damned if she does or doesn't. Some women are destroyed by being sexually abused, others toughen up and fight.

AFAIK the settlement is confidential, so I don't know where 12 million comes from.

Epstein was a convicted sex offender who abused multiple under-age girls, IIRC the FBI count was 36. Saying Giuffre is the same as him is very harsh.

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

regarding sex with a trafficked minor would not have been a good look.

Who did the trafficking? It wasn't the P Andrew and proving he knew or didn't know would be a waste of time. Hence, not much chance of a criminal conviction for sex trafficking,

So what follows is a civil case filed in NY under the state's Child Victims Act for a very specific reason. Do you know why this was filed in NY in Aug 2021?

1 minute ago, ebice said:

Who did the trafficking? It wasn't the P Andrew and proving he knew or didn't know would be a waste of time. Hence, not much chance of a criminal conviction for sex trafficking,

So what follows is a civil case filed in NY under the state's Child Victims Act for a very specific reason. Do you know why this was filed in NY in Aug 2021?

Under the law it doesn’t matter who did the trafficking.

 

And yes I know precisely why this was filed in NY in August 21, I’ve already remarked Virginia Giuffre is a very smart cookie.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve already remarked Virginia Giuffre is a very smart cookie.

I think it is interesting that you describe a woman who deliberately destroys the life of a legally innocent person as smart.

Words like nasty come to my mind. Nobody forced her to have sex with Andrew - if it ever happened. 

A flame post toward a fellow forum member has been removed, along with a reply.

15 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think it is interesting that you describe a woman who deliberately destroys the life of a legally innocent person as smart.

Words like nasty come to my mind. Nobody forced her to have sex with Andrew - if it ever happened. 

"In the Miami Herald's award-winning^[25] investigative journalism series "Perversion of Justice", Giuffre describes her experiences of being trafficked by Epstein to provide massages and sexual services for him and a number of his business associates over a two-and-a-half-year period.^[26] In her interview with the BBC, Giuffre said she was "passed around like a platter of fruit" to Epstein's powerful associates, and taken round the world on private jets.^[17]

 

"Of the instance in March^[11] 2001 that Giuffre was allegedly trafficked to Prince Andrew, she stated in an interview that it was a "wicked" and "really scary time" in her life and that she "couldn't comprehend how in the highest level of the government powerful people were allowing this to happen. Not just allowing but participating in it".^[27] After visiting a nightclub, Giuffre says Maxwell told her that she, "had to do for Andrew what I do for Jeffrey".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre#:~:text=Virginia Louise Giuffre (née Roberts%3B born August 9%2C,non-profit based in the United States%2C in 2015.

 

12 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think it is interesting that you describe a woman who deliberately destroys the life of a legally innocent person as smart.

Words like nasty come to my mind. Nobody forced her to have sex with Andrew - if it ever happened. 

The ‘man’ in question had the opportunity to defend himself, his extreme wealth assured him of the very best legal advice.

 

 

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

"In the Miami Herald's award-winning^[25] investigative journalism series "Perversion of Justice", Giuffre describes her experiences of being trafficked by Epstein to provide massages and sexual services for him and a number of his business associates over a two-and-a-half-year period.^[26] In her interview with the BBC, Giuffre said she was "passed around like a platter of fruit" to Epstein's powerful associates, and taken round the world on private jets.^[17]

 

"Of the instance in March^[11] 2001 that Giuffre was allegedly trafficked to Prince Andrew, she stated in an interview that it was a "wicked" and "really scary time" in her life and that she "couldn't comprehend how in the highest level of the government powerful people were allowing this to happen. Not just allowing but participating in it".^[27] After visiting a nightclub, Giuffre says Maxwell told her that she, "had to do for Andrew what I do for Jeffrey".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre#:~:text=Virginia Louise Giuffre (née Roberts%3B born August 9%2C,non-profit based in the United States%2C in 2015.

 

And because she said that does this mean it is true?

 

I didn't follow all the articles about her but as far as I know nobody ever forced her to visit Epstein. Nobody ever forced her to go on a private plane with him. And nobody ever forced her to have sex with anybody.

For me it seems she wanted to make money and she wanted to live the luxury life. And it seems at that time she had no problem with providing massages and/or having sex with some rich, famous and powerful guys.

 

To bring this situation nearer to here lets imagine the following: A rich guy goes to Nana and buys lots of drinks. Then he tells some girls: I have a party tonight together with my rich friends. Who wants to come and entertain us? I am sure lots of girls will do that because they want to do that.

And maybe a few days later he tells them: Today we fly with my private jet to an island for another party. Who wants to come? I am sure lots of girls will go (again).

 

And will they, maybe 10 or 20 years later, talk about that rich guy who wanted to have sex with them. And he did it again and again and it was so horrible. And I participated again and again. It was my free will... 

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And because she said that does this mean it is true?

 

I didn't follow all the articles about her but as far as I know nobody ever forced her to visit Epstein. Nobody ever forced her to go on a private plane with him. And nobody ever forced her to have sex with anybody.

For me it seems she wanted to make money and she wanted to live the luxury life. And it seems at that time she had no problem with providing massages and/or having sex with some rich, famous and powerful guys.

 

To bring this situation nearer to here lets imagine the following: A rich guy goes to Nana and buys lots of drinks. Then he tells some girls: I have a party tonight together with my rich friends. Who wants to come and entertain us? I am sure lots of girls will do that because they want to do that.

And maybe a few days later he tells them: Today we fly with my private jet to an island for another party. Who wants to come? I am sure lots of girls will go (again).

 

And will they, maybe 10 or 20 years later, talk about that rich guy who wanted to have sex with them. And he did it again and again and it was so horrible. And I participated again and again. It was my free will... 

What part of ‘not legally competent to give consent to paid sex’ do you not understand?

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The ‘man’ in question had the opportunity to defend himself, his extreme wealth assured him of the very best legal advice.

And did he ever have a realistic chance to defend himself? It seems a huge part of the public made up their mind that he is guilty. He did it. He is rich and lazy and an uncool guy. He must be guilty!

Obviously I don't know if Andrew decided himself to make a deal or if his family convinced him that they don't need that kind of publicity.

Could anybody realistically prove that Andrew had sex with her? Was anybody in that room and see it? 

And don't court cases normally work in the way that the accuser or prosecution has to prove that the accused did something wrong?

Why does he have to prove that he didn't have sex with her? How can he prove that?

 

Again, I am no fan of that guy. He isn't a likable person. But that doesn't mean he is guilty.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What part of ‘not legally competent to give consent to paid sex’ do you not understand?

The concept. She voluntarily visited Epstein. She wanted to visit Epstein and his friends. How much "competence" does anybody need to decide to visit somebody? In the USA people are legally allowed to drive cars at the age of 16. Obviously they must be competent enough to do that. But then some people pretend they are not competent enough to decide if they want to visit a rich guy or not. Strange.

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And did he ever have a realistic chance to defend himself? It seems a huge part of the public made up their mind that he is guilty. He did it. He is rich and lazy and an uncool guy. He must be guilty!

Obviously I don't know if Andrew decided himself to make a deal or if his family convinced him that they don't need that kind of publicity.

Could anybody realistically prove that Andrew had sex with her? Was anybody in that room and see it? 

And don't court cases normally work in the way that the accuser or prosecution has to prove that the accused did something wrong?

Why does he have to prove that he didn't have sex with her? How can he prove that?

 

Again, I am no fan of that guy. He isn't a likable person. But that doesn't mean he is guilty.

We have a system of law that uses courts to come to decisions on guilt/culpability.

 

If you have a better suggestion as to how these matters should be decided please let us know.

 

Feeling aggrieved that a ‘man’ is being held accountable is not a rational criticism of the court system but I do understand that it might disturb some.

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

The concept. She voluntarily visited Epstein. She wanted to visit Epstein and his friends. How much "competence" does anybody need to decide to visit somebody? In the USA people are legally allowed to drive cars at the age of 16. Obviously they must be competent enough to do that. But then some people pretend they are not competent enough to decide if they want to visit a rich guy or not. Strange.

‘Not legally competent’ precludes volunteering for anything.

 

She was not ‘legally competent’ to volunteer.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Not legally competent’ precludes volunteering for anything.

 

She was not ‘legally competent’ to volunteer.

 

 

A lot of people don't seem get that she was a minor and therefore easily influenced and not able to make a mature, informed decision of her own volition.

16 hours ago, ozimoron said:

A lot of people don't seem get that she was a minor and therefore easily influenced and not able to make a mature, informed decision of her own volition.

She was a 17 yr old runaway, living on her own, far from a naive, ignorant teen some like to portray.   IMHO, she probably knew exactly what she was doing.  Along with being untrustworthy, a proven liar.

 

Any wonder why prosecutors didn't take the case, if there was one.

 

Just now, KhunLA said:

She was a 17 yr old runaway, living on her own, far from a naive, ignorant teen some like to portray.   IMHO, she probably knew exactly what she was doing.  Along with being untrustworthy, a proven liar.

 

Any wonder why prosecutors didn't take the case, if there was one.

Runaways  are just more vulnerable and that makes the predation worse.

Having sex with minors... it's already bad.

 

Now, we're not talking about "Joe the commoner".

 

We're talking about Andrew Windsor (Windsor, formally Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), Duke of York, ninth in the line of succession to the British Throne and Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy.

 

If these words have still any sense, even remotely, one could expect some ethics and an exemplary conduct from this kind of person.

 

Don't you agree?

 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Runaways  are just more vulnerable and that makes the predation worse.

Maybe if met at the bus station when just arriving into town, which she wasn't.  Had a job, and self supporting at the time of meeting her soon to be 'pimps'.

 

When I was 16 / 17, and everyone I knew at that age, we all well aware of 'the world' around us.  And this at a time with no internet or social media.

13 hours ago, ezzra said:

There's another high profile man who could not keep his deek in his pants, when you're horny, royal or not, means nothing to them... i'm sure that now he's asking himself whether all of this was worth it...

Basically behaviour reminiscent of a large portion of the expats in Thailand?

5 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

Basically behaviour reminiscent of a large portion of the expats in Thailand?

none of whom are princes or, hopefully, don't engage with under age girls

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Maybe if met at the bus station when just arriving into town, which she wasn't.  Had a job, and self supporting at the time of meeting her soon to be 'pimps'.

 

When I was 16 / 17, and everyone I knew at that age, we all well aware of 'the world' around us.  And this at a time with no internet or social media.

Not me, I was still a virgin at that age and so were most of my friends.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

none of whom are princes or, hopefully, don't engage with under age girls

Sounds like you are trying to defend the sexual exploits of those expats?

So if you are no a prince, it's OK? - ..and I think you'd better define what you mean by "under-age".

2 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

Sounds like you are trying to defend the sexual exploits of those expats?

So if you are no a prince, it's OK? - ..and I think you'd better define what you mean by "under-age".

I have never considered prostitution to be morally or ethically wrong. A minor for the purposes of paid (or compensated sex) is clearly 18. It is in the US and Thailand likewise. Also the Philippines. That definition doesn't need my clarification.

31 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I have never considered prostitution to be morally or ethically wrong. A minor for the purposes of paid (or compensated sex) is clearly 18. It is in the US and Thailand likewise. Also the Philippines. That definition doesn't need my clarification.

Unfortunately your definition is your own and expats never seemed to worry about age that much - or the background of the girls they bought sex from.

1 minute ago, Thunglom said:

Unfortunately your definition is your own and expats never seemed to worry about age that much - or the background of the girls they bought sex from.

That's your version, I have a different version.

A post making unsourced and derogatory accusations against Prince Andrew's accuser has been removed, along with a reply.

 

Virginia Giuffre claims Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her at Jeffrey Epstein's home at 17.

...

"Andrew reached a settlement with Giuffre on Tuesday, according to court documents obtained by Insider.

 

The prince intends to make a "substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre's charity in support of victims' right," the sum of which was not disclosed, according to a joint statement made in the court filing. 

 

The statement added: "Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre's character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks. It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years."

 

https://www.insider.com/virginia-roberts-sexual-assault-claims-prince-andrew-timeline-2021-8#february-2022-andrew-reached-an-out-of-court-settlement-with-giuffre-16

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Thunglom said:

15 hours ago, ezzra said:

There's another high profile man who could not keep his deek in his pants, when you're horny, royal or not, means nothing to them... i'm sure that now he's asking himself whether all of this was worth it...

Basically behaviour reminiscent of a large portion of the expats in Thailand?

No! I don't know anybody here who is "asking himself whether all of this was worth it..."

And if we would ever ask that ourselves the answer would be: Sure! 

 

But in these so called politically correct times some of us try to pretend that having sex with lots of pretty young girls is not the primary reason for the existence of men.

I suggest a review of biology and spreading the genes.