Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Bohemianfish said:

Mom bailed him out. Spoiled, rotten brat from what people say and it's consistent.

Yes, correct. But does that make him guilty in this case?

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Really, does nobody believe lots of girls would line up to have sex with a prince, regardless of his age?

 

 

Again you avoid the hard fact of ‘legal competence’.

[OneMoreFarang]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He does actually, he admits the attacks on Giuffre by his legal team were unfounded and unacceptable.

 

All those millions to make nothing go away.

 

A strange thing.

I don't know how he lives. But somehow I doubt that now he has to think twice if he can afford a nice house and steak and cake everyday. He just has a couple of millions less in assets but still more than enough money to live a luxury life.

[OneMoreFarang]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again you avoid the hard fact of ‘legal competence’.

No, I don't avoid those fact. I look at the situation from another angle than you do.

 

For me it seems you look at it from a purely American legal point of view. And, without knowing the laws from over there, I guess you are legally correct.

 

I look at the situation from a layman's point of view. Is a guy guilty because he had possibly sex with a girl in 2001 in the UK when she was 17 year old? How many other guys had sex with a 17 year old girl in that year in the UK? Are they all guilty?

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I don't know how he lives. But somehow I doubt that now he has to think twice if he can afford a nice house and steak and cake everyday. He just has a couple of millions less in assets but still more than enough money to live a luxury life.

All those luxuries won’t hide his exposure and humiliation.

 

He’s a man who destroyed his own reputation.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/14/calls-strip-prince-andrew-duke-of-york-title

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

No, I don't avoid those fact. I look at the situation from another angle than you do.

 

For me it seems you look at it from a purely American legal point of view. And, without knowing the laws from over there, I guess you are legally correct.

 

I look at the situation from a layman's point of view. Is a guy guilty because he had possibly sex with a girl in 2001 in the UK when she was 17 year old? How many other guys had sex with a 17 year old girl in that year in the UK? Are they all guilty?

He had sex with a 17 year old who had been trafficked for sex.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

He had sex with a 17 year old who had been trafficked for sex.

1. Did he have sex with her? As far as I know she says it happened and he says it didn't happen. As far as I know there is no prove that it happened.

2. Did he know she was "trafficked"? Did he even have reason to suspect that maybe she was trafficked? He probably met thousands of girls at that time. Should he have checked all of them to avoid being accused?

[Rimmer]

An off topic post has been removed

[Liverpool Lou]

16 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

17 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It wouldn't make any difference whether I was or wasn't.  If he did rape the brass when she was underage, do you not think that she would have mentioned it for the massive extra leverage she'd have on him in the civil suit?   

 

Apart from that, it has been widely reported many times that she was 17 at the time, the age of consent in the UK is 16 as has been pointed out countless times.

Law not your thing then?!

Understanding what this case is about not your thing, then?   

 

The only comments I am making are those relevant to the Prince Andrew civil suit, I'm not arguing any angles on any (non-existent) criminal case against hm.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

then doubled down with the 2019 interview, where his BS was exposed for what it was.

Exactly what "BS" was proven as a result of that interview?

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, seedy said:

Being a former member of the "Colonies" I can not wrap my head around why the UK taxpayer keeps funding the richest woman in the world and her incestuous family tree ?

Those sad, tired old cliches about 'Tradition' ?

Where I come from what they do is not traditional it is illegal

What illegal acts have the current royal family been accused of that they claim is tradition?

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

She wasn't a minor in the UK or Europe at that time.

She could get a driving license, live on her own, get married, have kids but not vote or drink in a bar.

Completely irrelevant, she was a minor in the US, where the sex did or did not occur, and laws about sex with minors existed. Where the civil case was tried.

I'd say on balance of probabilities, and given his nickname of "Randy Andy" the sex did occur, and with more than one underage girl. Perhaps that was one of the factors in the settlement. Imagine what the impact would be if Giuffre was able to produce another under-age girl with the same story. The Palace would be terrified of such an outcome.

Koo Stark was in her twenties when she met him, she was about 4 years older. Maybe he decided he liked them younger.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

at 17 under US Federal Law,  regardless of your opinion, a person is not legally competent to consent to paid sex.

 

It’s a point you and others seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

 

Prince Andrew suffered a similar delusion.

Prince Andrew was not accused of participating in paid sex, a delusion you have and a point you and others seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What illegal acts have the current royal family been accused of that they claim is tradition?

Droit de seigneur?

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you really think Andrew used those intelligence and security service to get details about every girl he possibly shagged? 

Obviously not and that was his own fault. He had no excuse not to since there had to have been at least a suspicion in his mind and the huge stakes involved. Can't fix stupid as they say.

[OneMoreFarang]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The Palace would be terrified of such an outcome.

And because of that terrified palace we will never see the case in a court of law.

I would have liked to see all the evidence that shows Andrew is guilty.

And I would have liked to see if anybody who accused him of being guilty would have apologized if it was not proven that he is guilty.

[Liverpool Lou]

18 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

20 hours 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.

For the purpose of English law. The age of consent in cases of prostitution is 18.

The UK met consider the FBI is the relevant authority to investigate due to the internationall trafficking aspects.

Up to this point in time Prince Andrew has nof responded to the FBI request for interview.

There is no "prostitution" case! 

 

Prince Andrew does not have any obligation to respond to FBI requests.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

18 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It wasn't a case of prostitution between her and Prince Andrew, neither was he charged with anything criminal under English, or any other, law!   Haven't you been following the case that is now over?

The payment can be made by a third party. It is not necessary for Andrew to make the payment. 

He has not been accused of involvement in any criminal prostitution case!

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Obviously not and that was his own fault. He had no excuse not to since there had to have been at least a suspicion in his mind and the huge stakes involved. Can't fix stupid as they say.

I wonder how you and the UK public would have reacted if he would have used the UK intelligence and security services to check all the girls which he would possibly consider to have sex with.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There is no "prostitution" case! 

 

Prince Andrew does not have any obligation to respond to FBI requests.

If he as innocent he would have done so. The public perception of him went downhill because he refused.

[jvs]

Maybe the queen advised him to settle and do it asap,you know with her 75th year as the Queen

coming up.Nobody wants to have that party spoiled.

[ozimoron]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

I wonder how you and the UK public would have reacted if he would have used the UK intelligence and security services to check all the girls which he would possibly consider to have sex with.

we wouldn't have known would we?

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And because of that terrified palace we will never see the case in a court of law.

I would have liked to see all the evidence that shows Andrew is guilty.

And I would have liked to see if anybody who accused him of being guilty would have apologized if it was not proven that he is guilty.

"Not proven" is not the same as innocent.

He has apologised for maligning Giuffre's character, an innocent person would not do that.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, 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

Yes, that is well known, hence this thread!   What's your point?

[Liverpool Lou]

18 hours ago, Lacessit said:

IIRC, he acquired the nickname "Randy Andy" very early on.

Only by the disreputable tabloid press.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

If he as innocent he would have done so. The public perception of him went downhill because he refused.

It seems he is a little clumsy. And for that reason people don't believe him.

Does that mean he is guilty?

I don't think he ever had a realistic chance to convince "the public" that he was innocent. Why was it up to him to prove that anyhow? Why didn't "the public" ask his accuser: Where is the evidence for your accusations? 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, that is well known, hence this thread!   What's your point?

Bottom line is that he wouldn't have kissed googbye to 15 large if he was telling the truth and we know he lied about not meeting her.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems he is a little clumsy. And for that reason people don't believe him.

Does that mean he is guilty?

I don't think he ever had a realistic chance to convince "the public" that he was innocent. Why was it up to him to prove that anyhow? Why didn't "the public" ask his accuser: Where is the evidence for your accusations? 

I'm just saying that innocent people cooperate with the FBI when asked, especially royalty.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

"Not proven" is not the same as innocent.

He has apologised for maligning Giuffre's character, an innocent person would not do that.

Really?

As far as I see he signed a statement so that the case doesn't drag on forever.

 

It's like if my gf accuses me I looked at another girl.

Option a: "sure, sorry, I don't do it again"

Option b: nagging, nagging, nagging.... 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

I'm just saying that innocent people cooperate with the FBI when asked, especially royalty. Trump was right when he said that innocent people don't plead the fifth.

 

Personally I think Andres thought something like: Why should I spend my time with answering questions of the police from a country far away? If they want to arrest me then bring it on.