Just now, stevenl said:

No, a settlement is not per definition an admission of guilt.

I didn't say admission, I said it makes it look like guilty....

The court of public opinion is a different story. It is likely that some people will construe this settlement as an admission of guilt. The reasoning goes, who would pay £12 million if they didn’t do it?

Prince Andrew did not confirm or deny Ms Giuffre's allegations in the statement.

4 hours ago, Mavideol said:

since Charles, Philip and their mother helped Andrew pay 12 million pounds for Virginia Giufre silence and they knew by doing so they indirectly agreed Andrew was guilty

Now you're saying this

"I didn't say admission, I said it makes it look like guilty...."

Agreeing he was guilty is an admission.

Make up your mind, what do you think?

22 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

So, Charlie woke up one morning and just thought he would give Andrew the boot. Really?

You are really that naive?

The actions that Charles took against Andrew were not spontaneous, they were in response to the continuing, very public and very vociferous calls for him to do something, which were in turn based on the ongoing and very embarrassing media reporting about Andrew that was going on at the time in the UK.

The final straw before him losing his titles for instance, was the publishing of Virginia Giuffre's posthumous memoirs.

Various media outlets in the UK were also predicting that Charles was going to be forced to do something by the mounting public outrage and it was a question of when, not if he would bow to that pressure.

Here's info from an article published in October last year, for instance.

King Charles has finally banished his brother. Is it too little too late?

The monarchy had been under intense pressure to resolve the Andrew issue amid renewed public fury over his ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which was further inflamed by the release of his sexual abuse accuser Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir.

[...]

It was not just the public that had expressed outrage and frustration; there had also been increasing calls for Andrew to appear before a parliamentary committee.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/31/uk/prince-andrew-scandal-analysis-intl-hnk

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Now you're saying this

"I didn't say admission, I said it makes it look like guilty...."

Agreeing he was guilty is an admission.

Make up your mind, what do you think?

was guilty of wrong doing or why would he asked for the money, thus I stand by my word, guilty of wrong doing something I didn't specify what

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Now you're saying this

"I didn't say admission, I said it makes it look like guilty...."

Agreeing he was guilty is an admission.

Make up your mind, what do you think?

whatever fits your narrative am ok with it

4 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The actions that Charles took against Andrew were not spontaneous, they were in response to the continuing, very public and very vociferous calls for him to do something, which were in turn based on the ongoing and very embarrassing media reporting about Andrew that was going on at the time in the UK.

But all those events took place 10+ years ago.

There was no continuing, only ancient history.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

But all those events took place 10+ years ago.

There was no continuing, only ancient history.

The events that forced Charles' hand were taking place last October, as the article points out - mounting public outrage and the ongoing negative coverage in the press were indeed continuing, in the days immediately before Charles took action.

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The events that forced Charles' hand were taking place last October, as the article points out - mounting public outrage and the ongoing negative coverage in the press were indeed continuing, in the days immediately before Charles took action.

That just shows what a weak and disloyal brother Charles has become.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

That just shows what a weak and disloyal brother Charles has become.

So you agree that the events that pressured Charles into taking action (whether your agree with him or not) were in fact continuing in the days and weeks preceding Andrew's banishment.

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

So you agree that the events that pressured Charles into taking action (whether your agree with him or not) were in fact continuing in the days and weeks preceding Andrew's banishment.

I see Andy as another elderly retired guy that should be allowed to live out his life in peace.

He doesn't appear to have harmed anyone unlike Blair that killed thousands in pointless war.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I see Andy as another elderly retired guy that should be allowed to live out his life in peace.

He doesn't appear to have harmed anyone unlike Blair that killed thousands in pointless war.

That's hardly relevant to point at issue, which was whether the events that precipitated Charles' action against Andrew were things that were continuing in the preceding days. You claimed nothing was continuing, it was all 10+ years ago, but that's not accurate, it was the things that were ongoing at the time (last October) that pressured Charles to do what he did.

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The actions that Charles took against Andrew were not spontaneous, they were in response to the continuing, very public and very vociferous calls for him to do something, which were in turn based on the ongoing and very embarrassing media reporting about Andrew that was going on at the time in the UK.

The final straw before him losing his titles for instance, was the publishing of Virginia Giuffre's posthumous memoirs.

Various media outlets in the UK were also predicting that Charles was going to be forced to do something by the mounting public outrage and it was a question of when, not if he would bow to that pressure.

Here's info from an article published in October last year, for instance.

Are you seriously suggesting that Charlie made the decision solely based on negative media reports, with no briefing from ANY government agency at all?

Not a chance. He was briefed about what was coming for Andrew. No doubt about it.

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

On 2/20/2026 at 12:32 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

And of course, the King knew

So, tell me, how did he know. Where did he get his information from? 🙂

On 2/20/2026 at 12:28 PM, CallumWK said:

This investigation is not about what happened at Epstein island, it is about trade secrets he is suspected to have leaked

Whilst the trade secrets are not insignificant, it goes way further than that. We are talking about pedophilia.

What does he know? What did he see? What will he say?

On 2/20/2026 at 12:17 PM, JBChiangRai said:

I think you’re spot on.

Charlie got the early mail, as the King would.

Pretty obvious, given recent events.

On 2/21/2026 at 7:33 PM, GroveHillWanderer said:

mounting public outrage and the ongoing negative coverage in the press were indeed continuing, in the days immediately before Charles took action.

mounting public outrage , doesn't come into it , it's all down to the media, they have had andrew in their sights for years, and now they have tasted blood. They won't stop until they have destroyed him only his suicide would satisfy them, and even that would not stop the current frenzy

On 2/21/2026 at 9:46 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Are you seriously suggesting that Charlie made the decision solely based on negative media reports, with no briefing from ANY government agency at all?

Not a chance. He was briefed about what was coming for Andrew. No doubt about it.

Well, Starmer claims nobody told him about Mandelson, and he has the same sources.

On 2/21/2026 at 1:12 PM, Mavideol said:

since Charles, Philip and their mother helped Andrew pay 12 million pounds for Virginia Giufre silence and they knew by doing so they indirectly agreed Andrew was guilty, thus they should be held accountable also, as Charles said, the law is the law and should take its course, they cover up and that is not acceptable

The money that Giuffre accepted was also taken in order to prevent her from having to be forensically cross-examined in court, it was not to buy her silence. There was no permanent order for her not to speak about the case or the situation with ex-Prince Andrew so there was no silence to be bought. Right from the start of the case she had always claimed that she was not in it for the money, she was in it for the justice but in the end she took the money and ran.

On 2/20/2026 at 4:00 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Perhaps Andrew and Trump were at one of Epstein's parties, or on his island, at the same time, and Andrew witnessed things that Trump has denied.

Andrew then becomes a star witness.

President Trump was never on the island and has not been charged with anything in connection with Epstein so Andrew would be a "star witness" for what, exactly?

On 2/20/2026 at 6:59 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Could Trump go from the presidency to prison

Only in your imagination.

18 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

only his suicide would satisfy them, and even that would not stop the current frenzy

If he killed himself, the deranged posts from our Epstein conspiracy theorists would be a glorious thing to behold!

On 2/20/2026 at 2:15 AM, TedG said:

Are they allowed to have a lawyer present during the interrogation? Sorry for the dumb questions. I'm not sure how the UK legal system works.

Yes. Of course. Even if someone doesn't have their own legal to attend anyone can have the duty solicitor attend their interviews and advise.

On 2/20/2026 at 7:28 PM, CallumWK said:

This investigation is not about what happened at Epstein island, it is about trade secrets he is suspected to have leaked

Right - but the trade secrets thing could just be an entry point for much more to follow.

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Well, Starmer claims nobody told him about Mandelson, and he has the same sources.

Starmer is a politician. Sure, he's the PM, so can call on departments to brief him on intel at he highest level, but we are talking about the British monarchy. They even have Starmer on call. 🙂

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Only in your imagination.

Why do you say that?

It's not like American presidents haven't gone for the presidency to being assassinated.

A post with nothing other than a trolling meme has been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

President Trump was never on the island

Source please?

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

has not been charged with anything in connection with Epstein

Correct. However, he keeps make diversions from the Epstein issue. Why?

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Andrew would be a "star witness" for what, exactly?

To save his own skin.

He could even possibly lie and implicate Trump, and others, for leniency. Criminals do it all the time.

There's plenty of video on the news and the internet that shows, obviously, Trump and Epstein were close.

Trump didn't need a political donation from Epstein because a lot of the video dates back to before Trump entering politics.

So, why were they close friends?

On 2/21/2026 at 11:15 AM, GroveHillWanderer said:

The actions that Charles took against Andrew were not spontaneous, they were in response to the continuing, very public and very vociferous calls for him to do something, which were in turn based on the ongoing and very embarrassing media reporting about Andrew that was going on at the time in the UK.

How do you think Charlie verified the media reports? Do you think he just rang the reporter or editor and asked, "Is it true?" 😂

On 2/21/2026 at 11:15 AM, GroveHillWanderer said:

The final straw before him losing his titles for instance, was the publishing of Virginia Giuffre's posthumous memoirs.

Deceased people can no be challenged or cross examined.

On 2/21/2026 at 11:15 AM, GroveHillWanderer said:

Various media outlets in the UK were also predicting that Charles was going to be forced to do something by the mounting public outrage and it was a question of when, not if he would bow to that pressure.

The media is not the judicial system. Andrew has rights. Trial by media is not and actual trial. Hence, my comment that Charles was well briefed.

On 2/21/2026 at 11:15 AM, GroveHillWanderer said:

Here's info from an article published in October last year,

Yes, it's all in the history books now, but for members to believe Charlie was not briefed, at the highest level, as to the "dirt" on Andrew is laughable.

Yes, it was in the media, but Charlie would have have performed due diligence before taking such action, including being briefed by lawers with experience in constitutional matters.

14 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's not like American presidents haven't gone for the presidency to being assassinated

Sorry, I know that English isn't your first language but I've no idea what that unintelligible English means.

13 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

President Trump was never on the island

Source please?

Those who were on the island have been named; if President Trump had been on the island he would have been named also, probably by the previous administration. He has been named as having used Epstein's plane so if there was any evidence of it being used to take him to the island that, sure as eggs are eggs, would have been published.