Prince Andrew

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Xipe Totec

Xipe Totec

Something nasty in the woodshed
Beebo said:
How come Epstein who was mega rich only paid $500k in his out of court settlement.
It looks like Andy has paid through the nose to make this go away.
Click to expand...
Because it potentially threatens the UK's entire Royal Parasite structure.

Get on your knees, turn out your pockets and don't question your betters, peasant.
 
matticus

matticus

Guru
Xipe Totec said:
Because it potentially threatens the UK's entire Royal Parasite structure.

Get on your knees, turn out your pockets and don't question your betters, peasant.
Click to expand...
That's very kind of you to help fund this.

I'm broadly supportive of the Royal Family, but I certainly don't intend to help with the court settlement. I'll be surprised if many UK citizens do, so you must be especially kind-hearted.
 
mjr

mjr

Active Member
Beebo said:
How come Epstein who was mega rich only paid $500k in his out of court settlement.
It looks like Andy has paid through the nose to make this go away.
Click to expand...
Are Andy's lawyers as good as Epstein's?

Did Epstein have a mother about to celebrate an anniversary as head of state rushing him to settle?
 
glasgowcyclist

glasgowcyclist

Über Member
After the Buckingham Palace statement that Prince Andrew would be "defending this case as a private citizen", I'll be very pissed off if a penny of public money has been used, either in the settlement or legal fees.
 
mjr

mjr

Active Member
glasgowcyclist said:
After the Buckingham Palace statement that Prince Andrew would be "defending this case as a private citizen", I'll be very pissed off if a penny of public money has been used, either in the settlement or legal fees.
Click to expand...
I think it can't be funded from the Royal Households easily, but the monarch is allowed to give money to private citizens as far as I know, either directly or laundered through from her private estates such as Sandringham and Balmoral. Once money goes into those estates, it gets a bit murky as to what pennies were public.
 
dutchguylivingintheuk

dutchguylivingintheuk

Über Member
mudsticks said:
I suspect Andrew is out of the picture, and off the hook for the rest of his life, one way or another.

It's some consequences for him I guess if he gets to do less royally swanning about any more.
And his reputation is buggered
Click to expand...
I don't know, he seems to like a snake or a fox, always seemingly sneaking in again
mudsticks said:
Money paid to a person he claims never to have met, is as close to an admission of guilt as we're likely to get from him.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately yes, while i understand it was an civil courtcase and he would have lead to a financial compensation anyway i would have loved to see him go down having all his lies exposed, on the flip side i understand the victims choice to accept an settlement.



mudsticks said:
If nothing else it's maybe a forewarning / cautionary tale to others who might in other circs have considered that their money, power, or influence , would allow them to abuse those priveleges.
Click to expand...
Well this is an ''offshoot/side catch/etc.'' of the investigation into Epstein Before that we had Weinstein and numberous smaller cases and ones of similar size, so the idea of being powerfull so be able to get away with it is no more. Now hopefully the next step is brinigng more cases to court instead of convictions by social media


mudsticks said:
Not to say these things don't still go on ..
Click to expand...
One of the great things of humanskind is also a weakness as long as you have power you will have some levels of corruption whether it's financially, emotionally or sexually i don't say we shouldn't fight it, but unfortunately i don't think we will ever hit zero.(Unless we want a North-Korea style of country)
 
winjim

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
A thought has just occurred. Obviously this would need a lawyer to look at it, but given that part of the settlement appears to be an agreement that he will not deny raping Ms Guiffre, if he were to be addressed as a rapist in the press, firstly would that be libelous and secondly if it were, would he be able to sue? It seems analogous and sort of the opposite to the NDAs which IIRC Epstein's victims were made to sign.

Has there been some really clever lawyering going on? This might not be the end of matters...
 
matticus

matticus

Guru
winjim said:
... but given that part of the settlement appears to be an agreement that he will not deny raping Ms Guiffre, if he were to be addressed as a rapist in the press, firstly would that be libelous and secondly if it were, would he be able to sue?
Click to expand...
Citation?

I can only find a sentence that acknowledges Mr Epstein's horrendous misdeeds. I admit I only checked one source though ...
 
glasgowcyclist

glasgowcyclist

Über Member
winjim said:
A thought has just occurred. Obviously this would need a lawyer to look at it, but given that part of the settlement appears to be an agreement that he will not deny raping Ms Guiffre, if he were to be addressed as a rapist in the press, firstly would that be libelous and secondly if it were, would he be able to sue? It seems analogous and sort of the opposite to the NDAs which IIRC Epstein's victims were made to sign.

Has there been some really clever lawyering going on? This might not be the end of matters...
Click to expand...

Hopefully it'll also mean that the BBC and others will no longer say, "... allegations he strenuously denies" when reporting on this in future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom