Prince Andrew

[PurplePenguin]

Quite. You wouldn't fork out if you could deny accusation (backed up by the best solicitors).

People pay to avoid the discovery process, because it can be made to be embarrassing. People pay because they don't the idea of a court of random people determining whether they are guilty. People pay because it is cheaper legally. See patent trolling.

None of that necessarily applies to Andrew.

 

[First Aspect]

Quite. You wouldn't fork out if you could deny accusation (backed up by the best solicitors).

Depends how much money you have. The payout was mostly about his ugly attempts to preserve his public image I think. If you recall from his TV interview, he still thought it was all under control.

 

[Pinno718]

Guiffre was trafficked but was not under age. There is a question over whether AMW knew or should reasonably have known about her circumstances. And his pathetic attempts to deny any association are insulting to the intelligence of a pigeon. But it is not clear whether he committed a crime.

I guess my stance is that he's not going to testify to anyone, is not going to be reduced to the status his talents and behaviour would merit and that the further public humiliation merely contaminates my news feed with his annoying face.

There's also a risk that all the attention on a feckless pillock like him (let's face it most other clients of Epstein seem to have avoided the camera a bit more effectively than Tim Nicebutdim) might detract from where more fruitful investigation could be directed.

We're not going to agree on this.

 

[First Aspect]

People pay to avoid the discovery process, because it can be made to be embarrassing. People pay because they don't the idea of a court of random people determining whether they are guilty. People pay because it is cheaper legally. See patent trolling.

None of that necessarily applies to Andrew.

A lot of patent trolls had/have good cases. The issue was they were not using the system for it's intended purpose because they had no intention of actually working any invention.

I don't think the Epstein victims are abusing a legal system purely for financial gain (I'm sure that's not intended to be part of the analogy, just flagging the key distinction).

 

[First Aspect]

We're not going to agree on this.

Can we at least agree his face is extremely annoying?

You might end up being right. There are a million pages of evidence and millions of internet sleuths figuring out redactions, so more may come out.

 

[Psamathe]

Guiffre was trafficked but was not under age.

My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong 'cos I don't read or understand all details) is she brought her case against Andrew under New York's Child Victims Act. Ages of consent vary around the world but she identified 3 instances with Duke Andrew one on Little St James where the age of Consent is 18 and she was aged 17.

 

[Pinno718]

Can we at least agree his face is extremely annoying?

You might end up being right. There are a million pages of evidence and millions of internet sleuths figuring out redactions, so more may come out.

A) Smug tw@t, yes.
B) A public enquiry would do for me. We the taxpayer fund the Royals. He embarked on numerous 'diplomatic' ventures from selling arms to promoting British interests, which on the face of it, is probably assignments well spent and practical use of status but we have a right as UK citizens to demand accountability. We have the right as citizens to expect impeccable behaviour in that role.
And surely, he had people around him to keep him from controversy - especially after all the bad publicity the Royals received?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Exiled to Epstein Island?

Those private islands are pretty spectacular. That would be way too good for him. I'd rather he was in Dubai and hopefully too embarrassed to leave the house.

 

[First Aspect]

Those private islands are pretty spectacular. That would be way too good for him. I'd rather he was in Dubai and hopefully too embarrassed to leave the house.

Please can we just send him to the US? It would both rid us of his flaccid presence and pass on the costs of an enquiry to the FBI.

 

[BoldonLad]

C. There is susceptibility to the attentions of a nubile female, and then there is being involved in illegal trafficking of (always) young nubile females. One is weakness, the other something a lot worse.

D. I am happy to believe that you are one of the squeaky clean 50%, certainly when it comes to sex trafficking

Cynicism is one thing but making a statement about 50%, even if ever so humbly, requires some sort of proof or verification, other than 'stands to reason'. It should be easier to prove a positive than a negative.

As I think has already been stated, there is no evidence (yet) that Andrew was active in trafficking or procuring.

In Mandleson’s case I don’t think women (of any age) are his thing.

This does not mean I am a Royalist or a Mandleson fan. Quite the reverse

 

[BoldonLad]

Please can we just send him to the US? It would both rid us of his flaccid presence and pass on the costs of an enquiry to the FBI.

We could send him to live with his nephew, perhaps?

 

[Pinno718]

Please can we just send him to the US? It would both rid us of his flaccid presence and pass on the costs of an enquiry to the FBI.

I know nothing about his flaccid 'presence'.

 

[Pross]

We could send him to live with his nephew, perhaps?

I'm not sure even him and his wife deserve that!

 

[Pinno718]

As I think has already been stated, there is no evidence (yet) that Andrew was active in trafficking or procuring.

I don't think he was trafficking and no-one has suggested that but that does not mean (in the face of allegations), that there is insufficient reason for some form of investigation.

 

[Pblakeney]

I know nothing about his flaccid 'presence'.

You may want to consider what the opposite of that sentence might mean. 😉