Forum menu
As odious as Prince Andrew may or may not be, it’s irrelevant. It’s a shakedown, plain and simple. Somebody’s getting paid.
Colour me interested, what's the thinking?
That's one of the Hydra's heads dealt with. No doubt the rest will remain untouched.
Hmm, I wonder if the bank of mum (ie: us) made this possible in exchange for his titles etc last month?
I suspect that is the case, I did read something about him defending himself at his own private cost, but theres nothing to say 'Ol Liz didn't bung him a brown envelope to make it all go away, as it's ceratinaly not in the interest of the royal family to have this dragged through the courts with the media shitstorm that would surely follow.
Almost all cases like this that are settled out of court are for a non-disclosed sum, So I doubt we'll ever know how much money actually changed hands. I suspect it's a large amount.
Nonce
Nonce is slang for 'paedophile' and a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Virginia Guiffre was 17 when the alleged incident took place and therefore not pre-pubescent.
The crime, where one might have been committed, is solely confined to whether Prince Andrew knew full well she was there against her will and for the sole purpose of sex. In order for Andrew to be guilty of something the court would have to prove that he knew full well she was there against her will and therefore a) unable to give consent, making this a rape case and b) there for the purposes of sex, making this a sex trafficing case. Both would have to be proved in court, which would be very difficult to achieve.
As to whether he is a 'nonce', we have words for very deeply problematic things like being sexually attracted to children for a good reason; precisely because these things are deeply problematic. Andrews behaviour is certainly problematic but it’s not paedophilic. We should be careful with the way we use words and even more careful with the careless expansion of their meaning.
I was hoping for the Scooby Doo ending
What – pulling his mask off and finding out it was the Queen all along?
What a ridiculous thing to say. It would obviously be Diana
… which she won’t see a penny of as she’s donated it all to a charity supporting the victims of sex trafficking
Yep. She will make much more from the TV and book rights.
Regardless of what he did she was always in it for the money.
in it for the money
Getting him to pay up some money was the only redress the law allowed her.
Nonce is slang for ‘paedophile’ and a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Virginia Guiffre was 17 when the alleged incident took place and therefore not pre-pubescent.
The crime, where one might have been committed, is solely confined to whether Prince Andrew knew full well she was there against her will and for the sole purpose of sex. In order for Andrew to be guilty of something the court would have to prove that he knew full well she was there against her will and therefore a) unable to give consent, making this a rape case and b) there for the purposes of sex, making this a sex trafficing case. Both would have to be proved in court, which would be very difficult to achieve.
As to whether he is a ‘nonce’, we have words for very deeply problematic things like being sexually attracted to children for a good reason; precisely because these things are deeply problematic. Andrews behaviour is certainly problematic but it’s not paedophilic. We should be careful with the way we use words and even more careful with the careless expansion of their meaning.
Don't come around here spouting your facts and common sense. A paedo is a man who fancies a girl younger than himself. Even if she's 28.
Ah, the apologists for trafficking and predatory behaviour are here to tell us about dictionary definitions. Get stuck in lads. We see you though.
Imagine thinking that there was an OED definition for "nonce" and then arguing the toss over that definition to paint a nonce in a better light. How bizarre.
*edit*
Thank Christ I'm not alone in this. Faith restored.
He's only got himself to blame.
She’s not entirely a victim here either, we don’t know how complicit she was, she has been implicated in trafficking others as well so her demands for justice seem to ring a bit hollow.
Yeah, I too think its fair to hold a teenager from a broken home to the same standards as a grown man who has never had to want for anything.
Yep. She will make much more from the TV and book rights.
Regardless of what he did she was always in it for the money.
Sorry, but that comment alone makes you sound like a horrific shitbag...
sharkbait
Yep. She will make much more from the TV and book rights.
Regardless of what he did she was always in it for the money.
One hell of a long-term, stressful process she's gone through to get on reality TV.
Other than writing Andrew a strongly worded email about her allegations what did you expect her to do?
I'd also take some consolation, if I were her, that this whole process has cost him far more financially and in whatever standing he had left, as he carried on with the pretence of fighting it all the way to a court trial. Let's not to forget the self inflicted interview that made him look guilty as hell even if he wasn't. Yeah, right.
He'll still never see a day in court,a night in a cell or anything resembling poverty. If ever anyone needs reminding that the law in most countries is not blind to wealth, here it is.
He bought his way out of a situation be should never had got into both historically and recently and I've for no sympathy for him whatsoever.
As mentioned above. Painting her as a willing victim is weird
There's a room with well connected billionaires and princes and an underage (from where she was trafficked) "girl" from a broken home, a place of poverty and a difficult path.
Seem odd?
But but but...he wanted a jury trial to prove his innocence.
Ex-cons informed me (honest guv) that 'nonce' refers to 'vulnerable' prisoners (rapists, paedos, sex offenders, narcissists) who are on Rule 43 which isolates them from the rest of the prison poipulation for their own safety. However, ingenious 'bombs', sharp objects and hot oil etc have been used to make contact with these prisoners.
Yep. She will make much more from the TV and book rights.
Regardless of what he did she was always in it for the money.
This says more about you than that abused woman. You may want to rethink your approach as what took place will never be acceptable.
She always was in it for the money. Clearly there was never enough evidence for a criminal trial. As a result it became about money. I don’t think either party comes out of it well. She will make a fortune and we will no doubt pay Andrews bills one way or another
She always was in it for the money. Clearly there was never enough evidence for a criminal trial
It wasn't a criminal trial. A payout was her only redress, which is what happened.
The number of apologists here for his behaviour is pretty depressing.
Ransos you're right. Aren't the whole Royal family 'in it for the money'? She was groomed, transported and abused, fair play for going public and going for the jugular.
Never met her. Don’t remember the photograph. I was in pizza express in woking. Can’t sweat. I demand a trial by jury. Ok here’s a big pile of money.
What ransos said.
nonce
2
/ (nɒns) /
noun
prison slang a rapist or child molester; a sexual offender
The number of apologists here for his behaviour is pretty depressing.
No-one's apologising for his behaviour. Rather, a few are suggesting that there's no need to start making shit up when it's bad enough already.
Eg, a murderer is not a serial killer. For someone to point out that fact doesn't make them murderer-apologists.
No-one’s apologising for his behaviour.
Yeah OK, if you want to believe that crack on.
Some of the tactics of his lawyers have been particularly offensive
His problem is that his lies have been so pathetic that any more accusers pop up, any denial will be immediately disbelieved.
Its the kind of arrogance and self entitlement Wed expect from Johnson, who has a similar problem with being believed
The grand old duke of york,
He had 10 million quid,
He gave it to some American girl,
For something he never did.
Yeah, I too think its fair to hold a teenager from a broken home to the same standards as a grown man who has never had to want for anything.
I didn't. Pretty much what Cougar said.
It wasn’t a criminal trial. A payout was her only redress, which is what happened.
Im well aware of that. That’s my point. If there was enough evidence then why wasn’t therea criminal trial rather than a civil suit about money.
To be clear I have no sympathy for Andrew and think his behaviour has been appalling but she has hardly come out smelling of roses
Too much time had passed to allow criminal trial in the US.
Jesus Christ ‘smelling of roses’
Im well aware of that. That’s my point. If there was enough evidence then why wasn’t therea criminal trial rather than a civil suit about money.
Have a look at the rape conviction rate then stop for a think.
She pursued the only avenue available.
Yeah OK, if you want to believe that crack on.
OK. Point out a post where someone is going "that Prince bloke, he was alright really" because I must've missed that.
You're reading what you want to think people are writing. That's not true either.
If there was enough evidence then why wasn’t therea criminal trial rather than a civil suit about money.
No, you misunderstand, no mater what the evidence this couldn’t go to a criminal trial at
this point. It’s all been covered in this thread, and elsewhere. A civil suit is all that was possible because of the time passed, and then only because of a change in New York law as regards historical offences against minors. Getting him to “pay” is literally the only thing that could be chased legally. And that was only possible because she was so young when the events occurred.
You’re reading what you want to think people are writing. That’s not true either.
The last two pages are full of whataboutery. Bog standard excuse making, but maybe you don't want to see it.
Jesus Christ ‘smelling of roses’
Yeah, we'll be back to excuses about her age before long.
Don’t come around here spouting your facts and common sense. A paedo is a man who fancies a girl younger than himself. Even if she’s 28.
Anyone of you with a younger other half, male or female etc?
Does that mean they should all be of equal age?
What if the wife is older what does that make her?
Some of you lot are in trouble with jambourgie unless your other half is same age as you.
My comments on the last page are just the facts, all the lawyers got what they wanted, Guiffre didn't get her day in court, Andrew didn't get his either, all the actual talk came to nothing, a settlement out of court where the lawyers fees will far outweigh any damages.
The minute Andrew did that interview he provided the basis for any civil case, due to his own hubris.
Any way, for me the Andrew thing has also hidden a lot of the stuff that was surrounding Epstein after his death, i wonder if those are still be investigated thoroughly, i.e. the actual criminal acts, as there was a lot of weird things that occurred during the last 15 years relating to the spiders web that was surrounding Epstein.
Point out a post where someone is going “that Prince bloke, he was alright really” because I must’ve missed that.
The last two pages are full of whataboutery. Bog standard excuse making
I'll take that as a "no" then.
No-one on this entire thread has tried to excuse what he's done, either.
We get stories of teachers aged 25 bonking their 17 yr old pupils and the DM/Express/star/sun etc comments sections are out with the lynching gear. Here we have a 40+ yr old and a 17yr old and theres little murmurings and thats about the sum of it. OR the bbc reporting on how he's paying, but thats not an admission of guilt, so everything must be kosher.
No-one on this entire thread has tried to excuse what he’s done, either.
Yes they have, by blaming the victim, and painting her as only after money.
Well Andy Windsor (or whatever He goes by now) is without title or Royal role and while he's not technically been found guilty or liable in a court the net result for his reputation and standing is similar to if he'd lost. The world will assume that a confidently innocent man would have happily gone to court and not offered a settlement, His actions have implied his guilt even if he never has to admit it...
Arguably a pound of flesh has been taken, only Guiffre can say if it is equal to the damage done, but she's decided it's enough, and I can't blame her.
The gap in justice is stark, I don't reckon Andy was "inner circle" material, but this case perhaps starts to scratch the surface of Epstein/Maxwell's trafficking and abuse of young women/children and perhaps gives an indication of the struggles other would be defendants will be putting up, and how hard it will be to bring many of them to justice...
I don't think this whole process would have been easy for Guiffre, whatever the misogynist contingent might believe. I don't think her experiences at 17 were every girls dream, being trafficked and used by sleazy older men with enough money to make problems disappear. The prospect of reliving it all in court and then again via the press won't have been something she was relishing.
So yeah He was certainly no "Prince" and He has arguably gotten off lightly, but he is exposed for what he is now all because Guiffre was willing to take this as far as she has.
Those making weird "technical points" about ages of consent or simply being gits revelling in the anonymous pleasure of being an Interweb Edge lord can get in the ****ing sea TBH.
You might not like hearing it, but that sort of shitposting does just makes you look like apologists or closet rapists whatever your intent, it's not the right topic for that sort of ****tery.
Acquiring a bit of self awareness and perhaps learning to "Read the room" (or preceding 20 odd pages of posters mostly not taking the former Duke of York's side) might sit you in good stead.
OR the bbc reporting on how he’s paying, but thats not an admission of guilt, so everything must be kosher.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but "innocent until proven guilty" still applies but media organizations (in the UK and a lot of other jurisdictions) can't flout that premise. I'd be very surprised if any serious BBC reporter actually thinks he's innocent....
For the record, I think he's guilty and was quite looking forward to watching this train wreck develop in court...
We get stories of teachers aged 25 bonking their 17 yr old pupils and the DM/Express/star/sun etc comments sections are out with the lynching gear. Here we have a 40+ yr old and a 17yr old and theres little murmurings and thats about the sum of it.
Because the second scenario is morally bankrupt but the first is actually illegal.