Forum menu
Yes they have, by blaming the victim, and painting her as only after money.
Hmm, is accusing her implicitly excusing him? You may well have a point there, that wasn't really what I was considering. Rather,
20 odd pages of posters mostly not taking the former Duke of York’s side
I don't think any are 'taking his side'. It's possible to question her motives or to point out that he wasn't bumming six-year olds without buying a Team Andy tee-shirt.
We have a justice system, not an angry mob.
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.
This isn't really an "age difference issue" it's a grooming, trafficking and manipulation to get sex from a vulnerable person issue. If you can't differentiate then perhaps you're the one in trouble...
the first is actually illegal
Again though, what Prince Andrew did in more than one country was illegal. He hasn’t just had dodgy morals. He broke laws. Unless you think he settled for moral reasons. And that the fact she was trafficked and abused are not relevant.
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
<Point of order> The second scenario is actually illegal in New York where one of the "events" took place</Point of order>
EDIT: crappy STW formatting...
<Point of order> The second scenario is actually illegal in New York where one of the “events” took place</Point of order>
I don't think it is, unless I've missed something? The age of consent is 18 now, but that's a really recent change.
This has all been covered in this thread already.
This has all been covered in this thread already.
Well, this wouldn't be Singletrackworld without the same shit being discussed week-in,week-out. Hell, their business would collapse if we could only talk about a subject once 😉
To be fair, it's a long thread.
I don’t think any are ‘taking his side’. It’s possible to question her motives or to point out that he wasn’t bumming six-year olds without buying a Team Andy tee-shirt.
Whatbaboutery and making "shades of grey" distinctions between participating in the rape of someone over or under a given age does kind of seem like 'taking his side'.
What insightful point do you think is being driven home by dissecting her age at the time or the fact that this was a civil rather than criminal case?
We have a justice system, not an angry mob.
You sure about that?
Whatbaboutery and making “shades of grey” distinctions between participating in the rape of someone over or under a given age does kind of seem like ‘taking his side’.
Nope, it's called discussion. 'taking his side' would me more like: "Andrew's a lovely bloke, he should be able to do as he pleases as he works jolly hard in his job as Prince".
He's a ****.
He's bought his way out of trouble with his mam's savings.
If he lived in a Council House and swept up litter for a living his feet wouldn't have touched the ground on his way to prison...
Nobody goes straight to prison on the basis of an allegation.
And to play devil's avocado...
What if it's like when you get a spurious parking ticket by some private cowboys and you know you're in the right but have to consider whether it's worth spending the next year fighting it and potentially messing up your credit rating and finances, or just to pay the £60 and move on with your life, whilst imploding on yourself in rage.
oldman - how very true but unlikely we'll ever know if Brenda has bailed him out and, if so, whether it was from her PO savings a/c.
She and her advisors wouldn't be stupid enough to allow the funding to be traced back to the civil list or whatever it's now called.
All (most) the papers reporting the queen is helping him financially.
Every one of them also running an utterly damning assessment of him too.
This seems like a decent compromise to be honest....
She gets his implicit admission of guilt - her expenses paid, and a decent payout. She also gets to avoid the circus of court - god knows what crap from her past they would have put on the front pages of the tabloids in order to damage her credibility. She also gets to avoid the (very real) possibility of him weaseling out of it, declaring himself "innocent" and returning to his public role.
His outcome is far worse: He's no longer an active royal, and he will probably never be one again. I'm not sure what impact that will have on his "trade ambassador" gig - which I've never really bought anyway - smelled a bit like bribery / sex-tourism to me. His reputation is completely trashed - everyone knows what a grubby perv he is (can we say perv? I think so), and that's going to basically be his royal legacy. He avoided the circus of going to court, and the possible resulting guilty verdict - which is about the only upside for him. But as I said, this is a tacit admission of guilt anyway. So really - he's just avoided damaging himself further.
The only real losers in this are the British public: We know that Andrew has done something (or more likely, a whole series of somethings) that were best case immoral, worst case illegal - while he was a member of the royal family....... and it's been successfully (for now) hushed-up.
Does anyone think he may have been pushed into settling by the rest of the Royal family? Pay whatever’s needed to just get it out of the media? He’s permanently damaged by this anyway, so there’s little to win in a court case - his association with Epstein is enough no matter what else happens.
What makes me think is that given his arrogance so far, with the TV interview, etc, I’d guess he firmly believed he could win in court. His lawyers may not have agreed (especially after the interview) but, him…? But win or lose for him, it’s a loss for the Royals, so they told him to make it and himself go away?
jambourgie - you say you aren't an apologist for mr windsor but it looks very much like you are.
When the queen dies it would be a very good time for the Royal family to be disbanded and our money returned as it has turned into a shit show over the last 10 years or so and not sure it has that much support or interest from anyone under 50.
The Royal family in the last 60 years have been absolute angels compared to the previous 1000. Not excusing them, but some perspective helps.
I'm ambivalent about them, but too many people seem to be using Andy as an excuse to batter them.
Think this sort of shit wouldn't go on in a republic? Check where the victim was working before being picked up by Maxwell/Epstein.
The royal angle is a red herring. Your money pays compensation to victims of abuse every day through local authorities, sports federations, youth organisations.
it would be a very good time for the Royal family to be disbanded and our money returned
ooo, can we add that to the 350mil a week please
This was their only option (barring a car in a tunnel incident). When he was found guilty in court, what then? Prison / community service / reeducation, not viable options with his family connections.
This was their only option (barring a car in a tunnel incident). When he was found guilty in court, what then? Prison / community service / reeducation, not viable options with his family connections.
How many times has someone explained on this thread it was not a criminal trial.....
To me, a payout only suggests guilty.
As reported by Eye. There have been rumblings in the royal household for some time with some of the youngsters keen to cut Andy adrift. RAndy was taken aside by the queen and told in no uncertain terms the only way back was to be proven innocent. Hence an attempt at bluffing it out in court. So no this isn’t a win for Andy. He is now out the door with no way back to the trinkets and honours he so adores. And a new generation have stamped their influence on the monarchy.
ooo, can we add that to the 350mil a week please
Will be a big saving for all of us, especially when the Crown Estates are all sold off to the highest bidder donor.
The Royals are a useful tool to distract people from where the real abuse of power, trust and money takes place.
To me, a payout only suggests guilty.
Reports of queue of people waiting outside Andrew's house after hearing that he's giving millions away to people he's never met
Does anyone think he may have been pushed into settling by the rest of the Royal family?
Very obviously. There's a remembrance service for Philip and its the Queens Diamond Jubilee year. Joking aside, I've just read the agreement, and while it still doesn't say that he acknowledges that he knows her still, it does say that he regrets continuing to see Epstein after his conviction in 2008, and agrees that he "trafficked countless young girls over many years" and reverses his statement from the interview in 2019 that there could have no possible justification for his continued association with a convicted sex trafficker, which he now regrets. So that means no going back to Royal duties and Giuffre has essentially won. I hope the payout is hefty and continues to remind him over many many years what a complete shit he's been.
To me, a payout only suggests guilty.
I think we differ here as to how a payout is viewed in the U.S. Over there, it’s often been viewed as a “simple” business decision to avoid losses down the line as a result of reputational damage that an airing of dirty linen could do, whether the accused is guilty or not. IMO, #MeToo has shifted the perception of culpability onto he or she that pays out. Rightly or wrongly, I don’t know sometimes.
Because the second scenario is morally bankrupt but the first is actually illegal.
Yup, but the point i was making that while is was technically legal here, its not technically legal in the US, and though morally reprehensible, the BBC and others should be treating it with less levity than they are.
This is pretty7 much how I feel about it, put so eloquently by oldmanmtb
"
He’s bought his way out of trouble with his mam’s savings.
If he lived in a Council House and swept up litter for a living his feet wouldn’t have touched the ground on his way to prison…"
So with this in mind, the bbc and others should be shouting louder than they are, whereas it seems they're not putting out the we are outraged message, but instead saying, nothing to see here ,lets move on.
The message prince andrew is implying by his statement is he was tricked, and the bbc are not calling this statement out as a fabrication and twisting of the actual truth.
I’ll take that as a “no” then.
No-one on this entire thread has tried to excuse what he’s done, either.
If you want to take it as the opposite of what's been said, you carry on.
Meanwhile I will continue to be puzzled as to why he's published a contrite letter and paid a sack full of cash to someone he's never met.
If he lived in a Council House and swept up litter for a living his feet wouldn’t have touched the ground on his way to prison…”
So with this in mind, the bbc and others should be shouting louder than they are, whereas it seems they’re not putting out the we are outraged message, but instead saying, nothing to see here ,lets move on.
The message prince andrew is implying by his statement is he was tricked, and the bbc are not calling this statement out as a fabrication and twisting of the actual truth.
Firstly, yet again, this was a civil case and you don't go to prison in a civil case.
Secondly, as there has been no legal finding of guilt or liability, the BBC and other news organisations - and possibly cycling forums - have to be quite careful what they say or do to avoid the threat of legal action themselves.
We all know what this decision looks like and what we can infer from it. Putting those thoughts on the record is potentially very dodgy though
We all know what this decision looks like and what we can infer from it. Putting those thoughts on the record is potentially very dodgy though
I don't think dodgy is the word, risky perhaps. It would be a good idea to make sure Giuffre would be prepared to give evidence before proceeding. But you have to wonder if Mountbatten-Windsor would want/ be able to fund further litigation even if he had a good case.
I don’t think dodgy is the word, risky perhaps. It would be a good idea to make sure Giuffre would be prepared to give evidence before proceeding. But you have to wonder if Mountbatten-Windsor would want/ be able to fund further litigation even if he had a good case.
Yes, risky is a better term.
As a publicly funded broadcaster, the Beeb may be even more risk averse than most, maybe.
@nickc, prefer this one:
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/CxnDkW5M/IMG-20220216-WA0000.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/CxnDkW5M/IMG-20220216-WA0000.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I don’t see hire becoming a non working royal constitutes any form of punishment. All the perks and none of the “work”. His reputation was pretty lie to start with
Oooooh,
The grand old Duke of York,
He had 12 million quid,
He gave it to someone he'd never met,
For something he never did.
I have taken very little interest in this and its always been filed under 'typical royal bollox' in my brain and ignored. Like most people, I've always thought Andrew was a bit of a wrong'un and at the very least of low moral fibre shall we say.
However,I'm sure this has been done to death on this thread but I can't be bothered to check as its almost 1000 posts - that picture which I just finally looked at for more than 3 seconds - surely its a fake? I mean it just screams fake all over it. The way the bodies aren't touching, the perspective, the composition, the weird hand that doesn't look like its his, her expression doesn't fit the situation at all - so much just looks wrong in it. Why would it be taken anyway? Why there and then after getting back from a nightclub apparently - just doesn't seem right.
Anyway if it was a means to an end then fair play - I mean i'm sure he wasn't a friend of epsteins for nothing
@jeffwachowchow Outstanding contribution to the internet
However,I’m sure this has been done to death on this thread but I can’t be bothered to check as its almost 1000 posts – that picture which I just finally looked at for more than 3 seconds – surely its a fake?
If you think that pic is "fake" and deceitful, have you seen "the interview".
surely its a fake?
It's not, and you don't even need to take my word for it. The FBI have the original. Given to them by Giuffre.
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.
+1. And most of the other posts Cookeaa has made on the last couple of pages.
Ransos +1 for at least the last couple of pages and probably more on this thread.
Vulnerable person, taken across borders for sexual activity and unable to provide consent. That’s by definition abuse.
Why there and then after getting back from a nightclub apparently – just doesn’t seem right.
Unless you make your money by putting rich people in compromising positions and taking photos of it. #MakesYouThink
"The FBI have the original"
Do they though?
and from the Guardian
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">The original image showing Giuffre, the duke and Maxwell together at Maxwell’s home, before, her lawyers claim, she was sexually abused by the duke, is reportedly lost.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">Ahead of the settlement, the duke’s lawyers asked Giuffre to hand over the original, anticipating arguing that it was fake. But according to the Daily Beast, nobody on Giuffre’s legal team knows where it is, or has ever seen the original photograph.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">The picture, taken on Giuffre’s own camera, had allegedly been packed into a box and shipped from Colorado to Sydney sometime between between 2011 and 2016, when Giuffre emigrated to Australia.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">It remained unseen, at least by the public, until the Mail on Sunday asked for evidence to Giuffre’s claim that she had been trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell – who is now awaiting sentencing after being convicted of sex trafficking in December – to support her claims that she had been forced to have sex with a number of prominent figures.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">It later emerged, during a 2016 deposition as part of a defamation suit Giuffre filed against Maxwell, that the Mail on Sunday paid her $140,000 to publish it, as well as $20,000 for two interviews.</p>
<p class="dcr-1wj398p">During that deposition, Giuffre said she had lent the picture to the FBI in 2011 but had last seen it before she packed up her home to emigrate. It might, she said, be in her home, in storage at her in-laws’ or with “seven boxes full of Nerf guns, my kids’ toys, photos”.</p>
^^ Are you saying the FBI never examined the original or that the original is now "lost" that's a vey different thing.