Prince Andrew, what a cowardly little ****.

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 **** 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 twattery.

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.

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.