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

what do you plan to do with your £1?

4 pack of wispa gold.
Next question?

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.

The size of the settlement is key here. If you know and the other party knows it is a try on then you settle for a small-ish amount (these things being relative) and make it go away. The other party is happy in the knowledge they have got something for a bit of a try on.

If your legal team thinks you’re on sketchy ground and the other party is pretty certain their position stacks up then you need to settle for a lot more. Say £10m+ as opposed to £500k-£1m for a try on.

The accompanying statement is important too. In your analogy you would write to parking co along the lines of I never parked there but CBA to argue with you. Here’s your £60.

The Andrew formerly known as Prince has had to state words I am sure he rather he did not have to and her legal team will have agreed the phrasing. It is ambiguous enough to not imply absolute guilt on his part but it is far far more than someone who was trying get something off their desk would have put their name to.

In a complete try on the usual phrase is along the lines of ‘both parties have decided to move on from the matter and will not be commenting further’.

The overall terms of the settlement including the statement and the estimated amounts of money involved suggest his legal team and or Queenie really really didn’t want this to go to court.

Also, not to mention the impact it would have on finally ridding this country of its class system which might mean in time that we saved from PMs such as the current one.

The hope and naivety on here sometimes is just lovely to see.

The Andrew formerly known as Prince has had to state words I am sure he rather he did not have to and her legal team will have agreed the phrasing. It is ambiguous enough to not imply absolute guilt on his part but it is far far more than someone who was trying get something off their desk would have put their name to.

Yes, I thought it was telling. Just a few weeks ago the position from his team was still something like:

“I am innocent and will clear my name in court”
“I don’t regret my relationship with Epstein”
“Never met her and she’s a gold digger looking for a payday”

Get rid of them (the Met) too, I say.

This thread is getting totally derailed, The MET have the same issue as the BBC do, in that they are in fear of MORE funding cuts if thay don’t do as they are told by the conservatives. Let us not forget the Mayor of London is Labour, and has brown skin.

This is the conservative modus operandi. Divide and conquer. And it’s working.
Windsor is guilty as sin, maybe not for full on rape, but it’s clear he’s a real wrong ‘un.
The fact there was an out of court settlement says just that.

This is the conservative modus operandi. Divide and conquer. And it’s working.

Indeed, the Met and the Royals are the cause of all our ills and are stopping Boris and pals leading us to those sunlit uplands.

Yeah, right

Sneaky edit to say I agree with your sneaky edit too.

😀

Whereas patronising smartarses are something I think we’d be better off without, MoreCash.

You can’t sue someone for being a ‘patronising smartarse’.

Well, you could try but I doubt they would settle out of court 😀

Firstly, yet again, this was a civil case and you don’t go to prison in a civil case.

Yes we know its a civil case. But the point he was making was that were it some bloke who lived in a Council House and swept up litter for a living it wouldn’t even be getting to the civil action stage, it would have went criminal from the off.

Now, say it was  criminal and the FBI or whomever put out that P/Andrew was to be one of those accused. Do you honestly believe he would have been extradited tot he US to stand trial.

To my mind it should have went criminal the moment he demanded a trail by jury. Then, he could be sued for his actions in civil court if found guilty.

Of course in such a scenario, would the British government allowed a prince of the realm to go to an American prison, probably for decades ?.

No. So no chance of him ever agreeing to a criminal trial, and no way our government agreeing to a criminal trial with him being extradited there.

Only option is a civil case where the penalties dont include 20 years as a bum boy to some psychopathic sex offender.

it would have went criminal from the off.

Jeez, does it really need to be spelled out? Proving rape is notoriously difficult, especialy if the (young, dumb and vulnerable) victim took benefit/high living lifestyle, you could call it high class prostitution.

It was never going to be a criminal case as it would be impossible to prove beyond doubt.

Yet the royals coughed up what, 10 or 12 million quid, rather than go to court?? c’mon now.

It was never going to be a criminal case as it would be impossible to prove beyond doubt.

Except Mrs Maxwell got found guilty for her role. And had Epstein made it to that court, chances are he’d have also been found guilty.

No. Prince Andrew was never going to be tried in a criminal court, for the reasons ive given above.

@mattyfez
You are being properly offensive now. Please stop.

It was never going to be a criminal case as……

the US statute of limitations for state prosecutions is pretty messed up.

You’d hope this would be one of the big positives from this case – that every state in the US has long hard look at their statute of limitations and sorts them out (apart from some of the southern states that are partial to a child bride and marrying their cousins where they might just think it a tad risky!)

Except Mrs Maxwell got found guilty for her role. And had Epstein made it to that court, chances are he’d have also been found guilty.

Oh yes, I’m not arguing that, but that’s also an entirely different point.

The Point is what Andrew windsor did or didn’t do. It’s safe to assume he had a fair idea of what was going on, but of course that’s just pure conjecture on my part.

@thepilot

Not my intention, I don’t intend to cause offence, and if I did I apologise. It’s a very emotive subject.

For the record, I think Andrew windsor should be in jail.

No worries, mattyfez. Probably an overreaction on my part so sorry for that.
I know this is STW and not the comments section on MSN but I’ve seen so many references to her being a “madam” who has “profited from her behaviour”. That sort of thing.
I also had to remind my father who was telling me that the parties involved should have more respect for queen that his granddaughter is 17 and he might think differently if she got trafficked to another country and was made to have sex with a man twice her age.
To his credit, he managed not to say that his granddaughter is not ‘that type of girl’ but I’d bet good money he was thinking it.

Yet the royals coughed up what, 10 or 12 million quid, rather than go to court?? c’mon now.

This is a drop in the ocean compared to the risk of losing the whole of the monarchy to scandal.

Would they really take the risk when it can be made to go away for what is to them, a pittance? Even a gambling man would take a sure thing rather than risk it all for the same result…

Guilty or innocent, VG had them in a corner from which they were more than happy to pay to escape.

No worries, no offence taken 🙂

There have been a few ethicaly/morally dodgy posts on this thread. For me the most offensive things are saying she’s cashing in.

VG had them in a corner

Not sure she really did. Hence why her lawyers have said settle and don’t go to court. (I think they were worried if she did go to court they might not get paid). Andrew would of found plenty witnesses to say he was somewhere else. I believe even the original photo of them together has been lost by VG so Andy’s lawyers would say it’s impossible for them to test as authentic. There are maybe flight records to say they were in the same place at the same time and other evidence but maybe not enough for them to be confident, we will now never know.

Not sure she really did. Hence why her lawyers have said settle and don’t go to court. (I think they were worried if she did go to court they might not get paid). Andrew would of found plenty witnesses to say he was somewhere else. I believe even the original photo of them together has been lost by VG so Andy’s lawyers would say it’s impossible for them to test as authentic. There are maybe flight records to say they were in the same place at the same time and other evidence but maybe not enough for them to be confident, we will now never know.

Oh, for gods sake, that’s why it would never stand up as a criminal trial.

The civil case is a mater of brinkmanship. Randy Andy blinked first, presumably he’s hired better lawyers this time, and they emphaticaly told him too settle out of court.

Mum, can I borrow 12 milion quid?

There can be no criminal trial because it was too long ago, nothing to do with the level of evidence.

Which begs the question as to why she waited until after the statute of limitations had passed before embarking on her legal challenge

I’m not sure that really matters. Had there been a criminal conviction it wouldn’t stop a subsequent civil action. Nor would a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial – see the civil actions against OJ Simpson (US courts) and that footballer Goodwillie (Scottish court) for examples of successful civil actions following NG verdicts in criminal trials.

Which begs the question as to why she waited until after the statute of limitations had passed before embarking on her legal challenge

Because when someone is abused by people with power, they are often slow to confront them.

Hardly a shocker I know but…

Prince Andrew’s statement seems to contradict answers he gave me – Emily Maitlis

I wonder how it is proved one way or the other if you did or didn’t have sex with somebody decades ago? Short of being documented as ‘definitely balls-deep’ by a medley of reliable witnesses, I’m not sure it’s even possible.

I’d imagine there’s an explanation of why it’s a civil case on every page of this thread. 😂

Doh, of course. Ignore me, it’s been a long day.

I wonder how it is proved one way or the other if you did or didn’t have sex with somebody decades ago? Short of being documented as ‘definitely balls-deep’ by a medley of reliable witnesses, I’m not sure it’s even possible.

It’s basically down to witness evidence and credibility, and since rape is rarely witnessed by a third party (not an innocent one anyway), it’s very hard to prove. You need a victim whose evidence stands up to the scrutiny a defence will subject it to, whether that’s on grounds of untruthfulness, forgetfulness, uncertainty etc., and a suspect whose account can be shown to be dubious, perhaps through demonstrating he’s lying or his grounds for believing their was consent are implausible. If you can do all that, you might persuade a jury beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim is telling the truth and the suspect isn’t.

Plus also if there are multiple accounts from different girls, that goes a way to securing a conviction, as we aren’t relying on the word of one against the other.

Very much so.

@mattyfez, yes I’d read those comments accusing VG of being a money grabber, got wound up, and then obviously took your post the wrong way. Probably not helped by the 8% (!) IPA I’d just drunk 🙂

As for the Maitlis article, spot on again. I never bother with Newsnight unless she’s presenting. The Beeb’s best journalist for me at least.

Even without this scandal Andrew (always known as randy Andy when younger) is an arrogant, thoughtless, impatient, shameless, useless, slightly thick man and I’m being polite.

My nephew was commissioned to take a cover photo of Andrew for the Sunday Times magazine about 3 years ago. He was given a slot of 25 minutes to set up and get ‘the shot’ (this was at Buckingham palace). Andrew walks in without a ‘how do you do’ or ‘hello’, bellows to my nephew that he had 10 minutes. My nephew in his working life has come across many ‘well known’ people and I think he said Andrew was the worst.

As for the Maitlis article, spot on again. I never bother with Newsnight unless she’s presenting. The Beeb’s best journalist for me at least.

As usual, Americast is a good listen on this. The superb NY attorney they had on pretty much said that Andrew was losing this case because of his Matlis interview.

Yeah, as stated a few times, his own hubris and ego brought him down, he was told not to do the interview, he then went and did it, and it was so bad it became an actual comedy show.

With what he had said, and how he acted, in a civil case all they had to do was show bare minimum evidence against his statements in that interview to cast doubt.

It’s quite funny to think that he’s been allowed to be this self entitled and egotistical individual his whole life, and now his family are all wondering how it came crashing down so fast.

Which begs the question as to why she waited until after the statute of limitations had passed before embarking on her legal challenge

Here’s a bit of homework for your soul. Try to put yourself in the position of Virginia (or indeed any of the many many trafficked women who’ve been victims of Epstein and Maxwell) and think about the question you’ve asked. Could it be that there’s for instance a cognitive dissonance? That they’ve been persuaded and told repeatedly by people they think are their friends that they want this? that they aren’t being exploited? that they’re special? and so on and on and on…And that when you do finally realise what actually happened to you and you confront your abuser; you’re forced to sign documents and agreements by powerful and expensive lawyers that you think will mean you’ll go straight to prison if you utter a word about it to anyone ever again…

These are damaged, abused and vulnerable people.

What’s that Robin Williams quote?: “You have no idea of the personal battles people are fighting when you meet them; be kind”

Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had 12 million quid,
He gave it to somebody he didn’t know,
For something he never did…………

My nephew in his working life has come across many ‘well known’ people and I think he said Andrew was the worst.

obviously never met the leeds squad under david 0leary then!

Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had 12 million quid,
He gave it to somebody he didn’t know,
For something he never did…………

That deserved more attention. Good work!