Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Prince Andrew in jep?

1242527293037

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    That sounds like a cheap settlement from Andrew's point of view. I would have expected VG to get about $10m more.



  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Why on earth would she do that? It's probably one of the stupidest moves she could make as she would directly implicate herself. Absolutely no way Maxwell will spill beans on Andrew (assuming there's beans to spill) as it will only compound her role in it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,898 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Can you imagine him in court....he collapsed completely and came across appallingly in a fairly friendly bbc interview...him being questioned by a lawyer? I would have loved to see it.

    He is tarnished forever the paying of the settlement will be an admission of guilt to the majority of people I would wager.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭NedsNotDead


    Was he convicted in a court of law. No. Therefore he is innocent



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    Any half competent lawyer would have ripped him a new one for sure and I'd have liked to see how he would stand up during cross-examination. Sadly it's not to be.

    Settlement or no settlement, he was always going to be tarnished. Off to some comfortable retirement for him now, well away from the public gaze.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,152 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Why wouldn't she exactly 🤔 she has all the gory details and in particular re epstien. The American Justice system always willing to do a deal. Andrew is being protected at the highest levels in UK government and Royalty, its not a stretch to think if she let's it be known she's going to let loose with information a few discrete phone calls will occur between UK and British governments.

    Andrew dropped her like a bad habit and revenge best served cold. Her brother is also determined and bitter and equally well connected. Ghislaine is as ghastly as Andrew and I've absolutely no doubt she'll attempt to get a deal on her appeal . Watch this space, reduced sentence, Plea Deal etc

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,980 ✭✭✭buried


    Hold up chief, didn't this greasy $hitrat say in that interview that he never even met Giuffre? Because there is lie number 1. Didn't he also claim he "had no regrets about his relationship with Epstein", but now today, after forking out 7.5 million dollars he now "regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others" Lie number 2. I'd go on but there's no point is there, he's a lying filthy piece of human trash, and is lucky to be born into some real "white privilege" due to his families accumulated wealth that was also created off the backs of other sufferers throughout the centuries.

    I know its not a crime to lie to the public, God knows everybody and anybody in any sort of governance does it on a daily basis. Least he can do is apologize to the people who allow him and his crew the lifestyle they are accustomed to, but I'd say a great deal of them are pathetically convinced that this dodgeball is innocent up to his unsweaty eyeballs.

    Bullet The Blue Shirts



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    I wonder did the palace take over this case rapidly when Andrew gave the indication that he was fighting the case and would be giving a deposition to her lawyers in a few months



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,817 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭UsBus


    This was never going to go to court. The power of the royal family and their reach around the world would have made life very precarious for her the longer it went on. You may like to believe nobody is above the law. The fact is, there is an elite around the world who live by their own rules and can alter the outcome of any court of law. Epstein found that out in his cell. At the very least, it would have been made clear to her that this case would be tied up in legalities and she would face bankruptcy.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,817 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Hold up chief, didn't this greasy $hitrat say in that interview that he never even met Giuffre? Because there is lie number 1.

    We discussed this recently here and IIRC he claimed that he had no recollection of meeting her. He didn't say that he never met her.

    Anyhow, telling porkies to Emily Maitliss on the telly isn't a crime.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    You misunderstood what I was saying.

    That sounds like a cheap settlement from Andrew's point of view. I would have expected VG to get about $10m more.

    So £7.5m + $10m (more) = circa $20m.

    I would have expected her to get around $20m out of it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    If the case were to go to court, it would have been highly embarrassing for the Royal Family so you can be sure they stuck the boot in and got this settled. I'm surprised they didn't settle earlier.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,980 ✭✭✭buried



    Yeah, and all those lies would have held well up in a court with extreme cross-examination wouldn't they? His pathetic lie infested interview is the reason the dodgeball settled today.

    He told lies to the British Public, that's what the BBC is, and that's who pays for it. Along with him and his crew.

    Bullet The Blue Shirts



  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Just because the statement says Andrew will give substantial contribution to Giuffre's charity, doesn't mean he's not also going to be paying her a heck of a chunk of change.

    If her charity is registered in the USA, ultimately the amount he pays that charity will be made public, by law. Not sure if it's based in Australia if the same applies.

    Estimates are up to 10 million Great British Pounds - I assume this includes paying her lawyer fees.

    A great non-apology, apology- at least we won't have to endure Randy Andy on official Royal duties ever again. While Giuffre got money from this, either directly, indirectly or both, she didn't get anything near what she set out to achieve- the only gain for her really is monetary.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,152 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 36,199 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Guilty people are found innocent in court all the time. Innocent people might be found guilty of something they didn't do. A lot of guilty people are never even charged or brought to court due to lack of evidence. That doesn't mean they didn't do it.

    Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term regarding a trial, where the defendant must be considered to be innocent by the jury at the start of a trial, and it's the prosecutor's job to prove that they're guilty (not the defendant's job to prove that they're innocent). It's not infallible, nor does it mean that outside of a trial people can't hold or express an opinion regarding whether someone is guilty or not.

    So people can claim they believe Andrew is guilty, and that the settlement suggests that he's guilty, with or without an admission of guilt or liability.

    After he couldn't get the trial dismissed on a technicality, he swore to defend his case in court. He's now settled for a large sum of money in order to avoid a trial and avoid an actual judgement on whether he was guilty or not.

    I believe Andrew is guilty of what he was accused of. He may not have been found guilty in court, but that doesn't mean he's innocent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    Because the press are calling it a surprise announcement by Andrew giving his determination to clear his name



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    Your first point has been answered a few posts earlier. He said he didn't recall meeting her which is not the same as denying meeting her.

    He did say he had no regrets about his relationship with Epstein. He said Epstein gave him some very good business contacts. He made that statement before he had to fork out in a settlement with VG. I'm sure he has regrets now for sure.

    Any comment on the bravery of VG in the statement is more than likely not Andrew's words but the words of a settlement statement drawn up by lawyers. That statement was made to deflect everything away from Andrew and onto Epstein.

    He's done for in the eyes of the public, absolutely. But I can't see him apologising because that's an admission of sorts that he did something wrong. This settlement isn't an admission that he did anything wrong, even though most of us think that he did.



  • Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I doubt that she’ll see half of that after legal fees.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,898 ✭✭✭✭gmisk




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    It's damage limitation, that's all this settlement is. It gets rid of the problem. There'll be lots of media attention for a few weeks at most, but then it will be gone. A court case would have kept it in the media for months.

    Andrew is finished as a Royal though. Retirement for him.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭NedsNotDead


    So we agree that in terms of the Judicial process that Andrew is innocent.

    Thanks



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    We don't know the makeup of the settlement. The £7.5m fee reported could be incorrect. I'd be surprised if she accepted a fee around that much in the knowledge that she was going to lose a huge percentage of it in fees. She might have her fees paid on top of a settlement figure. One other point. The case didn't go to court so I can't see her fees being much more than $1m at this stage. Certainly it wouldn't be anywhere near £3.75m.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,152 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Legally of course he is but not in the court of public opinion.

    Of course to most people that wouldn't matter a damn but to the British Royal family , UK government and those British citizens who actually care , the court of public opinion absolutely means everything.

    Andrew has had all his Military titles removed, Patronages removed , even the unionists up north didn't fly the Royal standard on his birthday (that must have hurt).

    He's done & will never ever represent the Royal family again and good riddance.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    The palace in essence achieved a good deal in getting that wording supporting the victims of trafficking included in the settlement statement therefore making the financial contribution look more done on compassionate grounds



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,201 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    The manipulation of the girls involved in this case and with Epstein must be on a par with elite brain washing, as all the victims willingly went to his house by their own means over and over and over, same with trips to island, all went to that airport to fly there over and over and over and over. It's a very strange case, the manipulation is something I've never seen before, it's like they were hypnotized or that at the time they never knew they were victims of crimes. So weird.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,254 ✭✭✭Immortal Starlight


    Yeah I know what you mean. We can read between the lines and everyone knows exactly why he’s reached a settlement. The thing is though that the only guilt he has admitted to is the guilt of being a friend of Epstein. I think he’s gotten off very lightly indeed. I don’t think 7.5 million pounds of a payout will give him too many sleepless nights and his brass neck will ensure he won’t care what anyone thinks.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 36,199 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    In terms of the judicial process, yes.

    However if someone punches you in the face, but the police can't find enough evidence to charge them with assault, does that mean you weren't punched in the face? If someone asks you who punched you in the face, do you say "Well they haven't been found guilty, so they're innocent."

    Andrew hasn't been found guilty. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, and after claiming he would defend his innocence in a trial by jury, has now paid out millions to avoid having to do that.



Advertisement