"Suggestion of impropriety with minors untrue," says Buckingham Palace after Prince Andrew named in US sex lawsuit
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30659629
this is surprising if it's true
I'm sure she realised the lawyers would want to be paid and the terms and conditions of that. You're implying she's a simpleton.
I have a feeling that the Queen was the only person batting for Andrew within the Royal Family. Now she's dead he really will be truly pushed out into the periphery. Seeing him on the telly in the last few days brings back memories of his infamous interview with Emily Maitlis on the BBC. His lack of empathy and self awareness was startling and chilling. His judgment is clearly atrocious. He managed to make a bad situation times worse by doing that interview. He actually thought it went well which beggars belief. It's a shame the Queen bailed him out. He was apparently her favourite but it would have been better for him to have been subjected to court proceedings. It's not a good look paying off an accuser. It makes pleas of innocence hollow.
I wouldn't be surprised if he is stripped of his Duke of York status. He and Sarah were well matched in the idiot stakes. If he has any sense (unlikely) he will live out his life quietly and avoid bringing attention on himself.
And the sweating thing, which is even better.
As I said, everyone seems to be lying and I wouldn’t believe any of them. And that includes the unfortunate victim.
You seem to think sexual trauma and seeking financial damages are maybe not always but mostly mutually exclusive. It's not true.
There's also the fact that if an offer of damages is made which can be deemed reasonable and likely near or equal to what a judge would award, it's generally to be accepted. Not accepting it can result in a judge deeming the case to be vexatious and being brought to damage the defendant rather than seek damages. May even result in costs being awarded against the accuser for wasting court time.
A reasonable offer was made in terms of damages, and it's likely that the solicitors advised her to take it. Accepting the damages is not an indicator of whether the accuser is telling the truth or not.
Though given how Andrew was very direct in saying he'd fight the case in court, and then when his team failed to have the case thrown out settled pretty quickly, I'd say is a fairly strong indicator as to his guilt.
I don't know how anyone could have watched his interview and believe him.
How do you know?
I’m implying that she’s a victim of more than Epstein.
Correct. She’s a victim of Andrew Windsor who has also just been exposed of groping his own daughter in public.
Her husband, Robert, does seem to have given her the mental steel to go into battle with Andrew, he is a martial arts expert, the earlier pay off from Epstein will have encouraged her lawyer as well as provided the key money to get the case moving along v Andrew.
What a surprise that yiu have that opinion. If there is a victim to be blamed it is normally a race between you and the other one to get in there first.
You're implying lawyers charging for their services is abuse. What an absurd opinion.
And I don’t get why a victim needs to be believed without any reservation. If you read what I wrote you can see that I think everyone involved is lying to some extend, not just one person.
I suppose she was willing to testify in a court of law ...prince Andrew wasn't ..if you believe your telling the truth ... Andrew should have no problem testifying in court as well.
Photographed in the home of a convicted trafficker, a convicted child abuser and trafficker with a paunch 40 year old good friend of the above at 17 years of age. I wonder what he was doing there, hanging out with a trafficked minor? Hmmmmm?If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
I don’t really care. They all benefited from their arrangements, so did she. As I said I automatically question the validity of testimony we soon as large sums of money are involved.
Yep, he stayed besties with Epstein after he was convicted.
But let’s all round on the victim instead!!
She benefitted from being groomed, abused and trafficked for rape as a teenager? That is not an arrangement.
Really is some utter vermin in this thread.
There was no possibility for a criminal case, so the only option was a civil case. The only outcome possible was large sums of money.
You're automatically questioning the validity of the testimony based on the only possible route of recourse available. That means you're questioning the validity of the testimony regardless of the facts, and is therefore your own preconceived notions.
You don't understand why a victim needs to be believed? I think have found the problem
What the actual Fcuk are you on about? Groping his own daughter in public? It’s a sad day when a parent cannot comfort their grieving child without being accused of something so vile.
It’s in the thread. He was feeling her arse.
It’s a sad day when people will go to any lengths to defend a nonce.
I agree.
The Queen lost a lot of goodwill with her willingness to bankroll his defence and ultimately his out of court settlement. The public will put up with a lot of shítty behaviour from royals but what he did was potentially criminal if proven, but almost certainly morally repugnant and a step too far. She was his only protector and now she's dead. William has enough cop on to realise that Andrew popping up on the balcony is the quickest route to a republic and if Charles has any sense should realise it also.
There's a few in the family that didn't think too far ahead how allegiances would change when the queen died and really should have.
Weird loyalty to the crown from some Irish. They're also the ones who get bizarrely bothered by Meghan Markle.
A republican Island on the right of us, how would that go I wonder. Would they all go their own way ?
Grope??? You are going a bit over the top there.
I’ll leave it there and will not outline my exact thoughts as I don’t particularly feel like a threadban today.
I'd agree but there's a time and a place..
A person claiming that they were abused should be listened to sympathetically, taken seriously and then have their claims thoroughly investigated.
That's what should happen rather than just believing them off the bat. And in doing that doesn't mean that you disbelieve them, it just means that facts need to be established to determine if what they claim is credible. There have been plenty of cranks who have made false claims in the past - Justin Smollett for example.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2c24cbeac11f913da9e0b21923b8fc98.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
