National News Prince Andrew - Yeah right...!

bazzer9461 said:
Speculation that Ms Guiffre will get 10 million out of the reported 12 million they think will be given to her with 2 million going to her charity for women’s abuse. She was in it for the money.
Click to expand...
I know I've made a joke below but this is one of the stupidest things I've read on here, which is saying something. This woman was abused as a teenager at the hands of much older and more powerful (status wise) men and gone through hell. I've got young daughters myself and I'm sure I remember you saying you had daughters too. Imagine, god forbid, that something like this happened to one of them. After going through the ordeal of sex trafficking, assault and all the shame/guilt that goes with that for years and years she has idiots saying she's "in it for the money".

There are enough people to point fingers at in this case, absolutely anything towards the victim is absolutely pathetic.
 
Joey said:
I know I've made a joke below but this is one of the stupidest things I've read on here, which is saying something. This woman was abused as a teenager at the hands of much older and more powerful (status wise) men and gone through hell. I've got young daughters myself and I'm sure I remember you saying you had daughters too. Imagine, god forbid, that something like this happened to one of them. After going through the ordeal of sex trafficking, assault and all the shame/guilt that goes with that for years and years she has idiots saying she's "in it for the money".

There are enough people to point fingers at in this case, absolutely anything towards the victim is absolutely pathetic.
Click to expand...
I’m not pointing the finger I just felt that this charity of hers would have benefited from more than the reported 2 million she is putting into the charity.
As far as I’m aware ( and it’s not proven ) is that he had a shag with a 17 year old, whereas the sex trafficking was down to Epstein and Maxwell, if and it is a big if Andy Pandy knew she was trafficked then the yanks could issue a warrant for his arrest. I’m not sure what the legal age for sex is in that state but over here it’s not illegal but if so over there then that’s sex against a minor which surely he could be interviewed as a minimum before the DA involved could decide whether chargers should be preferred.
 
bazzer9461 said:
I’m not pointing the finger I just felt that this charity of hers would have benefited from more than the reported 2 million she is putting into the charity.
As far as I’m aware ( and it’s not proven ) is that he had a shag with a 17 year old, whereas the sex trafficking was down to Epstein and Maxwell, if and it is a big if Andy Pandy knew she was trafficked then the yanks could issue a warrant for his arrest. I’m not sure what the legal age for sex is in that state but over here it’s not illegal but if so over there then that’s sex against a minor which surely he could be interviewed as a minimum before the DA involved could decide whether chargers should be preferred.
Click to expand...

Again why should she give more than 2m to charity? Considering the 2m is still a big chunk of her settlement.
 
bazzer9461 said:
I’m not pointing the finger I just felt that this charity of hers would have benefited from more than the reported 2 million she is putting into the charity.
As far as I’m aware ( and it’s not proven ) is that he had a shag with a 17 year old, whereas the sex trafficking was down to Epstein and Maxwell, if and it is a big if Andy Pandy knew she was trafficked then the yanks could issue a warrant for his arrest. I’m not sure what the legal age for sex is in that state but over here it’s not illegal but if so over there then that’s sex against a minor which surely he could be interviewed as a minimum before the DA involved could decide whether chargers should be preferred.
Click to expand...
"I don't care if she was manipulated, trafficked, abused and intimidated, I only shagged her! And she was 17 you know!"

That seems like a pretty watertight defence to me. Best not to ask too many more questions of Andrew and instead blame the victim some more - clearly she's the one at fault here if it turns out she's only giving £2m to charity 🤨
 
Marked Ox said:
Epstein and has been alledged Prince Andrew actually abused her so why would the order matter? She could still go after Maxwell.

For not backing Prince Andrew, you seem to be finding a lot wrong with what the victim has done.
Click to expand...
Im not.but there are issues, I do feel sorry for her if Randy Andy sex with her the question has to be was it consensual? If not he’s raped her or if not penetrated sex then sexual assault and the dick should have a warrant issued by the United States district court for his arrest.

The issues are why now when this occurred 6 years ago.
We know about Epsteins pay off to her but why now and jot then.

But at no point am I defending him just find that seemed more about money, as if there was a case to answer for either rape of a minor, or rape, or sexual assault of a minor, or sexual assault why did the American judicial service not issue a warrant for his arrest.

Just because he’s a a Prince he’s not above the law.
 
QR said:
Why was this civil case? Will this now be afforded in future to individuals accused of sexual crimes in the USA? Will potentially pedophiles be allowed to buy themselves out of potential incarceration?
Click to expand...

It's been touched on by other posters - but I believe the reason is that the DA couldn't pull together sufficient evidence that they thought they could get a conviction in a criminal court.

The burden of proof in a civil court is lower (criminal court is 'beyond reasonable doubt', but for a civil court it's just a 'preponderance of evidence' i.e. the jury believes it's a better than 50:50 shot that the alleged behaviour occured). But as a consequence, the punishments are also limited to financial ones.

I'm certain that if they thought they could have nailed Andrew in a criminal court, they would have tried. No hotshot DA would be able to resist the opportunity to take down a prince and put that on their CV.......


Honestly, I still think it's outrageous that the Queen is apparently paying this settlement.
Yes, she's supposedly using her private funds.....but what difference does it really make if the royal family are still getting 60-odd million a year from the taxpayers? Pay with the right hand, take with the left. Forget taking away titles and the like, Andrew should be bankrupted and thrown out on his ear.
 
bazzer9461 said:
Im not.but there are issues, I do feel sorry for her if Randy Andy sex with her the question has to be was it consensual? If not he’s raped her or if not penetrated sex then sexual assault and the dick should have a warrant issued by the United States district court for his arrest.

The issues are why now when this occurred 6 years ago.
We know about Epsteins pay off to her but why now and jot then.

But at no point am I defending him just find that seemed more about money, as if there was a case to answer for either rape of a minor, or rape, or sexual assault of a minor, or sexual assault why did the American judicial service not issue a warrant for his arrest.

Just because he’s a a Prince he’s not above the law.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a prince to be above the law as our current government illustrate
 
Marked Ox said:
Again why should she give more than 2m to charity? Considering the 2m is still a big chunk of her settlement.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Great if she does and well done if she gives more than that, but it was her ordeal and there for its her money to do as she wants with. Why anyone thinks they have any right to say where it should go is beyond me.

It's like the idiots (often found in comment pages for the Mail, Sun, Express etc) calling Rashford a hypocrite for not giving every penny he earns to feed kids. It's a complete cop out to start having a pop at the victim (Giuffre) or someone trying to help (Rashford) but this is where publications like those mentioned above will start pointing fingers. Those who are the cause of the issues should be held to account and the victims deserve nothing but sympathy, not criticism for "only" giving away £2m to charity.

Now it won't go to court the full details will never be known, but going from "I've never seen her before" to "it never happened, I was in Pizza Express", to "I want to be judged by a jury of my peers" to "here, have a load of money with my mum's face on" doesn't scream innocent does it? For me, the reactions should be "poor girl, it's sounds like she's been through an horrific ordeal. If they've been willing to settle put of court for millions before everything becomes public then I can only imagine what she's been through. Fair play to her for giving so much to charity as well", not "oh yeah, here we go. She's only in it for the cash. If she really cared she'd give everything she won to charity, or at least as much as I seem fit".
 
Joey said:
Exactly. Great if she does and well done if she gives more than that, but it was her ordeal and there for its her money to do as she wants with. Why anyone thinks they have any right to say where it should go is beyond me.

It's like the idiots (often found in comment pages for the Mail, Sun, Express etc) calling Rashford a hypocrite for not giving every penny he earns to feed kids. It's a complete cop out to start having a pop at the victim (Giuffre) or someone trying to help (Rashford) but this is where publications like those mentioned above will start pointing fingers. Those who are the cause of the issues should be held to account and the victims deserve nothing but sympathy, not criticism for "only" giving away £2m to charity.

Now it won't go to court the full details will never be known, but going from "I've never seen her before" to "it never happened, I was in Pizza Express", to "I want to be judged by a jury of my peers" to "here, have a load of money with my mum's face on" doesn't scream innocent does it? For me, the reactions should be "poor girl, it's sounds like she's been through an horrific ordeal. If they've been willing to settle put of court for millions before everything becomes public then I can only imagine what she's been through. Fair play to her for giving so much to charity as well", not "oh yeah, here we go. She's only in it for the cash. If she really cared she'd give everything she won to charity, or at least as much as I seem fit".
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But I still want the police either here or across the pond to prosecute to get sex offenders of the streets (where the evidence exists).
 
bazzer9461 said:
Im not.but there are issues, I do feel sorry for her if Randy Andy sex with her the question has to be was it consensual? If not he’s raped her or if not penetrated sex then sexual assault and the dick should have a warrant issued by the United States district court for his arrest.

The issues are why now when this occurred 6 years ago.
We know about Epsteins pay off to her but why now and jot then.

But at no point am I defending him just find that seemed more about money, as if there was a case to answer for either rape of a minor, or rape, or sexual assault of a minor, or sexual assault why did the American judicial service not issue a warrant for his arrest.

Just because he’s a a Prince he’s not above the law.
Click to expand...

There aren't any issues with her actions, she is the victim in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oxymoron
National News Prince Phillip has died
8 9 10
Replies
296
Views
26K
gofish2
gofish2
bazzer9461
National News PC Andrew Harper
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
15K
MarkG
MarkG
Back
Top Bottom