UKC

Bang to rights, guv

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Rob Exile Ward 03 Jan 2022

I've always thought it was best to have just one excuse, and stick to it, rather than have lots of excuses which might conflict with one another.

SO; is Andrew Windsor innocent because a) he didn't do anything (illegal) or b) because his mate Epstein told him about the 'secret' deal that he'd done with Giuffre. Because it can't really be both, whatever his too-clever lawyers might say.

Post edited at 18:37
5
 Andy Hardy 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Or is he another posh nonce?

5
 ThunderCat 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I've always thought it was best to have just one excuse, and stick to it, rather than have lots of excuses which might conflict with one another.

> SO; is Andrew Windsor innocent because a) he didn't do anything (illegal) or b) because his mate Epstein told him about the 'secret' deal that he'd done with Giuffre. Because it can't really be both, whatever his too-clever lawyers might say.

I'll admit to not fully understanding what the "unsealing" of the previous agreement might mean exactly.  What is being unsealed is something that was made between Epstein and Giuffre?  And it was some sort of closure / financial settlement between the two, with the understanding that she could not take any further action against individuals / contacts of Epstein?  Windor is hoping that unsealing it means that as a contact of Epstein, he is immune from any further investigation?

On a scale of 1-10, how badly has my brain simplified or misunderstood what it is all about?

Post edited at 18:58
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> is Andrew Windsor innocent because a) he didn't do anything (illegal) or b) because his mate Epstein told him about the 'secret' deal that he'd done with Giuffre.

No.

 mondite 03 Jan 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

> On a scale of 1-10, how badly has my brain simplified or misunderstood what it is all about?

I think that is broadly right although the unsealing applies to the general public being able to review it.  I think Andrews lawyers have had access to it for some time hence arguing it should be dropped due to the clauses in there.

In reply to ThunderCat:

> I'll admit to not fully understanding what the "unsealing" of the previous agreement might mean exactly.  What is being unsealed is something that was made between Epstein and Giuffre?  And it was some sort of closure / financial settlement between the two, with the understanding that she could not take any further action against individuals / contacts of Epstein?  Windor is hoping that unsealing it means that as a contact of Epstein, he is immune from any further investigation?

> On a scale of 1-10, how badly has my brain simplified or misunderstood what it is all about?

Might be my brain in overdrive - could Epstein have organised and paid for this agreement on the basis that if he got this deal across the line, his filthy friends agree to close ranks and not be witnesses against him. A no lose for any one of the paedos and what felt like an enormous amout of cash for her.

Read this article - BBC News - Virginia Giuffre: Prince Andrew accuser seeks evidence he could not sweat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59839351 - and the comments PAs lawyers use to decline providing non-sweaty documentary evidence. I wonder if I would be able to say similar stuff if I was defending myself in similar circumstances.

Post edited at 19:40
 profitofdoom 03 Jan 2022
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> ..........Prince Andrew accuser seeks evidence he could not sweat......

I bet he's sweating now

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

What surprises me is that such an agreement, which purports to make one of the signators give up her rights in a very open-ended fashion would take effect in court should she decide to ignore it. Would such a contract hold water in this country if the person to benefit were a criminal? I seem to remember cases where landowners said you can walk over my land but if my gamekeeper shoots you you can’t make a claim were found to have no validity, meaning people weren’t allowed to sign away thier rights. 

In reply to mondite:

HTF did they know the agreement would 'support' their case, or even that it existed?

 wintertree 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Also, how does revealing the contract stop her from persuing andrew?  Presumably it just opens up an avenue by which the signatories of the contract can sue her.  Epstein is dead, and I doubt his estate want to take up the mantle.

Further, for such an open ended contract, what is needed to prove someone, say Andrew, is covered by it?

Seems like a legal scare tactic with sweet FA behind it.  But what do I know?!?

1
In reply to Rog Wilko:

I'm pretty bl**dy sure a victim cannot absolve their perpetrator of a criminal act. Whatever might transpire here,  PA ain't going to be going to the US anytime soon. Probably just as well he's no longer a trade envoy, but that doesn't really matter - who needs PA when we've got Liz Truss?

1
 wintertree 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> PA ain't going to be going to the US anytime soon

Holiday options might be a bit limited as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties

I’m most curious what the grey dot is on the France/Spain border.

 mondite 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> HTF did they know the agreement would 'support' their case, or even that it existed?

As far as I am aware it was known to exist because the court case wasnt secret and so you could look up it had been settled but the settlement document had been sealed.

Certainly seems to have been common knowledge.

As to how they knew it would help. I guess either they thought it couldnt hurt to see what was in it or quite possibly a lawyer from the previous case hinted it might be useful.

 whenry 03 Jan 2022
In reply to wintertree:

> I’m most curious what the grey dot is on the France/Spain border.

That will be Andorra.

 profitofdoom 03 Jan 2022
In reply to wintertree:

> > PA ain't going to be going to the US anytime soon

> Holiday options might be a bit limited as well.

> I’m most curious what the grey dot is on the France/Spain border.

Thanks - one of them is Switzerland?? Isn't Fergie over there now with the kids, in the 17 million dollar mansion??

 felt 03 Jan 2022
In reply to wintertree:

Those dots look like countries/states/whathaveyou too small to draw their borders: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican. 

 whenry 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'm pretty bl**dy sure a victim cannot absolve their perpetrator of a criminal act.

Every time you have surgery, get a piercing, or agree to a bit of spanking by your friendly dominatrix, you do exactly that.

Not sure how far US law lets you go, but based on how much I had to waive my rights when buying a ski pass for the US recently, I suspect they go further than we do.

2
In reply to whenry:

No, you don't. You might sign something that declares your dominatrix has your informed and voluntary consent but if she tops you, she's toast.

I hope that hasn't spoiled your evening?

1
 wintertree 03 Jan 2022
In reply to whenry:

> That will be Andorra.

Thank you!  Couldn’t for the life of me remember what was there…

 Ramblin dave 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> What surprises me is that such an agreement, which purports to make one of the signators give up her rights in a very open-ended fashion would take effect in court should she decide to ignore it. Would such a contract hold water in this country if the person to benefit were a criminal? I seem to remember cases where landowners said you can walk over my land but if my gamekeeper shoots you you can’t make a claim were found to have no validity, meaning people weren’t allowed to sign away thier rights. 

I assume that the difference is that this is a civil case whose purpose is to discover whether or not she's entitled to damages from Prince Andrew for any noncing that he may or may not have done, not a criminal case whose purpose is to discover whether or not Andrew actually did the noncing.

If you've settled out of court for damages from one person then agreeing that you won't go after any of their associates for more seems like a fairly natural thing to do, whether or not it actually holds up in this case. The latter is where, AIUI, it doesn't hold any water at all.

 whenry 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

She's toast if she kills you, because a) you can't consent to murder, and b) you consented to battery, nothing more. On the other hand, she does have a defence against you claiming that she beat you up

My point, though, was that it's perfectly possible to be a victim and absolve the perpetrator of the criminal act. The extent to which that's possible under US law, though, is debatable.

 Greenbanks 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Whatever the legal arguments, one way or the other, what this latest episode demonstrates is that PA is willing to grasp at anything that could be a likely get-out. In so doing it reveals more about him than about the frail and flawed legal system that seems to be constructed to protect the likes of him.

PA is, by any measure, despicable. There are too many indicators to think otherwise. For instance, with a straight face, direct to Emily Maitlis, he states that the impact of armed conflict provides a suitable riposte to evidence presented to him. Wonder what the lads/lasses (or more specifically, the families of those lost, including Argentinians) think of such posturing? Queen and Country?

If you can stomach it, check out that Newsnight interview again. It reveals an entitled, righteous and - in the end - absurd misogynist, incapable of apology, regret or capacity to make any restitution. A prize, sold-state, utterly nailed-on t*sser, who I sincerely hope gets everything that might be coming his royal way.

3
In reply to Greenbanks:

I  can't stomach it, but otherwise agree with everything you say.

2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Odds on are that he did some pretty naughty stuffy. However they’re essentially blackmailing the richest family on the planet.

Did he do something illegal? Doubt it. Will he settle when things get a bit spicy in a NY court - yes. Easy money if you’ve got the dodgy, but not incriminating photos.

Lot’s of our money if being used to pay a US gold digger. That’s my take.

45
In reply to whenry:

> My point, though, was that it's perfectly possible to be a victim and absolve the perpetrator of the criminal act. The extent to which that's possible under US law, though, is debatable.

I don't have a clue about the ins and outs of the law but I do remember working on a paintball site where a customer successfully sued the owners because he tripped over a tree stump (in a forest) despite signing the useuall waiver. 

The judge / magistrate or whoever took the view that the site was at fault because the stump was close to a barricade and that was negligence because people are expected to enter and exit those areas fast. 

 Skyfall 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It’s a settlement agreement in relation to a civil (not criminal) case, which is exactly what Virginia is taking against Andrew now.  Andrew doesn’t face a custodial sentence, purely financial compensation.  The terms of the settlement agreement are very wide and, whilst a 3rd party non-signatory can’t be bound by it, she is.  At face value, and purely on the extracts I have seen, I’d say she can’t take civil action against him because it was deliberately drawn so widely (and with her agreement at the time).
 

Whilst everyone is saying Andrew’s legal team are trying to find loopholes, I’d say that it is her team who will be trying to find loopholes in the settlement agreement because it is clear what it was intended to mean when she signed it.  Having said that, I suspect the courts may be on her side in the wider sense and looking to find a way to ignore the agreement to enable this case to be brought.  

I appreciate that won’t be popular given that his actions generally don’t suggest he has nothing to hide and given the wider optics of this.  However, I do think that this is a basic argument which you’d expect his lawyers to run.  It will be very interesting to see how far the US courts are prepared to go in ignoring this agreement.

I have edited this to add this note to make it clear the above is simply my reading of the agreement which has been made public, not the rights and wrongs of it.  Like most, I cringed at the interview he gave and have watched his behaviour since with a growing feeling that he has a lot to hide. 

Post edited at 22:35
 jethro kiernan 03 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Lot’s of our money if being used to pay a US gold digger. That’s my take.

your take seems to be the same as Alan Dershowitz which basically is the Harvey Weinstein view that NDA and legal agreements are like captain America shield for powerful men. Alan Dershowitz came across as genuinely aggrieved that this agreement “from the beginning of time” covering every rich, powerful male in Epstein’s  social circle wasn’t being up held, completely tone deaf to the moral outrage and the fact that not everything is a transactional arrangement.

I can only suspect your either  trolling with the gold digger reference or your equally tone deaf.

Post edited at 22:26
5
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Gold digger? Hmm. In a bit if a role reversal, any bloke who goes with someone 30 years younger is fresh meat, as far as I'm concerned. Caveat emptor and all that.

2
 Forest Dump 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Its the shittest defence ever

1
In reply to jethro kiernan:

I’m not trolling. If you’re that rich you’re not short of attractive women. Unless you’re actually a pedophile why go after the under aged ones?

I just think it’s very unlikely that he did anything illegals with her. Sure he met her as a friend of epstein, but more than that? Nah. Cmon odds are that this is utter bollocks.

Odds are that the girl knew Epstein and met Prince Andrew a few times and she knows how to get paid.

Remember this is a civil case where the quick way to end it is to pay cash. It’s the US judges aren’t favourable he’ll/ they’ll pay cash (I.e. we the taxpayer will pay cash). 
 

35
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Er .. how 'we, the taxpayer'? I'm genuinely  intrigued. Do you think there will be an increase in the Civil List to cover it?

 Greenbanks 03 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

I'm sure you're not, but you do come across as an apologist for this kind of behaviour. It's black and white. You appear to inhabit the grey.

5
In reply to Greenbanks:

I just think it’s bollocks.

Theres a dodgy photo and that’s all we have.

“The Firm” were always likely to be target in the US courts if you’ve got a minor shout in a case.

What about they worth? 200bn, 1tn, more than that?

Why isn’t Clinton or Trump also in the firing line? Possibly because they don’t have the cash to pay her off?

24
 deepsoup 03 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

>  Sure he met her as a friend of epstein..

She wasn't his friend, she was his victim.

In reply to deepsoup:

Yes, your correct - forgive my language - she was absolutely a victim of Epstein.

If I haven’t made that clear I apologise.

8
 Greenbanks 03 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Let's face it, our RF has got a significant scandal-laced history. Almost to the point of assuming that their lofty position (its not just money, its status, connections, tradition, hierarchy) allows them to behave without consequence. That is what distinguishes them from the "It's a fair cop, guv" brigade, who live and die by the sword.

1
 mondite 03 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Theres a dodgy photo and that’s all we have.

Be easy to sort out in court then. Odd that he is working through legal technicality after legal technicality to avoid it actually going to trial.

Although anyone who saw that carcrash of an interview or just the clips from it might think possibly the reason is because there is more than a "dodgy photo".

 Greenbanks 03 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Algorithm complete: Dunning-Kruger

5
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I’m not trolling. If you’re that rich you’re not short of attractive women. Unless you’re actually a pedophile why go after the under aged ones?

"Because it's there"? Because when everything you want is easily available you crave that extra frisson? Or maybe he likes them young?

> I just think it’s very unlikely that he did anything illegals with her. Sure he met her as a friend of epstein, but more than that? Nah. Cmon odds are that this is utter bollocks.

Is this the same extensive knowledge of probability you bring to the Covid threads?

> Odds are that the girl knew Epstein and met Prince Andrew a few times and she knows how to get paid.

It's your skewed reading of the odds again.

> Remember this is a civil case where the quick way to end it is to pay cash. It’s the US judges aren’t favourable he’ll/ they’ll pay cash (I.e. we the taxpayer will pay cash). 

Your concern for the public purse (or rather Andrew's private wealth) is touching.

1
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I’m not trolling. If you’re that rich you’re not short of attractive women. Unless you’re actually a pedophile why go after the under aged ones?

> I just think it’s very unlikely that he did anything illegals with her. Sure he met her as a friend of epstein, but more than that? Nah. Cmon odds are that this is utter bollocks.

That reasoning is utter nonsense. There is ample evidence that people can be both wealthy and a sex offender. 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'm pretty bl**dy sure a victim cannot absolve their perpetrator of a criminal act. Whatever might transpire here,  PA ain't going to be going to the US anytime soon. Probably just as well he's no longer a trade envoy, but that doesn't really matter - who needs PA when we've got Liz Truss?

She's suing for civil damages.  If she's already settled and the settlement agreement states it covers wrongdoing by Prince Andrew as well as Epstein then maybe she can't sue Andrew for the same thing.

It's hardly 'not guilty' though, more like 'my pal already paid you'.

However, Giuffre's lawyers will also have seen the document and if they thought it was a deal breaker they'd not have taken things so far.

3
In reply to Greenbanks:

Ah this forum is infested with public sector workers. What might seem to be the Dunning-Kruger effect might that just be your a bit dim.

Post edited at 23:47
51
 65 03 Jan 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

Very well put.

Nothing to do with the case, but I used to occasionally go hillwalking and drinking with someone who had trained PA for his navy helicopter pilot ticket. This guy was very diplomatic and not loose of tongue but he left no doubts that he had an extremely low personal opinion of PA. 

Irrespective of what transpires legally, he will be judged guilty for his association with Epstein and Maxwell. It is inconceivable that the likes of PA, Trump & Clinton were in the dark about Epstein's true nature and activities, who is increasingly like a paedophile Bond villain.

1
 Sir Chasm 03 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Ah this forum is infested with public sector workers. What might seem to be the Dunning-Kruger effect might that just be your a bit dim.

Who's a bit dim? 

1
 65 03 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Theres a dodgy photo and that’s all we have.

Classy. Apologising for association with a known paedophile and a convicted sex trafficker. Please don't say he wouldn't have known about Epstein's activities, that would be insulting his intelligence (not great I'll grant you but even fields of turnips knew about Epstein) and PA had been proven a liar with regards to his relationship with Epstein. 

Lets suppose Gieffre is lying. PA being a nonce is still beyond reasonable doubt.

> Why isn’t Clinton or Trump also in the firing line? Possibly because they don’t have the cash to pay her off?

Aye, both of them are all known for being short of a bob or two.

I had you down as a rubbish but persistent wind-up merchant/devil's advocate. You've shown your true colours here. 

6
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The text of the settlement is now published by the court

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/03/1069887001/jeffrey-epstein-virginia-giuffre-settlement-deal?t=1641264358437 

It's a f*cking classic:

"HEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or statutory), suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in equity for compensatory or punitive damages that said First Parties ever had or now have, or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of said First Parties hereafter can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the beginning of the world to the day of this release."

Post edited at 02:57
Andy Gamisou 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

> I'm sure you're not, but you do come across as an apologist for this kind of behaviour. 

I'm sure he is.  Can't we get Australia to take him back?

Andy Gamisou 04 Jan 2022
In reply to 65:

> I had you down as a rubbish but persistent wind-up merchant/devil's advocate. You've shown your true colours here. 

He's showed his true colours consistently over the years.  They've consistently been the colours of a bigoted racist misogynist. Not just on this site neither.  Why people continue to engage with him at all is beyond me.  

Post edited at 04:28
3
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> He's showed his true colours consistently over the years.  They've consistently been the colours of a bigoted racist misogynist. Not just on this site neither.  Why people continue to engage with him at all is beyond me.  

Unlike our resident investigators who seek out dodgy accounts, I have to confess I dont look at account details on here very often. On this occasion I had a quick snoop. Our resident contrarian, VSiaS, has been around for a relatively short period. He/she appears to be a spectacularly good climber by most standards yet weirdly, no comments on climbs, grades, gear etc. Or non that I can see. Now, I'll admit I dont climb any more due to a long standing shoulder injury but I still have a passion for the hills, nature, running, the outdoors, science, politics, food, and various other stuff represented here, plus folks are generally pretty cool. 

Make you question the motivation of consistently going against the grain. Has one slipped the net?

Post edited at 06:48
2
 deacondeacon 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Ah this forum is infested with public sector workers. What might seem to be the Dunning-Kruger effect might that just be your a bit dim.

The irony in this post has got to be a troll. 🤣

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Ah this forum is infested with public sector workers. What might seem to be the Dunning-Kruger effect might that just be your a bit dim.

Im very much in the private sector and have been for 30 years.

 Andy Hardy 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Odds on are that he did some pretty naughty stuffy. However they’re essentially blackmailing the richest family on the planet.

> Did he do something illegal? Doubt it. Will he settle when things get a bit spicy in a NY court - yes. Easy money if you’ve got the dodgy, but not incriminating photos.

> Lot’s of our money if being used to pay a US gold digger. That’s my take.

I see the "wankiest post of 2022" award has got off to a brisk start.

4
In reply to Andy Hardy:

There is no evidence against him apart from a photo and a bit of hearsay.

Is this how you think justice should work? “No smoke without fire” being the burden of proof.

Judging by the posts on here I’ve missed some critical bit of evidence that proves he’s guilty.

I find it incredibly unlikely that he did anything illegal, which leads me to believe that she’s just after a payout.

26
 squarepeg 04 Jan 2022
In reply to 65:

I have done a couple of walks years ago with a man who had served in the navy. He had a Prince Andrew story. I won't recount here for legal reasons but he sounds like a real oaf. 

7
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

'Incredibly'? How many photos are there of you with your arm round the bare midriff of a 17 year old who was making a precarious living masturbating a convicted paedophile?

Post edited at 09:15
2
 deepsoup 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> There is no evidence against him apart from a photo and a bit of hearsay.

If that was the extent of it the court case would have already gone away.  As it is I think his current attempt to make it go away will most likely fail, in which case we'll be hearing quite a bit more about what kind of evidence there is against him soon enough.

Post edited at 09:18
1
 mondite 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I find it incredibly unlikely that he did anything illegal, which leads me to believe that she’s just after a payout.

Is this how you think justice should work? You simply announcing that it is okay?

If it is so clear cut as you claim he should be going to court and winning easily before either deciding to graciously forgive her or alternatively suing her for slander/libel and donating the money to victims of sex trafficking. That would be an honourable thing to do.

2
In reply to wintertree:

Andorra??

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> There is no evidence against him apart from a photo and a bit of hearsay.

No, but there is a serious accusation and substantial circumstantial evidence which needs to be tested and understood.

> Is this how you think justice should work? “No smoke without fire” being the burden of proof.

If my neighbour accused me of rape, I would expect the police to seek to determine if it was accurate and collect DNA from me, or to test if I was capable of sweating.

> Judging by the posts on here I’ve missed some critical bit of evidence that proves he’s guilty.

no, you see a woman accuser and you see a man hiding behind weak medical excuses, which he isnt prepared to have tested, and convoluted legalese.

> I find it incredibly unlikely that he did anything illegal, which leads me to believe that she’s just after a payout.

Equally, there are many who are suspicious of his excuses and legal arguments and feel he is in hiding behind his family's name and a web of connected, wealthy individuals.

If he has nothing to hide, stop hiding, get exercising and let's see if what you says is correct.

Post edited at 09:48
1
 neilh 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Does remind you a bit of that poor bloke ( in Bristol /Bath) who was hounded by the media in a murder case, who was completley exonerated later.His looks and lifestyle led to alot of false accusations and it is worth seeking out some of the documentaries about what happened as a lesson to some of the posts on here.

I am not as circumspect as you that its unlikey.

Really it needs to be resolved in a criminal court, not in a civil one.At the moment there is no sign of that in the USA ( perhaps showing there is a weakness in the case, the one advantage of the USA system is that they will go after big names). Once the wheels start turning in the USA for a criminal case then it is almost inevetiable there will be a day in court( whether Andrew likes it or not).

1
 mondite 04 Jan 2022
In reply to neilh:

> His looks and lifestyle led to alot of false accusations and it is worth seeking out some of the documentaries about what happened as a lesson to some of the posts on here.

Remind me.

Did that bloke refuse to speak with the police and use top flight lawyers to try and avoid actually going to court?

Did he have the ability to summon the BBC for an interview on his terms and then still fluff it.

Did he go and stay with a convicted sex offender because it was the honourable thing to do?

3
 Tringa 04 Jan 2022
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Prince Andrew's lawyers are obviously going do anything to defend him but having to rely on a document such as we are seeing now to get him off the hook doesn't show him in a good light.

Dave

1
 ThunderCat 04 Jan 2022
In reply to neilh:

> Does remind you a bit of that poor bloke ( in Bristol /Bath) who was hounded by the media in a murder case, who was completley exonerated later.His looks and lifestyle led to alot of false accusations and it is worth seeking out some of the documentaries about what happened as a lesson to some of the posts on here.

I know it's hard not to speculate but there has been a direct accusation made against Windsor, he's admitted that he spent a massive amount of time in the presence of a known sex offender and in the properties where the abuse is known to have happened and he gave a laughable interview to protest his innocence. 

Christopher Jeffries was tried and convicted by the press and the public because he looked a bit odd and was a bit of a loner

1
 neilh 04 Jan 2022
In reply to mondite:

There has been no criminal case in the USA....to date.That is where the burden of proof is higher.

District Prosecutors will go after him if there is a strong criminal case, its the way it works over there.Come rain or shine he is then a sitting duck for a day in court for a criminal offense.

At the moment as its civil so yes  its all lawyers etc and is running its course like so many of these things in civil cases.

 65 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> He's showed his true colours consistently over the years.  They've consistently been the colours of a bigoted racist misogynist. Not just on this site neither.  Why people continue to engage with him at all is beyond me.  

There have been (and still are) a small number of proper antediluvians on here but I can't recall VS from more than a couple of years. Did he (defo a he) have a different name before?

2
 ThunderCat 04 Jan 2022
In reply to mondite:

I've just gone back and re-read some of the facts of the Laura Yates case.  The treatment of Jeffries was despicable.

 gazhbo 04 Jan 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

> I've just gone back and re-read some of the facts of the Laura Yates case.  

 

Not the name of the victim though…

 ThunderCat 04 Jan 2022
In reply to gazhbo:

>  

> Not the name of the victim though…

Crikey.  Joanna Yeates.  I actually had the article open in front of me. I can only put that down to the fact I was in the middle of an email to someone called Laura.  And Yates - another lack of attention on my part

In reply to Tringa:

> Prince Andrew's lawyers are obviously going do anything to defend him but having to rely on a document such as we are seeing now to get him off the hook doesn't show him in a good light.

Yes, by relying on this clause he is asserting that he 'could have been included as a potential defendant' in the original lawsuit.

It's also not clear that the clause will actually work.  Lawyers were making arguments which might invalidate it:

a. it's too broad to interpret literally and should be construed to benefit the party that did not draft it

b. It isn't clear Andrew can enforce or benefit from a contract he's not a party to.  Since Epstein is dead it might only be his estate that has standing to enforce that clause.

c. the judge could decide to invalidate the clause on the basis of public policy because nonces shouldn't get away with it

1
 Andy Hardy 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

The very fact that he is using (or trying to use) a non disclosure agreement to prevent her claiming means he must be guilty. That's what they're for, to protect the powerful against the weak.

If he genuinely was innocently eating pizza in Woking at the time of the alleged offence he would go to court, submit the incontrovertible alibi and walk out without a stain on his character.

5
 Greenbanks 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Hardy:

<If he genuinely was innocently eating pizza in Woking at the time of the alleged offence>

Agreed.

Surely PAs minders would have immediately contacted Pizza Express to obtain such proof, thereby exonerating him (at least of the particular liaison in question). Both the company records and his own bank account can easily be mined to find this out: its not forensic rocket science after all. That this hasn't been done, and the absence of corroborating visual evidence (as someone said elsewhere, hard not to miss a 'royal' in a Woking fast-food joint) suggests that he is not being honest.

1
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Really?

His lawyers want to use a certain legal tactic to avoid having to face a trial and that means he’s guilty? 

Wow - that’s some serious mental gymnastics.

”Innocent unless Andy Hardy doesn’t like the look of you”. What a fine legal principle. 

23
 deepsoup 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> If he genuinely was innocently eating pizza in Woking at the time of the alleged offence..

There is so much to unpack in that extraordinary car-crash of a Newsnight interview, but FWIW this is not something that he has ever actually claimed.

What he said was that he was home alone with the kids at the time of the alleged offence, having eaten at Pizza Express with them earlier in the day. 

The difference is quite subtle, but perhaps important.  Whether or not it's bollocks, he has never tried to use the pizza thing as an alibi.  He offered it as substantiation for the claim that he had a very uneventful evening at home, and yet also has a clear memory of exactly what he was doing on that specific evening.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It just gets better!

Andrew's lawyer has stated he has no documents in his possession about his alleged inability to sweat.

Giuffre is asking the court to tell Andrew to disclose:

 "all gifts or other things of value" received by Andrew from Epstein or Maxwell "including but not limited to puppets."

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/03/us/virginia-giuffre-jeffrey-epstein-settlement/index.html

 deepsoup 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

This case isn't about whether he's innocent or guilty, that can only be determined by a criminal trial and as you rightly say he's innocent so far.

If he loses the case he will have been found to be liable, but he still won't have been found guilty and therefore will remain innocent.  Like O J Simpson.

 65 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> If he genuinely was innocently eating pizza in Woking at the time of the alleged offence he would go to court, submit the incontrovertible alibi and walk out without a stain on his character.

Correct, except being recorded as a friend of Epstein's, especially after his first conviction for noncery, puts a stain on his character that no magnitude of charity can remove.

Maybe it's just me and I'm behind these politically correct times, perhaps it's now unacceptable to cast negative aspersions on powerful men who traffic and sexually abuse young girls or associate with known paedophiles.

1
 Andy Hardy 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Really?

> His lawyers want to use a certain legal tactic to avoid having to face a trial and that means he’s guilty? 

He's chosen to hide, I assume that he has something to hide

> Wow - that’s some serious mental gymnastics.

> ”Innocent unless Andy Hardy doesn’t like the look of you”. What a fine legal principle. 

"Innocent of all charges if BigGer likes the cut of your jib". What a fine legal principle.

3
 fred99 04 Jan 2022
In reply to :

If the Judge throws out this legal agreement made with Epstein, does that not mean that Epstein's estate - or rather the lawyers administering it - would then be legally able to sue for the return of the $500k ? (and with interest ??).

This could then mean that anyone else with a claim on the estate would be further up the pecking order to get anything, and she would have to start any possible claim all over again - at the back of the queue.

If she's spent it already, then where does that leave her ?

Any legal eagles out there with a view on this ??

 felt 04 Jan 2022
In reply to deepsoup:

> There is so much to unpack in that extraordinary car-crash of a Newsnight interview

You'll have seen the "Behavior Panel" on this?

youtube.com/watch?v=HC40bgA2wKA&

 Tringa 04 Jan 2022
In reply to felt:

Is Andrew incredibly arrogant or just a bit thick?

Even if he did not to think it himself, I'm sure his staff would have advised him to stop all contact with someone who confessed to sexually abusing a 14 year old and who had served a prison sentence for procuring a child for prostitution.

Dave

In reply to deepsoup:

Has to be said if someone asked me "What were you doing on 10 March 2001?" I would have a bloody clue! Hell if someone asked me what you did on the 10th December 2021 I wouldn't have much of a chance of knowing either

1
 elsewhere 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Tringa:

> Is Andrew incredibly arrogant or just a bit thick?

Both as otherwise he wouldn't have maintained contact?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Incredibly'? How many photos are there of you with your arm round the bare midriff of a 17 year old who was making a precarious living masturbating a convicted paedophile?

And with a convicted sex trafficker gurning in the background.

2
In reply to Tringa:

> Is Andrew incredibly arrogant or just a bit thick?

Or guilty as f*ck.   He looks like a liar and an incompetent liar at that.  The 'I don't sweat thing' was always ridiculous but now he's been called out on it in court and has formally stated he doesn't possess any documents to back that story up.  The Pizza Express story isn't much better.  He's going to be in sh*t if this goes to trial because judges and juries are really good at spotting incompetent liars.

> Even if he did not to think it himself, I'm sure his staff would have advised him to stop all contact with someone who confessed to sexually abusing a 14 year old and who had served a prison sentence for procuring a child for prostitution.

Sure, but he probably didn't tell his staff what he'd been up to on Epstein's island. 

A meeting that makes perfect sense for someone who thinks they could be going to jail themselves if their friend ratted them out.  Andrew needed to show loyalty to Epstein because if Epstein thought he was getting dumped he'd have no reason to protect him.

Post edited at 16:20
1
 NorthernGrit 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Tringa:

But he did stop all contact. He went to New York and spent three days in Epstein's private residence, spent time with him and even allegedly attended a party whilst there in order to explain to Jeffrey that they could not be friends anymore because of his behaviour. It's what we all would have done. 

 dread-i 04 Jan 2022
In reply to JoshOvki:

> Has to be said if someone asked me "What were you doing on 10 March 2001?" I would have a bloody clue! Hell if someone asked me what you did on the 10th December 2021 I wouldn't have much of a chance of knowing either

I wonder if he keeps a diary? Handy for writing one's memoirs. Important people always seem to do that, to make a few bob. But its a double edged sword. If he has such an accurate recollection, because of a diary, then it could be called into evidence.

In addition, I'd imagine that pizza express dont keep records for ~20 years. If he paid in cash and was a regular there, then the staff may not remember which day he was in. I wonder if there is a Diplomatic Protection officer, still bound by the Official Secrets Act, out there. Perhaps they have a police notebook, with the days duties in it. I don't suppose PA would be allowed to wander the streets unaccompanied.

 deepsoup 04 Jan 2022
In reply to felt:

I did, thanks.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Ha ha, yes, likewise.  If I ever need an alibi I've had it.

In reply to thread:

Marina Hyde, on the classiness of hiding behind a dead paedo's money.  (Let alone your elderly mum.)  As ever, she nails it:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/04/loophole-dead-sex-trafficker-stay-classy-andrew-virginia-giuffre-epstein

1
 profitofdoom 04 Jan 2022
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> ........The Pizza Express story isn't much better.......

I used to wonder, how often do UK royals eat at Pizza Express? And then cor blimey, I dropped into the Victoria Street branch in London the other night, and there was half the royal family sharing a couple of tables pushed together!! --- The Queen, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William, Catherine, Princess Anne, plus Prince Edward and his wife!! Who would've thought it!!?? I asked a staff member, and she said "They're here all the time, it's their kind of place after all". Twice a week at least

2
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> He's chosen to hide, I assume that he has something to hide

> "Innocent of all charges if BigGer likes the cut of your jib". What a fine legal principle.

I must admit that this approach makes me uncomfortable. Surely a basic principle is that the accuser has to prove the guilt of those they are accusing, rather than the accused having to prove their innocence? Prince Andrew may be a turd but the claims against him need to be proven - he's perfectly within his rights to say nothing (which would probably have been a better move than the moronic interview he gave) and not have that held against him as evidence or assumption of guilt.

1
 deacondeacon 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Did you used to post here under another name? You have a similar style of posting as some older posters?

5
 mondite 04 Jan 2022
In reply to rj_townsend:

> I must admit that this approach makes me uncomfortable. Surely a basic principle is that the accuser has to prove the guilt of those they are accusing, rather than the accused having to prove their innocence?

As a general principle it works but it depends on if the accused is doing their best to avoid the accuser having the chance to prove the guilt it gets a bit more tricky.

3
In reply to mondite:

> As a general principle it works but it depends on if the accused is doing their best to avoid the accuser having the chance to prove the guilt it gets a bit more tricky.

Really? I suspect that pretty much any of us would try our hardest to avoid giving our accuser the oxygen of a day in court. That doesn't mean we're guilty.

1
 Rob Parsons 04 Jan 2022
In reply to fred99:

> If the Judge throws out this legal agreement made with Epstein, does that not mean that Epstein's estate - or rather the lawyers administering it - would then be legally able to sue for the return of the $500k ? (and with interest ??).

There's no question of 'the judge throwing out the agreement.' The issue to be decided in this particular case is whether or not the agreement covers potential action against Prince Andrew.

 Jenny C 04 Jan 2022
In reply to rj_townsend:

Surely all he needed to say in interview was 

" I am shocked by the accusations/conviction against JE and would never condone such behaviour. As the father of two similarly aged young ladies I find his (alleged) actions utterly abhorant. "

Post edited at 17:54
1
 Rob Parsons 04 Jan 2022
In reply to rj_townsend:

> I must admit that this approach makes me uncomfortable. Surely a basic principle is that the accuser has to prove the guilt of those they are accusing, rather than the accused having to prove their innocence?

Well of course. However the only way of proving guilt is via a trial.

1
 Andy Hardy 04 Jan 2022
In reply to rj_townsend:

If I understand it correctly the deal was that for $500000 V.G. doesn't claim against "other possible defendants" arising from Epsteins' noncery. By using this defence PA is tacitly lumping himself in with those other defendants. 

2
 kipper12 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Given the number of miscarriages of justice, that’s not necessarily the case.   The reasons for miscarriages may well be varied , but I guess most of us would avoid getting as far as court, if we possibly could.  

 elsewhere 04 Jan 2022
In reply to rj_townsend:

Civil case - no finding of guilt or innocence. Liable or not liable based on balance of probabilities or who made the best arguments. Hence maintaining silence likely to be a losing strategy?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

> If I understand it correctly the deal was that for $500000 V.G. doesn't claim against "other possible defendants" arising from Epsteins' noncery. By using this defence PA is tacitly lumping himself in with those other defendants. 

My understanding of the whole distasteful case is similar, but what option does he now have? If he goes to court and is innocent, he’s smeared under the “mud sticks” principle, if he uses legal routes to avoid court he’s seen as “guilty because he tried to avoid it” according to your earlier post. 

 kipper12 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I’ve a question; why has she not placed a civil case before the UK courts, given as some of the allegations appear to relate to offence/s committed in the UK.  Is this because she’s a US citizen?

 Rob Parsons 04 Jan 2022
In reply to kipper12:

> Given the number of miscarriages of justice, that’s not necessarily the case.

What's not the case?

1
 Tom Valentine 04 Jan 2022
In reply to dread-i:

> I wonder if he keeps a diary? Handy for writing one's memoirs. 

Surely a member of the toffery like him will be familiar with the fate of the charlatan and philanderer  Louis Mazzini in "Kind Hearts and Coronets". 

Anyone inclined towards the nefarious should be very wary about keeping records 

" .....My memoirs...!!!!!"

1
 kipper12 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> What's not the case?

However the only way of proving guilt is via a trial.

this is what I was driving at in my response, a trial doesn’t necessarily establish guilt.  It should, but as we’ve seen from high profile miscarriage cases, it ain’t necessarily so.  

 Rob Parsons 04 Jan 2022
In reply to kipper12:

> However the only way of proving guilt is via a trial.

> this is what I was driving at in my response, a trial doesn’t necessarily establish guilt.  It should, but as we’ve seen from high profile miscarriage cases, it ain’t necessarily so.  

Ok thanks. I take the point that the legal system is flawed, and that incorrect verdicts arise - but it's the only system we have for formally establishing guilt.

In reply to kipper12:

I don't know, but it's probably worth remembering that in the UK having (consensual) sex with someone over 16 is legal. Not so in many US states (their hypocrisy knows no bounds.)

2
 neilh 04 Jan 2022
In reply to kipper12:

She no longer resides in the US , one of the complications of the current trial. 

 dan gibson 04 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I don't know, but it's probably worth remembering that in the UK having (consensual) sex with someone over 16 is legal. Not so in many US states (their hypocrisy knows no bounds.)

Not if the individual in question has been groomed and sex trafficked 

2
 DaveHK 04 Jan 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I just think it’s very unlikely that he did anything illegals 

Is that from the meerkat legals department? 

1
 kipper12 04 Jan 2022
In reply to dan gibson:

This gets to my question, if she had been trafficked into the UK for sex, this is clearly an offence.  So, I’m still unclear why she has sought to bring a case in the USA.  Is there a clear legal reason why.  As a non UK citizen, can she bring a case in the UK?  If not, it’s clear why the US route is being taken.  If she could have brought a case here, it certainly raises the issue of magnitude of any award, in the event of a finding in her favour.  

1
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

It's interesting that you've already decided that she's a gold digger, and are critical of others for the conclusions they jump to.

Post edited at 00:41
5
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> If I understand it correctly the deal was that for $500000 V.G. doesn't claim against "other possible defendants" arising from Epsteins' noncery. By using this defence PA is tacitly lumping himself in with those other defendants. 

That's not right. PA's claim is that supposing the allegations are true, which (he says) they are not, they could have been brought in the Epstein case, and that as VG has already agreed not to pursue anyone who could have been named as a defendant in that case, he needn't spend time and money defending the claim. That doesn't afford any reasonable inference that the allegations are true.

I don't share the general view that it's a technicality either. In principle, and putting aside PA's general unpopularity and the emotive subject matter, for a claimant to bring a claim, receive $500,000 and agree not to bring the same claim against others, and then do precisely that, is distasteful. It appears to me that VG is the one seeking to benefit from a technicality, by saying that, sure, she promised Epstein not to do bring more claims, but now he's dead PA can't benefit from that promise because it wasn't given to him.

Having said that, I'm rooting for her and I'm going to enjoy PA's discomfiture as much as the next man.

jcm

Post edited at 03:12
3
In reply to kipper12:

She could have brought a case in the UK had she done it within six years of the alleged assault (I believe; possibly the limitation period may be different because she was 17 at the time or for some other reason). Anyway, whatever the limitation period was, it has expired in the UK, but not in Florida (or wherever it is she is suing in the US). Why the US courts have jurisdiction over a UK citizen in respect of an event said to have occurred in the UK is not clear to me (some of the allegations relate to US events, I know.)

jcm

In reply to dan gibson:

> Not if the individual in question has been groomed and sex trafficked 

And the defendant can be shown to have known that. Not easy. Besides, I'm really not sure what 'sex trafficked' means in this context. In principle I don't know that there's anything illegal about paying other people to travel somewhere to provide sexual services to your friends; it isn't illegal to pay people to travel to provide sexual services to you, so why should it be if you intend to benefit others? I think there might (certainly now) be some specific statutes which apply if the person in question is between 16 and some other age, but whether they existed at the time I don't know. 

But I think that in relation to the Tramp incident the allegation is that the sex was non-consensual. Or so I've seen reported in some places; I've not read the complaint itself. It's not going to be easy to prove that 21 years later. The allegation of underage sex in (I think) New York seems more promising, at a glance.

jcm

Post edited at 03:38
3
In reply to dread-i:

>I wonder if he keeps a diary?

He said in the famous interview that the reason he knew where he was that day was that his staff had checked in the office diary. It's all a bit odd, really. Just because you take your children to Pizza Express, how does that stop you being out at Tramp at 3 am that night assaulting 17 year old foreigners? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

jcm

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> There is no evidence against him apart from a photo and a bit of hearsay.

Depends what you mean by 'evidence against him'. Joanna Sjoberg has been publicly stating for years that Andrew sexually assaulted her in the presence of Virginia Giuffre (whom he says he never met, of course). That's direct witness testimony suggesting that some of what he is saying is not true, although not of the alleged incidents with Giuffre themselves. Andrew has never chosen to sue for libel over Sjoberg's claims even when published in British newspapers, although that doesn't necessarily mean they're true, of course.

But anyway, litigants don't need to show their evidence to the public before they start their case. It's silly to say there's no evidence against him. We have no idea what evidence there is. 

jcm

In reply to mondite:

> I think that is broadly right although the unsealing applies to the general public being able to review it.  I think Andrews lawyers have had access to it for some time ...

They do seem to have. Given that the agreement itself states that it is not to be disclosed to third parties, it would be interesting to know how they came to have got a hold of it.

jcm

In reply to Rog Wilko:

> What surprises me is that such an agreement, which purports to make one of the signators give up her rights in a very open-ended fashion would take effect in court should she decide to ignore it. Would such a contract hold water in this country if the person to benefit were a criminal? I seem to remember cases where landowners said you can walk over my land but if my gamekeeper shoots you you can’t make a claim were found to have no validity, meaning people weren’t allowed to sign away thier rights. 

In principle it would, yes, supposing it were drafted with a view to achieving that. It wouldn't stop the proposed defendant being criminally prosecuted, but it could stop civil claims being brought (and rightly so; VG has brought her claim and been paid for it; it is not unreasonable for the law to allow the possibility of her signing away the right to bring a claim against anyone else based on the same events).

The gamekeeper example is different because it relates to future events rather than disputed past events. If it were alleged that you had been shot by the gamekeeper and you agreed to accept money from the landowner in satisfaction of that claim, you couldn't then sue the gamekeeper (even without an agreement not to, probably). Clauses such as you mention, though, are specifically outlawed by the Unfair Contract Terms Act - you can't sign away a claim to future personal injury or death caused by the negligence of another.

jcm

1
 spenser 05 Jan 2022
In reply to wintertree:

Andorra possibly? 

 dan gibson 05 Jan 2022
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I could be wrong here, but my understanding of the law in the UK relating to grooming is if a young person is groomed before they are 16, but a sexual encounter takes place before they are 18 then a criminal offence has taken place.

In this case PA has been provided with a 17 year old who has been previously groomed and trafficked. 

1
 dan gibson 05 Jan 2022
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The photo of PA with his arm around VG, and GM in the background takes on greater significance, as GM is now a convicted sex trafficker.

I would like to know why the Met Police here are not opening a criminal investigation. 

3
In reply to dan gibson:

Maybe no one has written the Met a letter... (See BJs party for reference)

In reply to dan gibson:

I think that’s the law now, although I’m not sure whether the liability is strict or whether the prosecution knows or ought to have known that the person had been groomed or trafficked. But I’m not sure it was the law in 2000.

jcm

 Andy Hardy 05 Jan 2022
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I have no doubt you're correct w.r.t. the law, but as a layman it looks dodgy AF. 

1
 kipper12 05 Jan 2022
In reply to dan gibson:

Alleged, at this stage surely.  What you state is not established fact.

 deepsoup 05 Jan 2022
In reply to JoshOvki:

> Maybe no one has written the Met a letter... (See BJs party for reference)

Yes.  There's already a separate thread running for "why are the Met police not investigating this?"

This might be of interest to some - Emily Maitliss writing about that interview yesterday:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59874170

In reply to whenry:

It all depends on whether this is a criminal or a civil case. If civil it's contract/damages (tort) etc. So being under one contract could affect another. If it's a rare example of a private criminal case then things are different. Unfortunately the news isn't detailed enough for me to know the type of case and I don't have the appetite to research it myself at that level as it's unsavoury enough already

In reply to dan gibson:

Given that Royal Protection will have been with him (SO14 is a unit of the Met) then it would put the Met in an especially awkward situation, would they have to declare an interest? 

Edit: also they'd have records of where he was at all times, hmmm... they seem oddly quiet on the subject

Post edited at 11:38
 deepsoup 05 Jan 2022
In reply to CantClimbTom:

> It all depends on whether this is a criminal or a civil case.

It's a civil case.  She's suing him for damages.

In reply to deepsoup:

> It's a civil case.  She's suing him for damages.

Hmm, thanks for reminding me of a question I had. 

If she is successful in proving liability, why can't she also be successful in proving criminality i.e. a criminal charge be put forward. If liability is successful,  surely the evidence is sufficient? 

 Ian W 05 Jan 2022
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Hmm, thanks for reminding me of a question I had. 

> If she is successful in proving liability, why can't she also be successful in proving criminality i.e. a criminal charge be put forward. If liability is successful,  surely the evidence is sufficient? 


It's a burden of proof thing. Civil cases rely on probability, criminal rely on "beyond reasonable
Doubt", so winning a civil case won't automatically mean a criminal charge will stick. It certainly won't be a good look though........

Post edited at 12:42
In reply to Ian W:

> It's a burden of proof thing. Civil cases rely on probability, criminal rely on "beyond reasonable

> Doubt", so winning a civil case won't automatically mean a criminal charge will stick. It certainly won't be a good look though........

Blimey, shows my lack of legal awareness. Whilst it won't be a good look, I agree (it isn't already lets be honest), I'd be peeved if I was ruled against because I 'probably' did something.

Where does 'probably' start and end and where does 'reasonable doubt' kick in? Who decides?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

The burden of proof isn't a case by case decision. It is simply that criminal cases require beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any reasonable doubt the verdict must be "not guilty" (England and Wales) who decides?? the Jury (or magistrate)

In civil cases the court judges the matter based on weight of evidence and argument. The burden of proof required for civil is lower than criminal and balance of probability. Who decides the balance?? The Court (i.e. the Judge)

That's how it works

Post edited at 13:36
 ThunderCat 05 Jan 2022
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Blimey, shows my lack of legal awareness. Whilst it won't be a good look, I agree (it isn't already lets be honest), I'd be peeved if I was ruled against because I 'probably' did something.

> Where does 'probably' start and end and where does 'reasonable doubt' kick in? Who decides?

Difficult to get one's head around as a layperson isn't it.  I think this was the same with OJ?

To be found "probably" guilty in such a case is, well...not the best look at all!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> He said in the famous interview that the reason he knew where he was that day was that his staff had checked in the office diary. It's all a bit odd, really.

That was a very stupid thing to say if it wasn't true and a very stupid thing to try and fake because Giuffre's lawyers are going to subpoena all relevant documents and if there's any doubt get experts to verify them.

Andrew's lawyers have already stated there is no documentary evidence in his possession about the alleged inability to sweat.

They should make him take a sweat test just for fun.  There's a standard medical test where they put some brown water soluble compound on your back and make your jump about and if you sweat the brown stuff starts to run and they can see if there are any skin areas where the sweat glands aren't working.

In reply to Ian W:

> It's a burden of proof thing. Civil cases rely on probability, criminal rely on "beyond reasonable

> Doubt", so winning a civil case won't automatically mean a criminal charge will stick. It certainly won't be a good look though........

His other problem is that any documents or testimony from the civil case will potentially guide prosecutors in a criminal case as to what they should be looking for or even provide evidence in a criminal case.

He's playing a chess game because a defence which works in the civil case could be damaging in a future criminal one.  If his initial attempts to get it chucked out fail and it goes to discovery he may well think it would be safer to pay up than let it go further.

 Ian W 05 Jan 2022
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> His other problem is that any documents or testimony from the civil case will potentially guide prosecutors in a criminal case as to what they should be looking for or even provide evidence in a criminal case.

> He's playing a chess game because a defence which works in the civil case could be damaging in a future criminal one.  If his initial attempts to get it chucked out fail and it goes to discovery he may well think it would be safer to pay up than let it go further.

Indeed, and its a very high stakes chess game, and one in which he's already shown his opponent his opening gambit, and that he isnt very good at chess. I would imagine that his legal team are very much not looking forward to having to choose which evidence to put forward in a civil court, given what the potential consequences are in the criminal justice system.

1
 profitofdoom 05 Jan 2022
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> They should make him take a sweat test just for fun.  There's a standard medical test where they put some brown water soluble compound on your back.......

That reminds me of one test for catching people faking hearing loss - I saw a segment on TV about it years ago. Apparently loads of people claim considerable damages after losing their hearing in a noisy workplace: they were weeding out the malingerers by giving them a text to read out loud, and simultaneously giving them headphones through which they would hear someone else reading out the same text but with a 5-second delay..... people with hearing could not continue reading out loud, while genuinely deaf people were OK

Sorry for the thread drift but I thought that was interesting

 deepsoup 05 Jan 2022
In reply to Ian W:

> I would imagine that his legal team are very much not looking forward to having to choose which evidence to put forward in a civil court, given what the potential consequences are in the criminal justice system.

If you think his legal team are at all concerned that this might ultimately end up in the criminal justice system, all I can say is that I'm glad to hear it!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> It appears to me that VG is the one seeking to benefit from a technicality, by saying that, sure, she promised Epstein not to do bring more claims, but now he's dead PA can't benefit from that promise because it wasn't given to him.

My understanding is that there is an argument about whether Prince Andrew can benefit from the contract and there is a clause further into the contract which the judge questioned Andrew's lawyers about because it implies that he couldn't.

However,  AFAIK VG's lawyer's argument is the agreement with Epstein relates to a specific case about trafficking and Andrew is not covered by the clause about other potential defendants in that case because VG has never accused him of trafficking.  Her allegation is Epstein did the trafficking and Andrew had illegal sex after she was trafficked.  

 profitofdoom 05 Jan 2022
In reply to deepsoup:

> If you think his legal team are at all concerned that this might ultimately end up in the criminal justice system, all I can say is that I'm glad to hear it!

2 Prince Andrew jokes, "If Prince Andrew's the Queen's favourite son, what the xxxx have the other 2 been getting up to?!"

"Prince Andrew's doing a lot of good these days, though: his carbon footprint's zero now because he never leaves the house"

2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

"That was a very stupid thing to say if it wasn't true"

Exceptionally so, indeed so much so that I doubt even PA can have done that.

jcm

 deepsoup 05 Jan 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

> Difficult to get one's head around as a layperson isn't it.  I think this was the same with OJ?

'Beyond reasonable doubt' is a ridiculously high level of proof, and proving anything to that standard is enormously time consuming, labour intensive and expensive.  It takes whole teams of detectives, interviews under caution, forensics, you name it.  If ordinary court cases involving contracts or somebody claiming damages for something required that level of proof almost nobody would ever win a case if they could even afford to bring one.

It's necessary in a criminal case though, because the consequences hanging on the verdict are so serious and irreversible.  (Especially historically, when I guess the defendant was fairly likely to be executed not long after the trial at lot of the time.)

I was being a bit mischievous mentioning OJ, because as certain as he is that Andrew is innocent I have a hunch that VSias also formed a strong opinion as to OJ's guilt or innocence at the time of his trial.

He was found not guilty at his criminal trial, but then subsequently found to be liable for damages at the civil one.  But that was such an extraordinary case that it probably makes a very poor example.

In reply to dread-i:

"I don't suppose PA would be allowed to wander the streets unaccompanied."

Obviously, god knows what he might do!

1
 mike123 06 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I hope that hasn't spoiled your evening?

Well done sir. Made me laugh out loud .

 mike123 06 Jan 2022
In reply to thread : does UKC s resident legal expert no longer post ? I have in the past  based my opinion on legal things such as this on the basis that “ “he knows what he’s talking about “. My two peneth is that I shouldn’t let my staunch republican views influence my opinion on his guilt . Also ,whatever the outcome , 50p he’ll walk away with nothing more than a tarnished reputation .  

Post edited at 07:11
 Rob Parsons 06 Jan 2022
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> They should make him take a sweat test just for fun. 

FWIW his claim is that he couldn't sweat then, not that he can't sweat now.

 65 06 Jan 2022
In reply to mike123:

> does UKC s resident legal expert no longer post ? 

See JCM above.

 stubbed 06 Jan 2022
In reply to mike123:

He's already lost his job though, hasn't he

1
 mondite 06 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> FWIW his claim is that he couldn't sweat then, not that he can't sweat now.

Odd that isnt it? That he cant support the claim nowadays. Almost as strange as apparently he didnt bother seeing a doctor about it and so has no supporting evidence. Even if he didnt have the medical information I would have thought for someone in his position his personal protection detail would have needed specifically briefing on it due to the increased risk of heatstroke etc.

In reply to stubbed:

> He's already lost his job though, hasn't he

How is he ever going to cover his bills? Shall we start a GoFundMe for him? 

 profitofdoom 06 Jan 2022
In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:

> How is he ever going to cover his bills? Shall we start a GoFundMe for him? 

No. His Dad and Grandmother can cover all and any bills 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

> FWIW his claim is that he couldn't sweat then, not that he can't sweat now.

He'll be sweating for sure if VG's lawyer calls a dermatologist as an expert witness.

 Phil79 06 Jan 2022
In reply to profitofdoom:

> No. His Dad and Grandmother can cover all and any bills 

He might struggle with that, as they are both dead!

His mum has a quid or two though, pretty sure she's been covering all costs so far....

 ThunderCat 06 Jan 2022
In reply to Phil79:

> He might struggle with that, as they are both dead!

I was just about to say that...

Maybe he's referring to some of those murky secret clauses in their wills...maybe there was a couple of secret provisions for Andrews 'get out of jail' fund which were not for public consumption

 profitofdoom 06 Jan 2022
In reply to Phil79:

> He might struggle with that, as they are both dead!

Eerrrrrrr right, I meant to say his Mum and big brother Charles. My mistake (lucky I'm not a journalist)

In reply to profitofdoom:

Never too late to change career - you'd fit right in! 'Never let accuracy get in the way of a good story.'

 Rick51 06 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Never too late to change career - you'd fit right in! 'Never let accuracy get in the way of a good story.'

Next step prime minister with those credentials.

 profitofdoom 06 Jan 2022
In reply to Rick51:

> Next step prime minister with those credentials.

Thank you! I've got some time after dinner and before THE APPRENTICE. I might write my manifesto (is that what it's called??)

 mondite 06 Jan 2022
In reply to profitofdoom:

> Thank you! I've got some time after dinner and before THE APPRENTICE. I might write my manifesto (is that what it's called??)

Dont be so old school. Just come up with some three word slogans and repeat them endlessly whilst throwing in some dodgy latin and other classics references. No need to spend much time on them so just a bit of google translate and a quick google for classical quotes.

 profitofdoom 06 Jan 2022
In reply to mondite:

> Dont be so old school. Just come up with some three word slogans and repeat them endlessly whilst throwing in some dodgy latin and other classics references. No need to spend much time on them so just a bit of google translate and a quick google for classical quotes.

Sic transit gloria

All Together Now

That kind of thing??

Can't do it, my brain hurts 

I am looking for a defence minister though, 40 quid a week plus perks

Got to go, kettle's boiling, cats are hungry 

 timjones 07 Jan 2022
In reply to mondite:

> Be easy to sort out in court then. Odd that he is working through legal technicality after legal technicality to avoid it actually going to trial.

Surely that is just the way that the legal profession works?

They have no honour, they just take the money. If they aren't taking your money to work for you they will happily take someone else's money to work against you.

10
 stubbed 07 Jan 2022
In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:

Don't get me wrong, I have no time for him and think he deserves all this and more. But he has already lost his job, his reputation and in his 60s is dependent on his Mother's private money to pay for his defence. He doesn't have massive private income and the other royals are distancing themselves from him. I don't see him featuring at all once Charles is King and for me that makes him just like any non-royal accused of the same thing. I don't see him getting special treatment.

6
 deepsoup 07 Jan 2022
In reply to stubbed:

Its a sad story.


 deepsoup 07 Jan 2022
In reply to stubbed:

Ha ha.  Sorry.  Couldn't resist.  I've been waiting for an excuse to post that photo.

HBH (as I just discovered he used to be known around British embassies in the Middle East) used to be a trade envoy before his association with Epstein lost him that gig too.  Arguably not nearly soon enough.  Here's a link to a 10 year old news story for context.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12663378

Post edited at 09:21
 BRILLBRUM 07 Jan 2022
In reply to deepsoup:

A long time back I was a product manager at the UK's only mobile phone manufacturer and obviously being a minnow in a big pond with some big fish we used every connection we could to get ourselves known. HBH being one of them as a trade envoy, and as such he was gifted a device or two to show off on his travels, then came the request for one for his other half, then for his kids, then for some 'spares', then for his staff. As a start-up you think, 'yeah, lots of exposure for little effort lets go for it!' The f@cker appeared in trade junket press shots with a Nokia and then the nascent iPhone, our devices were never seen.

We asked for our devices back, didn't get them, and as this was the start of OTA updates we bricked them all.

We might deride 'influencers'(as that is essentially what he was) but I'd much rather work with Margaret Thatcher with a tan than HBH any day. 

 Moacs 07 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Oh my.  It's a bit of a pickle isn't it?  Almost impossible for Maxwell to get a fair trial - and now a juror shouting their mouth off seems to risk unpicking it.  (For clarity, I'm not defending her or saying she is innocent, only that these things are so public and so emotive that fair, impartial trials are difficult; O J Simpson another).

As for Andy, everyone has already decided, haven't they?  Although making highly-specific, very categoric, rather implausible and trivially testable statements is not the way to handle very historical allegations if they're untrue.  "Never met her", sweating and pizza are going to undo him.

I think the release agreement may be quite strong - and they're quite standard in insurance and commerical disgreements.  It's to stop the behaviour of people thinking of a new angle and having a second bite; which isn't unreasonable.

Again, don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Andrew.  Not fond of ambulance chasers either (I see one of Mr Baldwin's electricians is suing for trauma of being on site, for exampel).

1
In reply to timjones:

You're confusing two things in your eagerness to show off your hatred of lawyers.

Lawyers are obliged to take the case of any client who can pay their fees, subject to conflict of interest rules. It's obvious why it's desirable for unpopular people to be able to find legal representation, as you would see if you set aside your prejudices long enough to think about it.

However, that isn't the point being made. The point is that lawyers representing someone (whom as it happens you don't like) are relying upon previous agreements to avoid litigating things their client doesn't want litigated. You're right; that is what lawyers do. Anyone in PA's position would want it done, whatever the truth of the allegations, and anyone representing him faithfully and honourably would make these applications.

jcm

1
In reply to deepsoup:

There's similarities with Maxwell i.e. somebody who comes from a dodgy family with extreme wealth who in later life rather than live a little less extravagantly hooks up with pedo billionaires and dictators.

In reply to stubbed:

> Don't get me wrong, I have no time for him and think he deserves all this and more. But he has already lost his job, his reputation and in his 60s is dependent on his Mother's private money to pay for his defence. He doesn't have massive private income and the other royals are distancing themselves from him. I don't see him featuring at all once Charles is King and for me that makes him just like any non-royal accused of the same thing. I don't see him getting special treatment.

I'm surprised that I need to explain this but I was being facetious. I don't think he needs to work for the money. Coming from arguably one of the richest families in the world, I don't think he'll end up on the streets somehow.

If he isn't getting any special treatment then he should answer the court rather than trying every technicality to get out of facing the music.

Just my two-penneth worth. I hope you have a nice day 😊

Post edited at 16:51
 deepsoup 08 Jan 2022
In reply to thread:

Article in the Observer today that might interest people following this story:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/08/royals-await-anxiously-the-fallout-from-prince-andrews-disgrace

In reply to deepsoup:

And indeed this:-

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/08/virginia-giuffre-told-me-in-2001-she-slept-with-prince-andrew-witness-says

The thing about this is that VG doesn’t have to win the case in order to win.

jcm

 elsewhere 08 Jan 2022
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> The thing about this is that VG doesn’t have to win the case in order to win.

Do you mean win in court of public opinion or revenge of destroying PA's reputation even if no financial/legal win in civil court case?

In reply to elsewhere:

I suspect she's going to do both: I predict a considerable settlement, naturally with no admission of liability and a further attempt to extract a promise to keep quiet in the future.

jcm

In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:

>rather than trying every technicality to get out of facing the music.

I know I said this before, but this suit is a claim for money in return for perceived wrongs, nothing more. It's not a technicality when being pursued for money to reply, 'You've already been paid for what you claim.'. 

jcm

1
 elsewhere 09 Jan 2022
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I suspect she's going to do both: I predict a considerable settlement, naturally with no admission of liability and a further attempt to extract a promise to keep quiet in the future.

Good point.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Seems that the US Beak ain't buying the latest attempt by the Not So Grand Old Duke of York to sweep everything under the carpet:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59871514

In reply to Darren Jackson:

Good. Sorry for her maj in her dotage, but if he was sha**ing damaged 17 year olds procured for him 'as a favour' then he can squirm for the rest of his life. May that be brief and ever more unhappy.

It would be good to link this to Johnson's travaills, if only in the sense that both are from extraordinarily privileged backgrounds who genuinely have no morals or shame at all; but - maybe - the past is catching up with them at last.

2
 timjones 12 Jan 2022
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> You're confusing two things in your eagerness to show off your hatred of lawyers.

> Lawyers are obliged to take the case of any client who can pay their fees, subject to conflict of interest rules. It's obvious why it's desirable for unpopular people to be able to find legal representation, as you would see if you set aside your prejudices long enough to think about it.

> However, that isn't the point being made. The point is that lawyers representing someone (whom as it happens you don't like) are relying upon previous agreements to avoid litigating things their client doesn't want litigated. You're right; that is what lawyers do. Anyone in PA's position would want it done, whatever the truth of the allegations, and anyone representing him faithfully and honourably would make these applications.

> jcm

What makes you think that these lawyers are representing someone that I don't like.

My distaste for the legal profession is based entirely on my own personal experiences. 

I wouldn't say that I hate lawyers but I don't have an awful lot of respect for them.

5
 profitofdoom 12 Jan 2022
In reply to Darren Jackson:

> Seems that the US Beak ain't buying the latest attempt by the Not So Grand Old Duke of York to sweep everything under the carpet:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59871514

Prince Andrew says he never met Virginia. But THERE IS PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THEIR MEETING. Who does he think he's fooling? Does he think we're all dumb, and blind?

Fess up, Andrew. Then you can go and hide on royal premises somewhere in the UK when the case is over: there are plenty of premises to choose from

1
In reply to Darren Jackson:

It's interesting that he hasn't decided on the question of whether the settlement agreement bars Giuffre, just said it's arguable and needs to be decided at trial (whether by the trial judge or the jury I'm not sure). That seems a strange way of doing things to a UK lawyer. though mind you so does trying civil cases by a jury in the first place. 

Still, good news. My legal self is offended - frankly it's obvious the settlement agreement was meant to bar cases like this; the wording which impressed the judge (which VG's lawyers hadn't even noticed) is the sort of verbiage which gets stuck in because lawyers have copied the settlement agreement from some other precedent. It's a moral certainty that Epstein thought he'd settled VG's claims against him or anyone else for good in 2009.

I don't for a moment mean to say the judge was wrong: the wording is there, and the law does its dance and tries to give it effect (even though the parties probably never even read it and certainly won't have given their minds to what it meant). The important thing is that we're all going to have some fun finding out whether PA really can sweat.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Still, good news. My legal self is offended - frankly it's obvious the settlement agreement was meant to bar cases like this; the wording which impressed the judge (which VG's lawyers hadn't even noticed) is the sort of verbiage which gets stuck in because lawyers have copied the settlement agreement from some other precedent. It's a moral certainty that Epstein thought he'd settled VG's claims against him or anyone else for good in 2009.

It's irrelevant whether Epstein was 'morally certain' he'd settled VG's claims against other people.  It is quite possible that he did, but was legally incorrect.  Epstein's lawyers wrote the contract, if they screwed up VG is entitled to benefit from it.  It is quite possible that VG was advised differently and had a different view of the agreement when she signed it from Epstein.

From what I read the agreement was a settlement for a case about trafficking and this allegation is not about trafficking - nobody is saying Andrew arranged the transport - but about abuse after the trafficking happened.  Also, there were apparently discussions between the lawyers and other legal skirmishes after this agreement was signed and VGs lawyers argue these show the understanding was the agreement was about the trafficking case.

I can't see this going much further.  I very much doubt the royals will take the chance of him being arrested if he travels to the US or being forced to answer questions on the stand.  My guess is they'll let the deposition phase play out long enough to see who really has the upper hand and get a feel for how much they will need to offer to settle it.  And if she's not going to settle he'll get his assets and his ass hidden from the US courts.

 profitofdoom 13 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Maybe these goings on will FINALLY teach the UK public that under the glitter and shine, our royal family are very ordinary people in every way. And not worthy of leading us in any way 

But I doubt it 

4
 fred99 13 Jan 2022
In reply to profitofdoom:

> Maybe these goings on will FINALLY teach the UK public that under the glitter and shine, our royal family are very ordinary people in every way. And not worthy of leading us in any way 

> But I doubt it 

Trouble is, the prat(s) that "we"* have elected to lead us seem to be a heck of a sight worse at setting a good example than the Queen.

Can you imagine the situation if "we" had elected Johnson as President !!

* By "we" I mean the electorate, not those of us with a brain.

1
 ThunderCat 13 Jan 2022
In reply to profitofdoom:

> Maybe these goings on will FINALLY teach the UK public that under the glitter and shine, our royal family are very ordinary people in every way. And not worthy of leading us in any way 

> But I doubt it 

Bow your head and doff your cap immediately, you peasant!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>It is quite possible that VG was advised differently and had a different view of the agreement when she signed it from Epstein.

No. It's also a moral certainty that Giuffre's lawyers knew what Epstein's intention was. I've been in settlement discussions like this. The paying party's main priority is always, always, to bring a final end to matters. Every lawyer knows this. The stuff distinguishing claims about traffickers from claims against people you had sex with while trafficked is angels-on-a-pin stuff. Of course PA could have been a defendant, if what is claimed is true.

I see Giuffre's lawyer has given an interview saying she won't settle without an acknowledgement of liability. If so - and this kind of sabre-rattling is usually just that - then she really does have HRH's balls in a vice, or perhaps I should say a vise. I can't see him giving evidence in court - imagine the circus - but the alternative of just refusing to engage and allowing a default judgment in some enormous sum isn't that appealing either, whether it could be enforced here or not. Nor is the third option of admitting the allegations.

jcm

 profitofdoom 13 Jan 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

> Bow your head and doff your cap immediately, you peasant!

Right, what was I thinking??! I'm writing to The Times and The Daily Worker right now and apologizing!!! (Exclamation mark overload)

 elsewhere 13 Jan 2022

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935

The Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.

Prince Andrew will also stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source added.

 Iamgregp 13 Jan 2022
In reply to elsewhere:

Just saw this.  Interesting development....

I'm thinking either Royal family don't want to be embarrassed by having an HRH defending himself at a sexual abuse trail, and feel that the damage to the family will be limited if he is Andrew Windsor (or whatever he'll call himself instead?)...

Or he's going to settle, which will be an admission of guilt in which case it's better if he no longer has his titles.

In reply to Iamgregp:

> I'm thinking either Royal family don't want to be embarrassed by having an HRH defending himself ... 

The imminent military coup may have influenced events also:

“We understand that he is your son, but we write to you in your capacity as head of state and as commander-in-chief of the army, navy and air force. These steps could have been taken at any time in the past 11 years. Please do not leave it any longer.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/veterans-ask-queen-to-strip-prince-andrew-of-honorary-military-titles

 mondite 13 Jan 2022
In reply to elsewhere:

Since they are now available and its a jubilee year I reckon there should be a lottery where the winners get one of his old titles. I reckon it would raise a fortune for charity.

 elsewhere 13 Jan 2022
In reply to mondite:

Bagsie on commodore-in-chief of the Fleet Air Arm. 

 Darron 13 Jan 2022
In reply to elsewhere:

> Bagsie on commodore-in-chief of the Fleet Air Arm. 

He certainly lived up to his role as C in C of the Royal Lancers.

 Andy Hardy 13 Jan 2022
In reply to Darron:

Is there a first foot in mouth?

In reply to elsewhere:

The Andrew formerly known as Prince*.

*: Can't claim credit for that one.

 wercat 13 Jan 2022
In reply to Darren Jackson:

> The imminent military coup may have influenced events also:

 Can I join up? At my age?

I volunteer to be on the front line going into No 10

 profitofdoom 13 Jan 2022
In reply to wercat:

>  Can I join up? At my age?

> I volunteer to be on the front line going into No 10

Watch out for Dilyn the dog

Trained to chew up socialists

In reply to wercat:

>  Can I join up? At my age?

Sure you can... Have you got access to a military coo?

Hannibal had his elephants when he marched on Rome: we're going to march on London with armoured Highland cattle.

... FREEDOM!

 wercat 13 Jan 2022
In reply to Darren Jackson:

I have a way with blackbirds - we need an airborne element to take out Liz Thrush

Post edited at 22:28
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> No. It's also a moral certainty that Giuffre's lawyers knew what Epstein's intention was. I've been in settlement discussions like this. The paying party's main priority is always, always, to bring a final end to matters. Every lawyer knows this. The stuff distinguishing claims about traffickers from claims against people you had sex with while trafficked is angels-on-a-pin stuff. Of course PA could have been a defendant, if what is claimed is true.

It's not 'angels on a pin'.   This was an agreement to settle a specific case against Epstein which was about trafficking.  That's the case which was settled.

It doesn't matter what Epstein would have liked or what his aims were.  No doubt Giuffre would have liked 10x as much money.  What matters is what was agreed and enforceable in law.

2
In reply to fred99:

> Can you imagine the situation if "we" had elected Johnson as President !!

Easily.  It would be pretty much the situation we are in now after England elected him as prime minister.

How would things be materially worse if he also dressed up and waved at people every now and then?

5
In reply to elsewhere:

> The Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.

Should have given him some new titles in exchange:

Nonce Commander of the British Empire 

Order of the Garter Belt

Knight of the Massage Table

 wercat 14 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

perhaps he could become known as His Soiled Highness?

 streapadair 14 Jan 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

New 50p coin


 fred99 14 Jan 2022
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Easily.  It would be pretty much the situation we are in now after England elected him as prime minister.

> How would things be materially worse if he also dressed up and waved at people every now and then?

I note you missed off the first sentence. In complete form I said;

"Trouble is, the prat(s) that "we"* have elected to lead us seem to be a heck of a sight worse at setting a good example than the Queen.

Can you imagine the situation if "we" had elected Johnson as President !! "

The Queen IS setting a good example, whether people like her (and the monarchy) or not.

If we had a President Johnson - God forbid - just imagine the detrimental impact on preventing Covid infections.

Please desist from deliberately altering the meaning of other persons posts just to suit your (biased in my opinion) view of things.

6
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>It doesn't matter what Epstein would have liked or what his aims were.  

It does, you know, at any rate in UK law. If the situation were as you suggest, i.e. that Giuffre in 2009 knew what Epstein intended and signed the agreement proposing to argue later that it meant something she knew Epstein didn't intend (or that her lawyers knew, or mus have known, that he didn't intend), then were some all-seeing eye to reveal that fact to the court in 2022,  Giuffre would not be able to rely on Epstein's misunderstanding of the text. In fact, of course, she and her lawyers would now claim they had no idea what was in the other party's mind in 2009, a claim which in my opinion is most unlikely to be true, but which courts invariably accept, not having an all-seeing eye. That's why I don't much care for this sort of argument; there is a definite lack of ingenuousness about Giuffre's position.

Besides, you are speaking of what you (wrongly) consider to be the law. I am speaking more generally about the ethics of relying on contracts which have not been worded to reflect what one party obviously intended.

As to what the first case was about, it's obvious that anyone who had sex with Giuffre knowing her to be trafficked could have been made a defendant in 2009, and it was that category of persons which was released. I don't understand why you're even debating this.

jcm

2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Besides, you are speaking of what you (wrongly) consider to be the law. I am speaking more generally about the ethics of relying on contracts which have not been worded to reflect what one party obviously intended.

Unless you know what the law is in the states of the US where the contract was signed and is being litigated then you can take the '(wrongly)' out, because whether my view is right or wrong in English law is irrelevant.

Clearly the judge, who presumably knows a fair bit about the law in the US, rejected Andrew's lawyers arguments based on this clause and thinks there is enough to start discovery and go to trial.

> As to what the first case was about, it's obvious that anyone who had sex with Giuffre knowing her to be trafficked could have been made a defendant in 2009, and it was that category of persons which was released. I don't understand why you're even debating this.

I don't know that at all.

I suspect it is fairly complicated given her age which was below consent in Florida but the sex would likely have happened on Epstein's island, the UK or Epstein's Ranch none of which are in Florida and in at least some of which she would have been above the age of consent and that the other people may have made their own way to those locations. 

There have been a series of legal skirmishes between VG and Epstein and multiple cases by US authorities against Epstein.  There are a lot more documents than just this one agreement providing context on who thought what and when.  VGs lawyers have seen all these documents and as I understand it they wanted this agreement to be made public.  They probably had good reason to think it wouldn't help Andrew.

5

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...