Jump to content

Prince Andrew


TIGHTCHOKE
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

well ....he can look on the bright side

he will be sharing a cell with R. Kelly.........and they will become the best of mates ...swapping stories and having jolly japes

And they both used TO FLY!  :cool1:

Edited by TIGHTCHOKE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some of this mullarky could be cleared up simply by looking at the logs from his protection team, they surely would have records of his whereabouts on an hourly basis?     

Location, location, location?

If as thought he has increased his pay off, it must mean something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Yes it means either he's guilty or she's after an easy pay day. 

whats more he is admitting guilt.........after all those stupid lies...................the way he thinks in his arrogance is (ok pay her off....and after a while everybody will forget about it...and i will be allowed to become 2nd boss man in the royal family fold again"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, clangerman said:

when your so broke mummy has to pay the legal fees there’s only one reason you hand a large sack of cash over it’s called being guilty 

Or the house of Windsor doesn't do court proceedings - end of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ditchman said:

wellllll....................it looks like Prince andrew has instructed his layers to re-negociate the pay off, offer

what does that say to us then ????

i know what it tells me 

Have you got a source for this? I would be interested to see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact his team requested the Epstien settlement document shows how little faith they have in his innocence, or ability to prove his innocence. Getting off only on a technicality would put an indelible stain upon his reputation for life - I would rather face my chances at trial. 

The fact that Guiffre’s legal team have agreed to access shows how much confidence they have in their case. If he gets off on a technicality but is stained for life they will take that as victory, shows they care not about the money. I would be more comfortable if Guiffre promised to donate all compensation to e.g. a rape victim support charity rather than profit from the case at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

Have you got a source for this? I would be interested to see. 

no source.......red it off the ticker tape on the BBC when it first happenend this morning..........since then it has been removed and a verbal report has been done now....which dosnt mention the first bit but has now concentrated on his laywers being able to access the gagging order .............

i will lay money thats the way it will end up...what do you rekon ?

Edited by ditchman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suspicion would be that the BBC news editor has badly worded the ticker tape e.g. “Prince Andrew’s lawyers agree with Guiffre’s over settlement” and then realised it gives the wrong impression and hastily had to reword it to “Prince Andrew’s lawyers gain access to view Guiffre-Epstien settlement”. 

All media outlets seem very hesitant to state the obvious here, very libel aware. If I were the editor of a rag like the Mirror I would lead with a front cover of Andy’s face and the headline ‘QUEEN’S FAVOURITE PEADO’ with a subheading “Her Majesty funding Andy’s expensive attempt to find legal loophole to escape justice for his statutory rape of a child”. Then sit back and wait to be taken to court for libel, knowing all he has got is bluster. The paper would be vilified by royalist sycophants and paedophile sympathisers, but it’s straight talking celebrated by the masses of common decent men.

Edited by WalkedUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Met have dropped their Investigation. 
They interviewed Virginia Roberts surrounding the allegations plus others involved and have come to the conclusion, that there isn’t a ‘case’.

Who is going to be the first to say the Met is ‘corrupt’ or covering it up?

In the wake of the Met’s recent handling of one of their own, I doubt they would? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jaymo said:

The Met have dropped their Investigation. 
They interviewed Virginia Roberts surrounding the allegations plus others involved and have come to the conclusion, that there isn’t a ‘case’.

Who is going to be the first to say the Met is ‘corrupt’ or covering it up?

Orrrr….whilst child-trafficking may be illegal in the UK below the age of 18, that would be very hard to gain a conviction in a UK criminal court.  The standard of evidence required to meet innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, just doesn’t seem realistic to me, given the elapsed time, the age of the alleged victim, and so forth.  Would be a lot of ‘he said, she said’, can’t believe for a minute Epstein or his fixers would send a self-incriminating email to Prince Andrew saying “We’re sending your favourite girl over to visit London, knock yourself out, son”

If you accept this as a likely reality, what other criminal offences have been committed?  Age of consent has been done to death here, it is and remains 16.

I’m not surprised the Met dropped this.

Can't believe I appear to be 'going into bat' for the Met or Prince Andrew, but that's my reading of reality, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

but that's my reading of reality

I think you are spot on.  IF a crime was committed (and it is not clear it has been) - proving beyond reasonable doubt seems pretty unlikely.  Long time ago, (alleged) victim young, impressionable and maybe now 'gold digging' encouraged by greedy lawyers.  Epstein dead, Maxwell hardly likely to be a credible witness given the publicity she has had ........, police protection records seem to be missing/chaotic/non-existent (and they are unlikely to want all that dirty laundry washed in public).

But what happens in the USA is a different game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Andrew thinks the Met dropping their enquiry will help him, he is more delusional than I thought. As has been pointed out by quite a few posters, he is dealing with Americans in their own backyard.

Hiring the female brief who specialises in making settlements is hardly a credible defence. She seems to major on negotiating settlements.

Bad as it will look, my money is on a settlement with a Non Disclosure clause. Her Lawyers will hint at a victory, but won't be able to disclose details. Andrew's bunch will say little or nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/09/2021 at 09:13, Vince Green said:

I don't like the bloke, I think the story is basically true but she was 17. Not a crime in British law, and girls can get married at 14 in some states in America.

She wasn't held captive she travelled back and forwards quite openly between the States and London. She lived in flash hotels and Luxury apartments, went shopping etc. She seemed to be quite happy with the arrangement until the money stopped.

She and her lawyers are just after money, they thought Prince Andrew would cough up hush money,  and he didn't

Now they are escalating to trial by media, again to make money 

This. 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...