graystoke4
pfm Member
Well looks like £12,000,000, i thought it would be something like that, weather that includes their legal expenses, i doubt it
Andy's not sweating.
- Thread starter Dogberry
- Start date
Dogberry
pfm Member
From someone who vehemently proclaimed their
innocence it reads like an abject capitulation.
"Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre’s character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.
“It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years.
“Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others."
innocence it reads like an abject capitulation.
"Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre’s character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.
“It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years.
“Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others."
clivem2
pfm Member
You’ve got to read it as a legal text as that is what it is. We shouldn’t apply our own interpretation to it as this will be invalid. The wording will have been subject to intense debate by both sides. There’s no reading between the lines. It’s like the Ts & Cs of an contract. It says very little of substance. The main points is that he regrets his association with Epstein. He admits to very little to nothing about Giuffre.
Barrymagrec
pfm Member
They may well have done, would entitled Andrew have taken any notice?
Dogberry
pfm Member
From someone who vehemently proclaimed their
innocence it reads like an abject capitulation.
"Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre’s character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.
“It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years.
“Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others."
innocence it reads like an abject capitulation.
"Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre’s character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.
“It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years.
“Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others."
Of course but it's a climb down to paying someone you've never met.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
At the start of Brenda's Unobtainium Jubilee year, this was a distraction and the sort of unwelcome attention and publicity the Palace could well do without. It would certainly have taken the shine off the celebrations, and frankly there aren't going to be many more of those for her.
I strongly suspect that somebody, and probably Charles, said something fairly direct like 'This has gone on long enough. Make it go away. Get it ****ing sorted, and get it sorted right now!'
I strongly suspect that somebody, and probably Charles, said something fairly direct like 'This has gone on long enough. Make it go away. Get it ****ing sorted, and get it sorted right now!'
clivem2
pfm Member
It was was always going to happen. Where’s the admission that he had sex with her? In a civil case it comes down to who does the jury want to believe. Of course all have our own views and I’m sure mine is very similar to yours. The other aspect is that she’s taken money in return for him admitting to very little. But then in fairness his reputation is totally shot already.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
"Oh the Grand Old Duke Of York,
He borrowed twelve million quid,
And he gave it to someone he never met,
For something he never did"
acknowledgements to my mate Andy for sending me that one
He borrowed twelve million quid,
And he gave it to someone he never met,
For something he never did"
acknowledgements to my mate Andy for sending me that one
Dogberry
pfm Member
She's milked it.
Tony L
Administrator
I’d also expect security services etc to keep records on anyone with a security detail, which one assumes he would have had. I assume there is concrete evidence he was exactly where he was accused of being. If he wasn’t there would be evidence of that too. To my eyes this latest twist looks like his legal team have advised him he was toast if it got to court. I’m not buying any pressure from the “royalty” business itself. From their perspective this has to be the worst outcome possible as it leaves such an ugly stain on the whole “royal” family. Hopefully one that won’t wash off.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I know what you mean about the security services stuff, but I still think the Palace probably put the pressure on here. They're not above freezing out one of their own, Edward VIII was probably the last one and the monarchy weathered that storm without undue trouble. They do, after all, have stains on pretty much every generation. I imagine his lawyers have been giving him that advice for months, if not longer. We can see from the Emily Maitlis interview that he's not one to take advice when he thinks he has a better plan, because nobody of sound mind would have suggested that course of action to him (I imagine members of his entourage still waking in the night screaming).
Tony L
Administrator
They are hugely damaged either way, but if this case was defendable/winnable I’d argue they would be far less damaged than they are by this outcome. The most logical strategy would have been to strip him of his titles and public duties, fund his defence, win, and then reinstate him to the “royal” family name cleared. That was the damage limitation strategy. The way they have played it tacitly assumes guilt (regardless of the mealy-mouthed statement wording). It appears they know full well they’d have lost. Given the way the “royal” family operates they’d have known exactly where he was at all times due to security details, servants etc too, so they’d have known if he wasn’t where he was accused of being. They are in this picture and they have not attempted to clear their name. The institution as a whole is damaged as a result. Good!
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Well I take your point, Tony, but I've always assumed the case wasn't winnable and the Palace knew it. But Andy was probably doing his 'I know best' routine and while this was containable, the Palace probably just went into situation management mode. I think the only difference now is that it is Brenda's Platinum Jubilee, and the celebrations have begun, but before they get going in earnest, this has to be old news. As it was, the case was highly likely to flare up at intervals through the year: depositions, interviews, statements, claims, counter claims... all a massive distraction from an epochal event.
JensenHealey
pfm Member
Hmmm... She wanted her day in court and appeared to be very determined to get it. So why settle at all? - several commentators seem surprised that a settlement has appeared out of the blue.
Either:
She was offered more in settlement than she could expect from a win in court...maybe.
Or, even if she won something in a New York court - it would be effectively unenforceable on a UK citizen.
Or, she was presented with rebuttal evidence that undermined a fair bit of her case - and a settlement suited both sides rather than air it all in public.
We will likely never know but a good deal of UK and US media has been left adrift with nothing more to do than froth at the mouth because juicy stuff has been taken off the table...
Either:
She was offered more in settlement than she could expect from a win in court...maybe.
Or, even if she won something in a New York court - it would be effectively unenforceable on a UK citizen.
Or, she was presented with rebuttal evidence that undermined a fair bit of her case - and a settlement suited both sides rather than air it all in public.
We will likely never know but a good deal of UK and US media has been left adrift with nothing more to do than froth at the mouth because juicy stuff has been taken off the table...
davidsrsb
pfm Member
After paying trial legals costs from the win, - almost certainly
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Or perhaps somebody brought some pressure to bear to be open to the idea of just making it all go away?