Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
BikeBikeBIke said:
More than one.
Plus there's potential for a criminal case in the states.
But the question was asked why would she sue if all the money goes to lawyers and the answer is the publicity helps with book sales etc.
I'm not saying that's the reason she's doing it, just answering the question.
A book. Plus there's potential for a criminal case in the states.
But the question was asked why would she sue if all the money goes to lawyers and the answer is the publicity helps with book sales etc.
I'm not saying that's the reason she's doing it, just answering the question.
Even a best selling whopper of a book doesn’t get that much.
Seems utter madness really - especially if you yourself get locked up for grooming girls to be raped.
Welshbeef said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
More than one.
Plus there's potential for a criminal case in the states.
But the question was asked why would she sue if all the money goes to lawyers and the answer is the publicity helps with book sales etc.
I'm not saying that's the reason she's doing it, just answering the question.
A book. Plus there's potential for a criminal case in the states.
But the question was asked why would she sue if all the money goes to lawyers and the answer is the publicity helps with book sales etc.
I'm not saying that's the reason she's doing it, just answering the question.
Even a best selling whopper of a book doesn’t get that much.
Seems utter madness really - especially if you yourself get locked up for grooming girls to be raped.
Who would play Epstein, Maxwell, Andrew, and what’s her name?
TTmonkey said:
Welshbeef said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
More than one.
Plus there's potential for a criminal case in the states.
But the question was asked why would she sue if all the money goes to lawyers and the answer is the publicity helps with book sales etc.
I'm not saying that's the reason she's doing it, just answering the question.
A book. Plus there's potential for a criminal case in the states.
But the question was asked why would she sue if all the money goes to lawyers and the answer is the publicity helps with book sales etc.
I'm not saying that's the reason she's doing it, just answering the question.
Even a best selling whopper of a book doesn’t get that much.
Seems utter madness really - especially if you yourself get locked up for grooming girls to be raped.
Who would play Epstein, Maxwell, Andrew, and what’s her name?
Given Actors are kicked out / not given any work once involved with sexual assault…. And she herself is being accused of grooming children for sex trafficking … which studio would want to touch it ditto publisher to be tarnished by that…
Welshbeef said:
TTmonkey said:
Welshbeef said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
More than one.
Plus there's potential for a criminal case in the states.
But the question was asked why would she sue if all the money goes to lawyers and the answer is the publicity helps with book sales etc.
I'm not saying that's the reason she's doing it, just answering the question.
A book. Plus there's potential for a criminal case in the states.
But the question was asked why would she sue if all the money goes to lawyers and the answer is the publicity helps with book sales etc.
I'm not saying that's the reason she's doing it, just answering the question.
Even a best selling whopper of a book doesn’t get that much.
Seems utter madness really - especially if you yourself get locked up for grooming girls to be raped.
Who would play Epstein, Maxwell, Andrew, and what’s her name?
Given Actors are kicked out / not given any work once involved with sexual assault…. And she herself is being accused of grooming children for sex trafficking … which studio would want to touch it ditto publisher to be tarnished by that…
TTmonkey said:
Many victims become involved in these things. She was a victim. If she became involved with recruiting other young girls into the same position, it’s probably as a result of the abuse and control she was put under.
The challenge here is - I think it’s very fair to question was Glishlane actually groomed by Epstein in the first place (& her. Weird father)
BikeBikeBIke said:
oilit said:
He settled because he knew either he would be found guilty, he had a guilty conscience, or for once in his life he put his mother before his own selfishness.
Either way, he has paid to avoid an independent jury to make a decision.
In this case, in my opinion he is neither innocent or guilty, he has just paid to silence the conversation in the courts.
That should be enough for him to realise that his privilege (paid for by the british public) has bought him his freedom, and as part of that we should have a say as to whether he should return to public life - in my eyes that should be an emphatic no.
The vast majority of American civil cases don't get to a jury. You can't conclude anything from a settlement.Either way, he has paid to avoid an independent jury to make a decision.
In this case, in my opinion he is neither innocent or guilty, he has just paid to silence the conversation in the courts.
That should be enough for him to realise that his privilege (paid for by the british public) has bought him his freedom, and as part of that we should have a say as to whether he should return to public life - in my eyes that should be an emphatic no.
oilit said:
He settled because he knew either he would be found guilty, he had a guilty conscience, or for once in his life he put his mother before his own selfishness.
Either way, he has paid to avoid an independent jury to make a decision.
In this case, in my opinion he is neither innocent or guilty, he has just paid to silence the conversation in the courts.
That should be enough for him to realise that his privilege (paid for by the british public) has bought him his freedom, and as part of that we should have a say as to whether he should return to public life - in my eyes that should be an emphatic no.
Why do people have to make this stuff up? Isnt there already enough ?Either way, he has paid to avoid an independent jury to make a decision.
In this case, in my opinion he is neither innocent or guilty, he has just paid to silence the conversation in the courts.
That should be enough for him to realise that his privilege (paid for by the british public) has bought him his freedom, and as part of that we should have a say as to whether he should return to public life - in my eyes that should be an emphatic no.
The issue with civil cases is theyre done on balance of probabilities, so too many times whoever wins can be whoever has the best story.
Both sides know this so in essence if they can find some agreement it saves them going to court, it going the wrong way, endless appeals and all the money is made by the lawyers. If you can agree a settlement it suits both sides.
The other issue here is that some of the stuff in the press was unfounded, The photo with the arm around didnt say anything untoward happened. Besides one side said they werent sure the photo was real. The other side said the source no longer existed. Neither side had anything to gain with the photo so there's nothing in the settlement about it.
Is everyone clear now that the settlement is little to do with what's filling pages here?
Once youve discounted that and cut it back to reality - there's no reason the guy cant return to normal
Apart from the endless conjecture - anyone else like to be a victim of it?
TonyToniTone said:
saaby93 said:
Is everyone clear now that the settlement is little to do with what's filling pages here?
Once youve discounted that and cut it back to reality - there's no reason the guy cant return to normal
Back to normal as in hanging around with sex offenders ?Once youve discounted that and cut it back to reality - there's no reason the guy cant return to normal
How do you know whether or not you are hanging around with something you'll only find out in the future?
If someone is convicted, what do you do if you were with them some years back?
There's no magic time machine
saaby93 said:
This again more conjecture - why do people keep writing this stuff?
How do you know whether or not you are hanging around with something you'll only find out in the future?
If someone is convicted, what do you do if you were with them some years back?
There's no magic time machine
Dear Mary Mary Quite Contrary...How do you know whether or not you are hanging around with something you'll only find out in the future?
If someone is convicted, what do you do if you were with them some years back?
There's no magic time machine
Epstein was a convicted sex offender, this was known, no time machine needed.
TonyToniTone said:
saaby93 said:
This again more conjecture - why do people keep writing this stuff?
How do you know whether or not you are hanging around with something you'll only find out in the future?
If someone is convicted, what do you do if you were with them some years back?
There's no magic time machine
Dear Mary Mary Quite Contrary...How do you know whether or not you are hanging around with something you'll only find out in the future?
If someone is convicted, what do you do if you were with them some years back?
There's no magic time machine
Epstein was a convicted sex offender, this was known, no time machine needed.
No huge sums changed hands and no substantial donation was made but unfortunately the terms of the 'settlement' were that PA cannot disclose that.
https://www.speakoutactreclaim.org/about-us
Prove me wrong.
https://www.speakoutactreclaim.org/about-us
Prove me wrong.
Burwood said:
Lol. I’d wager he’s counting his lucky stars the other 20 havn’t come forward yet
Doesn't that seem odd to you? It's claimed there was a Prado ring involving presidents, prime ministers and royalty and only the only names that have been given are one Prince and one lawyer who happens to have a long running personal grudge against VG's lawyer.Meanwhile, the only named high profile person involved limited his activities in this peado ring to one single shag and one incident of a girl sitting on his lap.
Surely at least one or those presidents and prime ministers has died in the decades since it happened and could be named? Surely one of the hundreds of girls involved would anonymously send a name and date to a journo and let him do the rest.
IMHO there were no presidents or prime ministers shagging young girls. It's like the moon landings - you couldn't hide it with so many people involved - hundreds of girls; dozens of staff. Heads of State have well documented diaries it would be easy to confirm.
saaby93 said:
TonyToniTone said:
saaby93 said:
This again more conjecture - why do people keep writing this stuff?
How do you know whether or not you are hanging around with something you'll only find out in the future?
If someone is convicted, what do you do if you were with them some years back?
There's no magic time machine
Dear Mary Mary Quite Contrary...How do you know whether or not you are hanging around with something you'll only find out in the future?
If someone is convicted, what do you do if you were with them some years back?
There's no magic time machine
Epstein was a convicted sex offender, this was known, no time machine needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_%26_th...
BikeBikeBIke said:
Burwood said:
Lol. I’d wager he’s counting his lucky stars the other 20 havn’t come forward yet
Doesn't that seem odd to you? It's claimed there was a Prado ring involving presidents, prime ministers and royalty and only the only names that have been given are one Prince and one lawyer who happens to have a long running personal grudge against VG's lawyer.Meanwhile, the only named high profile person involved limited his activities in this peado ring to one single shag and one incident of a girl sitting on his lap.
Surely at least one or those presidents and prime ministers has died in the decades since it happened and could be named? Surely one of the hundreds of girls involved would anonymously send a name and date to a journo and let him do the rest.
IMHO there were no presidents or prime ministers shagging young girls. It's like the moon landings - you couldn't hide it with so many people involved - hundreds of girls; dozens of staff. Heads of State have well documented diaries it would be easy to confirm.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6404379-Ep...
https://www.newsweek.com/who-flew-jeffrey-epstein-...
https://www.newsweek.com/every-celebrity-named-jef...
andyA700 said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Burwood said:
Lol. I’d wager he’s counting his lucky stars the other 20 havn’t come forward yet
Doesn't that seem odd to you? It's claimed there was a Prado ring involving presidents, prime ministers and royalty and only the only names that have been given are one Prince and one lawyer who happens to have a long running personal grudge against VG's lawyer.Meanwhile, the only named high profile person involved limited his activities in this peado ring to one single shag and one incident of a girl sitting on his lap.
Surely at least one or those presidents and prime ministers has died in the decades since it happened and could be named? Surely one of the hundreds of girls involved would anonymously send a name and date to a journo and let him do the rest.
IMHO there were no presidents or prime ministers shagging young girls. It's like the moon landings - you couldn't hide it with so many people involved - hundreds of girls; dozens of staff. Heads of State have well documented diaries it would be easy to confirm.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6404379-Ep...
https://www.newsweek.com/who-flew-jeffrey-epstein-...
https://www.newsweek.com/every-celebrity-named-jef...
Just one pair of each is fine.
I'll give you Andrew/GF. Only need a president and a PM.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Thursday 16th June 08:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff