Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
MOTORVATOR said:
she (Guiffre) has got on the coat tails of other victims when she was really more one of the perpetrators herself.
I don't see it that way.In my view Giuffre was an entirely innocent victim of grooming and child sex trafficking at the hands of intelligent, wealthy and sophisticated criminals.
I have dealt with enough sex cases to know that a common hallmark of grooming is that a victim is coerced into introducing other victims.
This has happened to Giuffre. To other victims and to the casual observer, she may appear to be complicit in the guilt of Epstein and Maxwell, but I see her very much as a victim.
Of course, not everything is black or white. Each of us is entitled to an opinion. Hopefully we all respect each other's views, no matter how much we may disagree.
ddom said:
MOTORVATOR said:
Vonuber, I genuinely hope you are never on the end of something like this and I will say, If you are, I will not be in the circle kicking your arse when you are left with no alternatives but to bail out regardless of your innocence.
Harsh experience of a Barristers advice.
'You have an extremely strong defence in my opinion and I consider you to be morally correct to defend it, however we are faced with two choices - Heard by a magistrate that will simply be emotionally influenced with max £250k per party or we go to Crown Court for proper legal consideration but the fine if we lose becomes unlimited. That's a corporate decision and one I cannot make for you, but be warned that while the balance of probabilities is highly in your favour, as a profitable company it will be maxxed out judgements if they go against you.'
£250k for no more than hiring a forklift to another company that allowed an unqualified individual to drive it and kill himself. Does that make me a murderer in your book or a sensible business man?
Sounds like you didn’t carry out due diligence and have the proper contracts in place. Clearly you would not be liable for a third party driver. And yes. We have hired plenty of capital equipment. Harsh experience of a Barristers advice.
'You have an extremely strong defence in my opinion and I consider you to be morally correct to defend it, however we are faced with two choices - Heard by a magistrate that will simply be emotionally influenced with max £250k per party or we go to Crown Court for proper legal consideration but the fine if we lose becomes unlimited. That's a corporate decision and one I cannot make for you, but be warned that while the balance of probabilities is highly in your favour, as a profitable company it will be maxxed out judgements if they go against you.'
£250k for no more than hiring a forklift to another company that allowed an unqualified individual to drive it and kill himself. Does that make me a murderer in your book or a sensible business man?
Company was sued by an individual who was injured at work. The injured party was not an employee of the company, nor on the company's premises when the accident happened.
Advised by legal to settle. Hugely strong case, I was flabbergasted that it was even being heard. It's surprising how much stock the law puts into the notion of David vs Goliath.
Pat H said:
In my view Giuffre was an entirely innocent victim of grooming and child sex trafficking at the hands of intelligent, wealthy and sophisticated criminals.
In my view someone who claims they didn't like what happened to them but kept going back for more is a "volunteer". Similarly anyone who brings their friends along for the next party is making themselves part of the crime.People who see wayward teenagers as innocent victims ought to have one come round and stay at their house for a while. I think they'd find it educational.
Pat H said:
Jeffrey's choice of words may be a little Anglo Saxon.
But the gist of his post is a pretty fair summary of the situation that PA has created for himself.
I also think it's a fair reflection of the national and probably international opinion of PA.
Thank you Pat H.But the gist of his post is a pretty fair summary of the situation that PA has created for himself.
I also think it's a fair reflection of the national and probably international opinion of PA.
I'm a mere northern scumbag and as the saying goes I'm very well balanced as I have a chip on both shoulders.
I really don't understand what Saaby is getting at.
It's a shame he won't take as much to trouble to explain what he means as I took to explain to him what the term anti-Semitism means. But people are like that.
Muzzer79 said:
ddom said:
MOTORVATOR said:
Vonuber, I genuinely hope you are never on the end of something like this and I will say, If you are, I will not be in the circle kicking your arse when you are left with no alternatives but to bail out regardless of your innocence.
Harsh experience of a Barristers advice.
'You have an extremely strong defence in my opinion and I consider you to be morally correct to defend it, however we are faced with two choices - Heard by a magistrate that will simply be emotionally influenced with max £250k per party or we go to Crown Court for proper legal consideration but the fine if we lose becomes unlimited. That's a corporate decision and one I cannot make for you, but be warned that while the balance of probabilities is highly in your favour, as a profitable company it will be maxxed out judgements if they go against you.'
£250k for no more than hiring a forklift to another company that allowed an unqualified individual to drive it and kill himself. Does that make me a murderer in your book or a sensible business man?
Sounds like you didn’t carry out due diligence and have the proper contracts in place. Clearly you would not be liable for a third party driver. And yes. We have hired plenty of capital equipment. Harsh experience of a Barristers advice.
'You have an extremely strong defence in my opinion and I consider you to be morally correct to defend it, however we are faced with two choices - Heard by a magistrate that will simply be emotionally influenced with max £250k per party or we go to Crown Court for proper legal consideration but the fine if we lose becomes unlimited. That's a corporate decision and one I cannot make for you, but be warned that while the balance of probabilities is highly in your favour, as a profitable company it will be maxxed out judgements if they go against you.'
£250k for no more than hiring a forklift to another company that allowed an unqualified individual to drive it and kill himself. Does that make me a murderer in your book or a sensible business man?
Company was sued by an individual who was injured at work. The injured party was not an employee of the company, nor on the company's premises when the accident happened.
Advised by legal to settle. Hugely strong case, I was flabbergasted that it was even being heard. It's surprising how much stock the law puts into the notion of David vs Goliath.
I refused to settle - despite being warned that if I lost the costs could close my business and see 150+ people out of work. It got all the way to the court steps (literally!) before the case was withdrawn by the other side. My employees wholeheartedly supported my actions too. (ex mining town, many ex miner employees!)
Pat H said:
I don't see it that way.
In my view Giuffre was an entirely innocent victim of grooming and child sex trafficking at the hands of intelligent, wealthy and sophisticated criminals.
I have dealt with enough sex cases to know that a common hallmark of grooming is that a victim is coerced into introducing other victims.
This has happened to Giuffre. To other victims and to the casual observer, she may appear to be complicit in the guilt of Epstein and Maxwell, but I see her very much as a victim.
Of course, not everything is black or white. Each of us is entitled to an opinion. Hopefully we all respect each other's views, no matter how much we may disagree.
VG committed terrible crimes, far worse than PA. I don't think "that's ok because grooming" is a valid response, and "grooming" is no excuse when the nature of the grooming is being offered a fantastic lifestyle, opportunities and money. In my view Giuffre was an entirely innocent victim of grooming and child sex trafficking at the hands of intelligent, wealthy and sophisticated criminals.
I have dealt with enough sex cases to know that a common hallmark of grooming is that a victim is coerced into introducing other victims.
This has happened to Giuffre. To other victims and to the casual observer, she may appear to be complicit in the guilt of Epstein and Maxwell, but I see her very much as a victim.
Of course, not everything is black or white. Each of us is entitled to an opinion. Hopefully we all respect each other's views, no matter how much we may disagree.
As we know from the Maxwell trial the girls didn't have to have sex, they could say no and did. Other girls didn't recruit. So VG could have taken all of the benifits and none of the sex. She chose a different path.
And if VG is in the clear because she was doing it for the benefits, why isn't Maxwell? Maxwell was in it for the same reasons as VG. Frankly so was PA, and he was a lot less street wise than VG was. If grooming is a get out of jail free card then Epstein alone is guilty. (Or are people going to argue the fact the girls routinely concealed their ages lets him off the hook?)
Pat H said:
In my view Giuffre was an entirely innocent victim of grooming and child sex trafficking at the hands of intelligent, wealthy and sophisticated criminals.
I have dealt with enough sex cases to know that a common hallmark of grooming is that a victim is coerced into introducing other victims.
This has happened to Giuffre. To other victims and to the casual observer, she may appear to be complicit in the guilt of Epstein and Maxwell, but I see her very much as a victim.
Of course, not everything is black or white. Each of us is entitled to an opinion. Hopefully we all respect each other's views, no matter how much we may disagree.
This seems quite a useful post.I have dealt with enough sex cases to know that a common hallmark of grooming is that a victim is coerced into introducing other victims.
This has happened to Giuffre. To other victims and to the casual observer, she may appear to be complicit in the guilt of Epstein and Maxwell, but I see her very much as a victim.
Of course, not everything is black or white. Each of us is entitled to an opinion. Hopefully we all respect each other's views, no matter how much we may disagree.
Back in the day when the girls were getting together or introducing their friends they may not have realised they were being groomed or understood the term. Why wouldnt you enjoy being invited to these events that these days may been called celebreties.
The blokes were getting together because it was a good way of networking, if it involved a party like atmosphere why not join in like everyone else seemed to be.
Some people may have become involved more than others.
From the depositions and agreements the case here seems to be about VG wanting PA to confirm that she was a victim of grooming( but not by PA). When PA suggested contrary in the TV interview the whole thing reached another level, which looks like has now been undone.
Now that VG has PA acknowledgement it may prove useful in other cases
longblackcoat said:
... Given that he's settled and, by his own statement, is going to pay substantial sums (yes, I know, what's the definition of 'substantial?), it seems highly probable that he was the one calling a halt to proceedings.
...
Your logic as to who "called a halt" makes zero sense; they both agreed to call a halt. She would have wanted more, he would have wanted to pay less; the direction of the payment tells you nothing in regard to who initiated the settlement; VG could have asked for $30m for all we know, 50 even, I would; the first offer usually has the upper hand in a price negotiation. As for substantial payment? Relative to the cost of taking it to trial, not especially if the 12 quid is to believed and certainly not relative to damages in the event of losing, which were the only other options....
Electro1980 said:
longblackcoat said:
And let's not even bother asking the opinionated and forthright Princess Anne, who seems to be far and away the best of the four children.
She seems to have kept quite about the whole thing. Charles and Andrew have been openly shunning Andrew.The rest is media guff.
fblm said:
longblackcoat said:
... Given that he's settled and, by his own statement, is going to pay substantial sums (yes, I know, what's the definition of 'substantial?), it seems highly probable that he was the one calling a halt to proceedings.
...
Your logic as to who "called a halt" makes zero sense; they both agreed to call a halt. She would have wanted more, he would have wanted to pay less; the direction of the payment tells you nothing in regard to who initiated the settlement; VG could have asked for $30m for all we know, 50 even, I would; the first offer usually has the upper hand in a price negotiation. As for substantial payment? Relative to the cost of taking it to trial, not especially if the 12 quid is to believed and certainly not relative to damages in the event of losing, which were the only other options....
You could link it with VG dragging her heels to agree a date for deposition and all sorts but principally neither party would be attempting to push it all the way to trial. It's simply a game of poker up until they call each other.
LBC saying 'substantial' and seeing that as relating to the actual settlement figure is blindness as well. You could equally say the settlement was not described as substantial while the donation was therefore the settlement figure is far less than that.
Then if you take all the cobblers we heard about how much the Epstein payout was from 'inside sources' until what we factually know it to be when the agreement was uncovered every number by the press should be considered as hugely exaggerated.
I'd go so far as exaggerated as the 8 girls she claimed to have a sex party with but subsequently changed her story a little bit!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the settlement figure doesn't even run into 7 figures.
The real story is this donation as I've said before.
Is there anyone here that has looked at this https://www.speakoutactreclaim.org/about-us and is deluded enough to consider that one single penny of HRH money is going to reach it without a bit more effort? That took 7 years to get it to the invaluable resource that it is.
ddom said:
MOTORVATOR said:
Yeah that's right A top flight barrister recognised as being a leading expert in his field and some nob off PH commenting on a case he knows absolutely nothing about and I am supposed to give your judgement credibility. 
I didn’t say your barrister was thick…..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff