Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
MOTORVATOR said:
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.
MOTORVATOR said:
longblackcoat said:
You continue to trot out the line that HRH will not pay to a particular charity. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just speculating?
Did you actually follow the link?Didn’t think so.
Rufus Stone said:
''Hangs himself'' and ''suicide'' in inverted commas, so in that context Prince Andrew is ''innocent'' and the Royal Family is a ''trustworhy'' and a ''honest'' organisation.Edited by Ouroboros on Saturday 19th February 13:56
Ouroboros said:
Rufus Stone said:
''Hangs himself'' and ''suicide'' in inverted commas, so in that context Prince Andrew is ''innocent'' and the Royal Family is a ''trustworhy'' and a ''honest'' organisation.Edited by Ouroboros on Saturday 19th February 13:56
longblackcoat said:
MOTORVATOR said:
longblackcoat said:
You continue to trot out the line that HRH will not pay to a particular charity. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just speculating?
Did you actually follow the link?Didn’t think so.
Do your own research. I gave you the link as a starting point so you know what they profess to do as a charity and how they are governed.
If as purported by the press HRH is going to make the donation there will be checks and balances in place to ensure it does not end up in laundering scheme if for no other reason it won't be her personally writing the cheque or accounting it.
On the other hand if you don't actually want to look there's no point debating it as I'm not going to spoon feed you.
MOTORVATOR said:
I've said a few times, including what you responded to, that if you do your own research you will find the seven year plus charity that she has continually claimed to be employed by has no substance at all including never having made the declarations to authorities one would expect from it.
Do your own research. I gave you the link as a starting point so you know what they profess to do as a charity and how they are governed.
If as purported by the press HRH is going to make the donation there will be checks and balances in place to ensure it does not end up in laundering scheme if for no other reason it won't be her personally writing the cheque or accounting it.
On the other hand if you don't actually want to look there's no point debating it as I'm not going to spoon feed you.
I think you've already proved your weaknesses Do your own research. I gave you the link as a starting point so you know what they profess to do as a charity and how they are governed.
If as purported by the press HRH is going to make the donation there will be checks and balances in place to ensure it does not end up in laundering scheme if for no other reason it won't be her personally writing the cheque or accounting it.
On the other hand if you don't actually want to look there's no point debating it as I'm not going to spoon feed you.
MOTORVATOR said:
longblackcoat said:
MOTORVATOR said:
longblackcoat said:
You continue to trot out the line that HRH will not pay to a particular charity. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just speculating?
Did you actually follow the link?Didn’t think so.
Do your own research. I gave you the link as a starting point so you know what they profess to do as a charity and how they are governed.
If as purported by the press HRH is going to make the donation there will be checks and balances in place to ensure it does not end up in laundering scheme if for no other reason it won't be her personally writing the cheque or accounting it.
On the other hand if you don't actually want to look there's no point debating it as I'm not going to spoon feed you.
You made the claim that Liz wouldn’t be contributing to this charity. Your source for this seems to be the fact that you don’t like the charity’s website.
You have no evidence - zero - that this is not a fit charity. If you have, bring it forward.
Until then, perhaps stop conflating assertion and fact; the two are not the same thing and just repeating the same line about money laundering doesn’t make it any more true than the first time you said it.
ddom said:
MOTORVATOR said:
I've said a few times, including what you responded to, that if you do your own research you will find the seven year plus charity that she has continually claimed to be employed by has no substance at all including never having made the declarations to authorities one would expect from it.
Do your own research. I gave you the link as a starting point so you know what they profess to do as a charity and how they are governed.
If as purported by the press HRH is going to make the donation there will be checks and balances in place to ensure it does not end up in laundering scheme if for no other reason it won't be her personally writing the cheque or accounting it.
On the other hand if you don't actually want to look there's no point debating it as I'm not going to spoon feed you.
I think you've already proved your weaknesses Do your own research. I gave you the link as a starting point so you know what they profess to do as a charity and how they are governed.
If as purported by the press HRH is going to make the donation there will be checks and balances in place to ensure it does not end up in laundering scheme if for no other reason it won't be her personally writing the cheque or accounting it.
On the other hand if you don't actually want to look there's no point debating it as I'm not going to spoon feed you.
Statement to say anticipate submitting a stipulation to dismiss is not a settlement document.
'Intends' is not 'Will'
The charity mentioned is her charity alone so discussions of whether any other charity want the association is irrelevant. He hasn't offered it to anyone else.
Substantial to a 501(c)(3) organisation would put it beyond $50k dollars and subject to a higher level of governance. If it wishes to remain submitting short forms the donation will need to be less than $50k
Any donation to it would be tax deductible and subject to ensuring documents were in place allowing that for the period.
The charity in it's current form does not have the ability to receive a donation of the size you may have in mind.
Probably need to sharpen up and tell the IRS they have changed their name as well.
Given all your worries about our public money spent by the royals I am amazed you have not looked at this as you would want to know where it was going.
Mind you, you will not find one single paper that categorically state the settlement is £12m and it is what is known as a fishing exhibition and you got well and truly hooked..
And while you're hanging on that set of feathers alongside LBC waiting for the inevitable fisherman's priest you have the bare faced cheek to question my ability to read and implement a contract. Stupid boy, you take care out there, the last time I saw anyone this naive they ended up getting trafficked for sex.
CharlesdeGaulle said:
He speaks a lot more sense than you do.
He was sued due to an industrial accident, he had to pay a load of money because his contracts were obviously written by a moron. PA has had to pay a load of money, because, he is a moron. I have never had to pay a load of money, despite the obvious ddom said:
CharlesdeGaulle said:
He speaks a lot more sense than you do.
He was sued due to an industrial accident, he had to pay a load of money because his contracts were obviously written by a moron. PA has had to pay a load of money, because, he is a moron. I have never had to pay a load of money, despite the obvious 'He' as in 'I' never had to pay a penny. In the world of corporate directorship the option of foregoing the equivalent of one weeks net profit against an albeit minor risk of losing a full year's net profit and potentially stunting the growth for a period is actually a very easy decision to take for a board. You will note from that comment the contracts involved were somewhat more advanced than you hiring a piece of capital equipment and the additional benefit gained was that we walked away with a continuing partner that earned us further profits that would both put the sum in the shade and as an incidental secure me an even greater bonus as a result.
You probably need to stop worrying your pretty little head about it to be honest as this sort of stuff is clearly well and truly above your pay grade.
Got any comment about PA rather than the anecdotal example I quoted that all the big boys understood?
MOTORVATOR said:
This is how foolish this kid is.
'He' as in 'I' never had to pay a penny. In the world of corporate directorship the option of foregoing the equivalent of one weeks net profit against an albeit minor risk of losing a full year's net profit and potentially stunting the growth for a period is actually a very easy decision to take for a board. You will note from that comment the contracts involved were somewhat more advanced than you hiring a piece of capital equipment and the additional benefit gained was that we walked away with a continuing partner that earned us further profits that would both put the sum in the shade and as an incidental secure me an even greater bonus as a result.
You probably need to stop worrying your pretty little head about it to be honest as this sort of stuff is clearly well and truly above your pay grade.
Got any comment about PA rather than the anecdotal example I quoted that all the big boys understood?
You are clearly a very important individual, so important that you have to spend time on the internet, telling everyone you're important. The simple facts are, you not as clever as you think, in your case this is not a massive leap. You're defense of PA, aka handy Andy tells me, and most others that you are not living in reality. He is, was, and always will be an enormous dick head. If you feel aligned to that party all well and good. 'He' as in 'I' never had to pay a penny. In the world of corporate directorship the option of foregoing the equivalent of one weeks net profit against an albeit minor risk of losing a full year's net profit and potentially stunting the growth for a period is actually a very easy decision to take for a board. You will note from that comment the contracts involved were somewhat more advanced than you hiring a piece of capital equipment and the additional benefit gained was that we walked away with a continuing partner that earned us further profits that would both put the sum in the shade and as an incidental secure me an even greater bonus as a result.
You probably need to stop worrying your pretty little head about it to be honest as this sort of stuff is clearly well and truly above your pay grade.
Got any comment about PA rather than the anecdotal example I quoted that all the big boys understood?
Gladers01 said:
Ouroboros said:
Rufus Stone said:
''Hangs himself'' and ''suicide'' in inverted commas, so in that context Prince Andrew is ''innocent'' and the Royal Family is a ''trustworhy'' and a ''honest'' organisation.Edited by Ouroboros on Saturday 19th February 13:56
ddom said:
You are clearly a very important individual, so important that you have to spend time on the internet, telling everyone you're important. The simple facts are, you not as clever as you think, in your case this is not a massive leap. You're defense of PA, aka handy Andy tells me, and most others that you are not living in reality. He is, was, and always will be an enormous dick head. If you feel aligned to that party all well and good.
And there you go again with your hard of thinking answer. Firstly I had no intention of expanding on my role with a previous company beyond an explanation of why taking the easy option despite clear innocence is not an odd thing to do.Secondly the time taken is equal in any exchange between two individuals as you have been doing.
Thirdly you have yet again made my point for me in that I have actually always agreed he is a d
head however that is not an actionable crime or tort. I hold the same level of consideration for all dheads as any other individual. That is displayed by my even bothering to respond to you isn't it? Now tell us again how much is this settlement for? And what does it prove?
ddom said:
You are clearly a very important individual, so important that you have to spend time on the internet, telling everyone you're important. The simple facts are, you not as clever as you think, in your case this is not a massive leap. You're defense of PA, aka handy Andy tells me, and most others that you are not living in reality. He is, was, and always will be an enormous dick head. If you feel aligned to that party all well and good.
Not sure why some people think insults win arguments - it makes one no better than the other.Take away the insults and what do you have?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1361808/Princ...
express said:
At the age of 22, Andrew saw active service as a Sea King helicopter pilot in the Falklands War.
The possibility of Prince Andrew being killed in action made the British Government apprehensive and the Cabinet requested he be moved to desk duty during the conflict.
However, the Queen insisted her son be allowed to remain with his ship.
His service included flying his helicopter as a decoy target, trying to divert deadly Exocet missiles away from British ships, as well as casualty evacuation, transport, search and air rescue, anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare.
Prince Andrew witnessed the Argentinian attack on the SS Atlantic Conveyor which was hit by two Argentine air-launched Exocet missiles, killing 12 sailors.
Not much different to anyone else down there. Any volunteers here for target practice ? It might come in useful in later yearsThe possibility of Prince Andrew being killed in action made the British Government apprehensive and the Cabinet requested he be moved to desk duty during the conflict.
However, the Queen insisted her son be allowed to remain with his ship.
His service included flying his helicopter as a decoy target, trying to divert deadly Exocet missiles away from British ships, as well as casualty evacuation, transport, search and air rescue, anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare.
Prince Andrew witnessed the Argentinian attack on the SS Atlantic Conveyor which was hit by two Argentine air-launched Exocet missiles, killing 12 sailors.
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 19th February 20:15
Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, now stripped of the freedom of York...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-y...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-y...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff