Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
Id rather send him to coventry and we never hear his name mentioned again.
I know some people who have had the (dis) pleasure of having to work with him, apparently a rude, arrogant person.
I wonder at his funeral what they will say he has done to make the world a better place during his time on it ….
I know some people who have had the (dis) pleasure of having to work with him, apparently a rude, arrogant person.
I wonder at his funeral what they will say he has done to make the world a better place during his time on it ….
R56Cooper said:
Absolutely. There are lots of reasons why cases settle. It's important to appreciate that the court's job is to determine which set of facts are more likely to have happened than the other. It may be that the truth is something completely different but if the evidence on a particular point is more credible than the evidence to the contrary then a finding will be made.
Remember the civil standard of proof is not as high as a criminal matter.
Andrew's real issue in this case was "that" interview. He painted himself so far into a corner (see, "I was unable to sweat at the time" etc) that the chances of being able to win at a civil case were probably 50/50.
Of course, the other issue is the damage to the firm that a trial would cause. Not surprised that he chose to settle as the claimant was in prime negotiating position.
He settled as he was guilty. Far too many holes (ahem) and his association with his paedo deal maker and his mistress really sealed his fate. Also, his reputation of being an unlikable and self entitled tosspot precedes him everywhere. In any other walk of life he’d be in prison. Remember the civil standard of proof is not as high as a criminal matter.
Andrew's real issue in this case was "that" interview. He painted himself so far into a corner (see, "I was unable to sweat at the time" etc) that the chances of being able to win at a civil case were probably 50/50.
Of course, the other issue is the damage to the firm that a trial would cause. Not surprised that he chose to settle as the claimant was in prime negotiating position.
Piginapoke said:
Maybe not conclude but you can certainly imply that a £12m settlement to someone you have never met is a bit fishy.
Emotionally, you would think so but the reality is that it isn’t.Without going into detail, I have experience of a company settling a public liability claim for a 5 figure sum. The company did absolutely nothing wrong, but sometimes it’s the most prudent legal option.
That doesn’t make it fishy, it’s not an admission of guilt, it’s being sensible.
Some people, to varying degrees, think Andrew is an arse and has got his comeuppance. They may even be right. But the ‘fishy’ rhetoric therefore fits.
Muzzer79 said:
Piginapoke said:
Maybe not conclude but you can certainly imply that a £12m settlement to someone you have never met is a bit fishy.
Emotionally, you would think so but the reality is that it isn’t.Without going into detail, I have experience of a company settling a public liability claim for a 5 figure sum. The company did absolutely nothing wrong, but sometimes it’s the most prudent legal option.
That doesn’t make it fishy, it’s not an admission of guilt, it’s being sensible.
Some people, to varying degrees, think Andrew is an arse and has got his comeuppance. They may even be right. But the ‘fishy’ rhetoric therefore fits.
Voldemort said:
Muzzer79 said:
Piginapoke said:
Maybe not conclude but you can certainly imply that a £12m settlement to someone you have never met is a bit fishy.
Emotionally, you would think so but the reality is that it isn’t.Without going into detail, I have experience of a company settling a public liability claim for a 5 figure sum. The company did absolutely nothing wrong, but sometimes it’s the most prudent legal option.
That doesn’t make it fishy, it’s not an admission of guilt, it’s being sensible.
Some people, to varying degrees, think Andrew is an arse and has got his comeuppance. They may even be right. But the ‘fishy’ rhetoric therefore fits.
£12m isn't settling because it's cheaper than taking it to court...
Pommy said:
5 figures for a corporate as you say is nothing. That can be a weeks cost of lawyers just to turn up for the initial chat and cheaper than going to court.
£12m isn't settling because it's cheaper than taking it to court...
I don't think cost was the only reason but Andrew's legal costs were eye watering and they hadn't even got to deposition when it starts to get really pricey.£12m isn't settling because it's cheaper than taking it to court...
We don't know if the settlement was £12m but settling was definitely cheaper than fighting and winning.
If the recent Heard and Depp (sp) case has to demonstrated how insane going to court would have been, I dont know what would.
None of which means he didn't do whatever he was being sued for, just that a settlement tells us nothing.
Voldemort said:
A five figure sum for a company is chicken feed. An eight figure sum for an individual who hasn't got eight figures screams guilt.
Well he does die to the ski chalet. Thing is if we all know he doesn’t have much why waste time taking him to court to sue/ when the pie is tiny.
Some people here
a. Dont know how the law works and why it's easier for both sides to accept a settlement rather than spend years in courts
b. havent read or understood the settlement in this case
c. believe most of what they've read in the papers about it is true (see b and a)
Once that's straight there's no reason the guy shouldn't resume office.
Otherwise it's putting someone on a perch, then do everything to knock them off.
It might seem a fun game - but what's the real aim?
a. Dont know how the law works and why it's easier for both sides to accept a settlement rather than spend years in courts
b. havent read or understood the settlement in this case
c. believe most of what they've read in the papers about it is true (see b and a)
Once that's straight there's no reason the guy shouldn't resume office.
Otherwise it's putting someone on a perch, then do everything to knock them off.
It might seem a fun game - but what's the real aim?
He knocked himself of his perch with his relationships with sleazy individuals for personal gain - (not just supposed sexual gains)
Having been on the receiving end of a lawsuit in the US and defending it all the way - yes it is expensive, but we decided that clearing my name was far more important. It took nearly 5 years but it was worth every minute and $
Ok it wasn’t for underage sex etc and I am not a member of the royal family - but many people I speak with consider him guilty.
Having been on the receiving end of a lawsuit in the US and defending it all the way - yes it is expensive, but we decided that clearing my name was far more important. It took nearly 5 years but it was worth every minute and $
Ok it wasn’t for underage sex etc and I am not a member of the royal family - but many people I speak with consider him guilty.
Edited by oilit on Tuesday 14th June 07:38
saaby93 said:
Some people here
a. Dont know how the law works and why it's easier for both sides to accept a settlement rather than spend years in courts
b. havent read or understood the settlement in this case
c. believe most of what they've read in the papers about it is true (see b and a)
Once that's straight there's no reason the guy shouldn't resume office.
Otherwise it's putting someone on a perch, then do everything to knock them off.
It might seem a fun game - but what's the real aim?
One way of looking at it I suppose.a. Dont know how the law works and why it's easier for both sides to accept a settlement rather than spend years in courts
b. havent read or understood the settlement in this case
c. believe most of what they've read in the papers about it is true (see b and a)
Once that's straight there's no reason the guy shouldn't resume office.
Otherwise it's putting someone on a perch, then do everything to knock them off.
It might seem a fun game - but what's the real aim?
Another way might occur to those who understand how politics and monarchy works. It's not only Caesar's wife who must be above suspicion. Or, to put it another way, those closely associated with those at the top of the tree must avoid negative publicity, and perhaps even the 'wrong' sort of attention. The blokes the third child of the Queen. That's close enough for the idiom.
It's not much to ask for someone in that position.
oilit said:
Id rather send him to coventry and we never hear his name mentioned again.
I know some people who have had the (dis) pleasure of having to work with him, apparently a rude, arrogant person.
I wonder at his funeral what they will say he has done to make the world a better place during his time on it ….
Yup, horrible arrogant pig of a man I know some people who have had the (dis) pleasure of having to work with him, apparently a rude, arrogant person.
I wonder at his funeral what they will say he has done to make the world a better place during his time on it ….
oilit said:
He knocked himself of his perch with his relationships with sleazy individuals for personal gain - (not just supposed sexual gains)
Having been on the receiving end of a lawsuit in the US and defending it all the way - yes it is expensive, but we decided that clearing my name was far more important. It took nearly 5 years but it was worth every minute and $
That may be so but most of the conjecture raised in the press was nothing to do with the case or the settlement.Having been on the receiving end of a lawsuit in the US and defending it all the way - yes it is expensive, but we decided that clearing my name was far more important. It took nearly 5 years but it was worth every minute and $
How would you have cleared yourself from that?
Do you try to sue every person who writes something or creates a video about something that didnt happen?
Welshbeef said:
But she is being sued too by one of the girls
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.
saaby93 said:
That may be so but most of the conjecture raised in the press was nothing to do with the case or the settlement.
How would you have cleared yourself from that?
Do you try to sue every person who writes something or creates a video about something that didnt happen?
Agree. "clearing your name" isn't possible. Did the Depp/Heard trial help the innocent party? Did Streisand's case help her?How would you have cleared yourself from that?
Do you try to sue every person who writes something or creates a video about something that didnt happen?
Even if he's innocent would he really even have won? He's not a convincing witness or a likable person. In contrast VG is *so* likable a billionaire selected her for a tour of Europe. Who would the jury prefer?
We can draw no conclusion from the settlement.
We probably can draw our own conclusion from the evidence on the specific accusations which seem to be largely in the public domain but nobody seems that interested in that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff