[News] Prince Andrew interviewed about allegations

[southstandandy]

If he was innocent as he claims, why would you pay off your accuser?

 

[Springal]

Someone has to be funding it as no doubt a few other 'names' would be dragged into it surely

 

[Lower West Stander]

Financial terms not disclosed. What a surprise.

What that actually means is that he'd have lost, so the settlement will be eye-watering. Which in turn means that you and I the UK taxpayer will be picking up the tab. Not directly of course, but there will be a massive increase in the sovereign grant over the next few years meaning that whichever senior royal pays the nonce's legal bill, gets it clawed back over time.


Of course it does. The royal family are completely unaccountable, as we are seeing right now.

Yep.

She was the instigator so it was just a matter of how much he would pay…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Titanic]

If he was innocent as he claims, why would you pay off your accuser?

Guilty or not, the court case would have been an unedifying public muck-raking. Perhaps she settled for a small enough amount to make that seem like a price worth paying?

"Prince Andrew has settled a civil sexual assault case brought against him in the US by Virginia Giuffre, court documents show.

Ms Giuffre had been suing the Duke of York, claiming he sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17, allegations he has repeatedly denied.

A document submitted to a US court on Tuesday said the duke and Ms Giuffre had reached an out-of-court settlement.

It said he would make a "substantial donation to Ms Giuffre's charity".

The document stated that Prince Andrew had "never intended to malign Ms Giuffre's character" and that he recognised she had "suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks".

It added that the duke pledged to "demonstrate his regret for his association" with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by supporting the "fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims".

 

[kentgully]

Financial terms not disclosed. What a surprise.

What that actually means is that he'd have lost, so the settlement will be eye-watering. Which in turn means that you and I the UK taxpayer will be picking up the tab. Not directly of course, but there will be a massive increase in the sovereign grant over the next few years meaning that whichever senior royal pays the nonce's legal bill, gets it clawed back over time.


Of course it does. The royal family are completely unaccountable, as we are seeing right now.

Nonce ! bit strong, do you know what a nonce is. Not guilty yet I might add.

 

[Simster]

Nonce ! bit strong, do you know what a nonce is. Not guilty yet I might add.

I've made my own mind up, based on the fact he* is paying compensation to the victim.


*the UK taxpayer

 

[WATFORD zero]

Guilty or not, the court case would have been an unedifying public muck-raking. Perhaps she settled for a small enough amount to make that seem like a price worth paying?

Yes, that's probably it

 

[franks brother]

Now the rehabilitation begins, 6 months quietly being slid back into public life. Forelock tugging and fawning resumes, aided and abetted by The Express , The Telegraph , The Daily Mail and he gets his dressing up box back and resumes being the arrogant c**t hes always been.

 

[kentgully]

I've made my own mind up, based on the fact he* is paying compensation to the victim.


*the UK taxpayer

The trouble with guilty not guilty, is that it can be a lottery.

 

[carlzeiss]

Very strange , why would he pay a person he has not met for something he hasn't done

 

[lawros left foot]

Please can we all remember that Prince Andrew has no memory of ever meeting Virginia Giuffre. His very generous donation to her charity (with our money) is completely consistent with the actions of a man who doesn’t perspire, and was actually in a Pizza Hut in Woking, although nobody else in the restaurant at the time can remember seeing one of the most famous people in England,and definitely not in Tramp nightclub.

I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.

In other news, there were definitely absolutely NO PARTIES in Downing Street during lockdown.

 

[bluenitsuj]

Very strange , why would he pay a person he has not met for something he hasn't done

Because he is a lying ****

 

[Hugo Rune]

Please can we all remember that Prince Andrew has no memory of ever meeting Virginia Giuffre. His very generous donation to her charity (with our money) is completely consistent with the actions of a man who doesn’t perspire, and was actually in a Pizza Hut in Slough, although nobody else in the restaurant at the time can remember seeing one of the most famous people in England,and definitely not in Tramp nightclub.

I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.

In other news, there were definitely absolutely NO PARTIES in Downing Street during lockdown.

Camilla seemed liked the most unpopular person in this country 25 years ago, we’ll be calling her Queen some time in the near future.

They know that Andrew can turn this round, just like a lot of Tories are convinced that Boris the Liar can win the next general election. It feels wrong that he has paid his way out of this hole without us finding our just what he did.

King Charles will roll him out at some point, hopefully we’ll have at least a decade or so before he returns to his Royal duties.

 

[southstandandy]

Guilty or not, the court case would have been an unedifying public muck-raking. Perhaps she settled for a small enough amount to make that seem like a price worth paying?

"Prince Andrew has settled a civil sexual assault case brought against him in the US by Virginia Giuffre, court documents show.

Ms Giuffre had been suing the Duke of York, claiming he sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17, allegations he has repeatedly denied.

A document submitted to a US court on Tuesday said the duke and Ms Giuffre had reached an out-of-court settlement.

It said he would make a "substantial donation to Ms Giuffre's charity".

The document stated that Prince Andrew had "never intended to malign Ms Giuffre's character" and that he recognised she had "suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks".

It added that the duke pledged to "demonstrate his regret for his association" with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by supporting the "fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims".

But their is so much muck in this whole sorry sordid affair already out their I can't see how his reputation could have sunk any lower regardless if it had gone to court, it surely couldn't get much worse. If I was innocent I would fight my corner.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Financial terms not disclosed. What a surprise.

What that actually means is that he'd have lost, so the settlement will be eye-watering. Which in turn means that you and I the UK taxpayer will be picking up the tab. Not directly of course, but there will be a massive increase in the sovereign grant over the next few years meaning that whichever senior royal pays the nonce's legal bill, gets it clawed back over time.


Of course it does. The royal family are completely unaccountable, as we are seeing right now.

He doesn't get anything from the sovereign grant - he does get income from the Duchy of Lancaster estate ( the Queen ) and the Duchy of Cornwall estate ( Prince Charles ). Hopefully both those income streams will now be cut off. He'll still get his meagre £20k a year from his Royal Navy pension though.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

If both want their day in court to clear their names why not The Bailey?

 

[lawros left foot]

Camilla seemed liked the most unpopular person in this country 25 years ago, we’ll be calling her Queen some time in the near future.

They know that Andrew can turn this round, just like a lot of Tories are convinced that Boris the Liar can win the next general election. It feels wrong that he has paid his way out of this hole without us finding our just what he did.

King Charles will roll him out at some point, hopefully we’ll have at least a decade or so before he returns to his Royal duties.

Personally, I’m just glad the lot of them have very little impact on my life. I tend to just ignore the whole family, and yes, I do know I’ve contributed several times to this thread.

At least when the definitely not a child abuser Michael Jackson paid of his victims, sorry, accusers he used his own money.

 

[Simster]

He doesn't get anything from the sovereign grant - he does get income from the Duchy of Lancaster estate ( the Queen ) and the Duchy of Cornwall estate ( Prince Charles ). Hopefully both those income streams will now be cut off. He'll still get his meagre £20k a year from his Royal Navy pension though.

I had no idea who gets money from the sovereign grant. I think my point still stands though. Whoever paid this bill will get it clawed back from the UK tax payer - whether it's via an increased sovereign grant or more tax breaks (remember Charles only pays tax if he wants to) and if they've decided that Charles paid this bill then he'll just choose to decrease the tax he pays on his Duchy. That's the sort of thing our royal family does.

 

[clapham_gull]

Now the rehabilitation begins, 6 months quietly being slid back into public life. Forelock tugging and fawning resumes, aided and abetted by The Express , The Telegraph , The Daily Mail and he gets his dressing up box back and resumes being the arrogant c**t hes always been.

No, we'll never seem him again in public life.

 

[crodonilson]

Pleased there has been a sensible outcome to this, and all parties are satisfied. This was seriously threatening to stifle the celebration of Her Majesty The Queens Jubilee and the fantastic celebrations planned all over our nation to celebrate her reign over us.