Well to be fair a Royal marrying a woman of colour is a new thing whereas as .......
NonceUponATimeInEpsteinAndAndyLand
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Well to be fair a Royal marrying a woman of colour is a new thing whereas as .......
How would Britain change on a day to day basis if they were thrown out? I don’t think it’d make any difference to most peoples lives.
Royal families are such a feckin stupid idea- I’ve no idea how ye continue to put up with them.
How about a country that thinks it can't be trusted to rule itself?
I give you Australia.
Oz is a special place, so I’m told 
They're the glue that holds the whole anachronistic feudal system together in the UK. That isn't going to change any time soon.
If people want to come to such a ridiculous conclusion they’re free to do so. If you’ve even been the victim of a crime I imagine you can understand wanting to go to civil court if there’s not enough to convict in a criminal court, or charges aren’t pressed. The only punishment there is money, so why have a trial if the person will already pay you? The story is out already.
Depressing stuff when Andrew’s main way back into public life is helping sexual abuse victims. Fecking disgraceful that it can even be suggested.
To fully hold him to account as she herself repeatedly said she wanted.
While the outcome may be the same in financial terms the agreement doesn’t have any admission of personal wrong doing or guilt.
sure we all know if but having it confirmed in a court case is fully holding him to account.
Sums it up nicely.
Is this taxpayer money, or is it not quite as simple as that? If it is, I imagine that would be a big blow to the support of the Royal Family.
I am supporter of the monarchy in my own country, but if they got up to shit like this, that would change pretty quickly.
I am supporter of the monarchy in my own country, but if they got up to shit like this, that would change pretty quickly.
As I understand it he sold one of his mansions or something to raise the funds. But yeah if you trace it back far enough all their capital comes from the public coffers.
He never went on the plane ,
With Epstein and Giuffre,
He was eating for less at Pizza express,
but he was friends with Ghislaine.
Imagine what his daughters must think about all this. He has basically had to use their inheritance to paper over his disgusting past.
Don't worry, they won't go without.
In fairness, they're a few notches down the list of victims aren't they?
I'm not sure that's what should really be bothering them most what with the staggeringly affluent life they are nonetheless guaranteed.
I think I am ok with a victim of sexual assault not wanting to go through a trial and continue to relive the experience when she can accomplish her goal of convicting her abuser in the court of public opinion this way and move on with her life.
Don’t worry about their wealth mate.
Put it this way - the public currently pay £500,000 a year just for his individual security.
Dissapointed with the BBC honestly, I always held them in high regard but instead of speaking about the trauma a rapist has caused, the discussion is instead if he can redeem his name.
I suppose you have to remember that the alternative would also come with costs, but that does seem a bit extreme.
What i meant was, imagine what its like having a publicly known nonce as a father.
But he's innocent, right?...
... Is the drum he can now bang and in time people will forget. You should never settle out of court if you're a genuine victim.
... Is the drum he can now bang and in time people will forget. You should never settle out of court if you're a genuine victim.
Yeah we can all say that and I agree but would you have the same feelings with 10 million in front of you?
Fair play to her as she has exposed him even without taking him to court and set herself and her family up for life. Deserves every penny.
Yeah this is a bit of a weird narrative for the BBC to be pushing.
Not to mention she was probably racking up ruinous legal costs.
going through all this must have been a nightmare for her, I don’t think you can begrudge a victim wanting the case to be over when it’s in the public eye like this
I work around civil cases a lot and you get to learn very quickly who wants the money and who wants 'justice'. Although everyone has already made their minds up, mainly because he is part of the establishment, of his guilt, it has never been proven.
As for damages, they would have been plenty if she went through with the trial. I wonder how confident her counsel was of getting a guilty verdict.
If it's true, she absolutely deserves the money but the world deserved the truth.
As above.
I'm always more focused on the legal aspect rather than any monetary gain. Easy to say when it's not my money though, I suppose.
The world does not deserve a damn thing and she has no obligation to anyone but herself.
Regarding the truth we can recap pretty easily;
Epstein was a known sex trafficker
Andy was best mates with Epstein and spent a lot of time in his company
Victoria was known to be one of the women trafficked by Epstein
I can figure out the truth pretty easily without a court case.
The Law is an ass!
The point still stands that we do not deserve anything in this case. It is prurient voyeurism at it's worst.
To those that don't understand it, maybe.
The law, both here in America and back home in Britain, was created by wealthy white men to protect their interests and provide advantages to those that can afford it whilst disenfranchising those of limited economic status, different skin colour and those evil harridans in possession of vaginas. If you understand the law at all you know this to be true but it is of course a far larger and more complex issue than whether a man who habitually associates with rapists and perverts is one himself.
you've been reading White By Law again, haven't you? @Gandalf
Such an archaic view.
I would love to hear your views but you seem to be limiting yourself to put downs without facts, evidence or reason. Time to exit before your wit descends to the level of random emojis.
Imagine that.
You would love to hear my views on what exactly? I thought I expressed them clearly.
I'm a lawyer. I really enjoy my work but it does mean I tend to look at things a little differently from others. Whilst I'm able to look at the 'evidence', I struggle to call it such as really it's just noise in the press, and reach my own conclusion the professional in me would have been keen to have the evidence presented in a criminal or civil court. Only then could we make an informed decision on the facts. In my work, we are taught not to cast aspersions without being privy to all the required information. Granted, privately I have my own opinion on the man and what I believe to be true. Nevertheless, I would have been keen to see all that could have transpired. There is a legal test to be met for criminal charges to be authorised in a criminal case, clearly not achieved in this case. In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove their case on the balance of probabilities, a greater chance of it happening than not, a much lower threshold. If found guilty the plaintiff would have been awarded substantial damages but of course, there is a risk. It depends on what justice looks like for the individual. I believe there is also a gagging order now so we shall never actually know what really happened.
In conclusion, I have had many dealing with similar cases and with varying outcomes. Not all defendants are innocent and not all plaintiffs are telling the truth.