Jump to content

Prince Andrew BBC


D.A.F.C

Recommended Posts

On 02/01/2022 at 15:58, welshbairn said:

I bet Andrew thought that coming up with not being able to sweat and going for a pizza in Woking was pure genius at the time. Now the prosecution are demanding proof which could be awkward.

It may well appear on some Royal appointment diary somewhere which they can produce - he may well even have been there, table at 6PM, skipped the ice cream for dessert as champing at the bit to get along to Tramp's nightclub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Andrew gets off with this on the basis of being a pal of a notorious paedophile and a potential defendant then his reputation (lol) is completely in the bin. Only royalists on Nicholas Witchell levels of bootlicking would believe him now surely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adam said:

That’s the 2009 settlement been released, showing that Roberts (Giuffre) agreed not to sue anyone personally related to Epstein, who could be described as a potential defendant, in exchange for $500,000.

Hard to see how the case can go on based on this, would be fantastic to see more young women coming out of the woodwork that haven’t made any previous settlements, but think the Royal Family may be breathing a big sigh of relief following this.

Hang on I thought the scumbag only knew Epstein as a mutual acquaintance of that despicable Maxwell? Can’t have it both ways surely.

Edited by Alert Mongoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Unless they were hoping to settle before it got this far? Although I'd have thought the Royals would have paid anything to get her to shut up.

Yes, very true, that may have been their objective.

57 minutes ago, Lofarl said:

Well you could argue that that deal only applies so long as both parties are alive.  Ones dead and can’t really contest it 

Yes, that's potentially another loophole. There is a common law doctrine called privity of contract, whereby only a signatory of a contract can enforce its terms. In the UK, this was abolished with legislation in 1999, but it may still exist in whatever law governs the settlement agreement - not sure if it's New York or somewhere else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lofarl said:

Can you be subject to a contract like this one without your knowledge or consent?  Seems to be Andrew would have to have known about this deal or he would not be party to it.

Answered this directly above 

Edited by Priti priti priti Patel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Andrew’s lawyers still claiming that the action is “baseless”.  If it’s baseless why are they trying to hide behind an agreement between his accuser and Epstein?

Suspect they're going for whatever option shuts the whole thing down most quickly. If the agreement does that then that won't stop them from denying everything - they'll just say they had no case to answer. Otherwise, they may need to go into court to show the action is baseless. The UK establishment at all levels will not want this going into a courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HTG said:

Suspect they're going for whatever option shuts the whole thing down most quickly. If the agreement does that then that won't stop them from denying everything - they'll just say they had no case to answer. Otherwise, they may need to go into court to show the action is baseless. The UK establishment at all levels will not want this going into a courtroom.

Agree with that; I hope there’s enough in the US who, for whatever reason, will follow through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Morgan turning on him as well. Only yer Rangers supporters and Lex will be left championing the nonce..

 

Has Morgan issued his learned judgement on Assange yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Agree with that; I hope there’s enough in the US who, for whatever reason, will follow through.

I reckon Prince Andrew has followed through a few times since this happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He certainly looks to be sweating in this photo taken in, erm, 2001...

Lawyers for Prince Andrew's accuser are demanding he hand over any documents which explain why he doesn't sweat - his alibi for never having met her. He is pictured at a Trump nightclub in 2001
 
+5

Lawyers for Prince Andrew's accuser are demanding he hand over any documents which explain why he doesn't sweat - his alibi for never having met her. He is pictured at a Trump nightclub in 2001

Edited by btb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, btb said:

He certainly looks to be sweating in this photo taken outside Tramps (the nightclub in question) in 2001...

Lawyers for Prince Andrew's accuser are demanding he hand over any documents which explain why he doesn't sweat - his alibi for never having met her. He is pictured at a Trump nightclub in 2001
 
+5

Lawyers for Prince Andrew's accuser are demanding he hand over any documents which explain why he doesn't sweat - his alibi for never having met her. He is pictured at a Trump nightclub in 2001

Cocaine is one hell of a drug 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...