Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News60 mins ago
Prince Andrew
Time to face the music...
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bigbanana. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
anne - // Are deals made when one is innocent ? //
They are, and in civil cases like this is, they are quite common.
In Andrew's case, it could be the best option.
As the Newsnight interview showed, he absolutely categorically cannot be allowed to answer any questions about anything, because he will hang himself for the boorish self-centered arrogant idiot that he clearly is.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing - and with it, his defence will be wishing that they had not gone so far down the avoidance route, because it has gained them nothing, and lost Andrew every bit of support he may have had.
Instead of inviting the lady to put up or shut up, his legal team have spent six years wriggling and squirming and dissembling and avoiding to get nowhere at all, except back to square one.
In the process, apart from destroying his own integrity with the sort of colossal absence of self awareness that characterises Andrew's absence of judgement, his lawyers have made him look guilty before he even gets to court.
Because, in a civil case, the plantiff does not have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case, the proof is only required to be belief on the preponderence of evidence, and that is far easier to achieve, Andrew is on seriously shaky ground if he opts to go for a trial.
That leaves a settlement, and indications are that the plaintiff is not minded to let him off even for an eight figure sum, so she may force him into court anyway.
A settlement is the very least worst of a bunch of seriously bad options because, even though it is common in civil cases, in the case of Andrew, the world will not unreasonably ask why he is not fighting his case if he is not guilty?
That's because, unlike an anonymous figure, he is a member of the Royal Family and the eyes of the world are on him, and what happens from here.
The only sure and certain fact is that his imagined (in his own mind and nowhere else) return to public life is never ever going to happen.
He will be given the most low-profile life the Family can create, and they will move on without him because the brand is everything and Charles will not sanction its damage for his idiot brother, even if his mother way wish to.
Interesting times ahead ...
They are, and in civil cases like this is, they are quite common.
In Andrew's case, it could be the best option.
As the Newsnight interview showed, he absolutely categorically cannot be allowed to answer any questions about anything, because he will hang himself for the boorish self-centered arrogant idiot that he clearly is.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing - and with it, his defence will be wishing that they had not gone so far down the avoidance route, because it has gained them nothing, and lost Andrew every bit of support he may have had.
Instead of inviting the lady to put up or shut up, his legal team have spent six years wriggling and squirming and dissembling and avoiding to get nowhere at all, except back to square one.
In the process, apart from destroying his own integrity with the sort of colossal absence of self awareness that characterises Andrew's absence of judgement, his lawyers have made him look guilty before he even gets to court.
Because, in a civil case, the plantiff does not have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case, the proof is only required to be belief on the preponderence of evidence, and that is far easier to achieve, Andrew is on seriously shaky ground if he opts to go for a trial.
That leaves a settlement, and indications are that the plaintiff is not minded to let him off even for an eight figure sum, so she may force him into court anyway.
A settlement is the very least worst of a bunch of seriously bad options because, even though it is common in civil cases, in the case of Andrew, the world will not unreasonably ask why he is not fighting his case if he is not guilty?
That's because, unlike an anonymous figure, he is a member of the Royal Family and the eyes of the world are on him, and what happens from here.
The only sure and certain fact is that his imagined (in his own mind and nowhere else) return to public life is never ever going to happen.
He will be given the most low-profile life the Family can create, and they will move on without him because the brand is everything and Charles will not sanction its damage for his idiot brother, even if his mother way wish to.
Interesting times ahead ...
douglas - // This saga needs the nursery rhyme treatment to warn children as yet unborn of the dangers of consorting with the entitled. //
The problem is, finding out who is 'entitled' is tricky.
Some, like Andrew, assume entitlement based on their birth and lineage.
Others, like Epstein and Maxwell, grow it around them like a carapace.
The difficulty is assessing the level of entitlement involved, and just what it entails.
The scale is huge, from trafficking and sex abuse at one end, down to being rude to the server at McDonald's at the other.
Really, an education in human nature is a work in progress for all of us.
The problem is, finding out who is 'entitled' is tricky.
Some, like Andrew, assume entitlement based on their birth and lineage.
Others, like Epstein and Maxwell, grow it around them like a carapace.
The difficulty is assessing the level of entitlement involved, and just what it entails.
The scale is huge, from trafficking and sex abuse at one end, down to being rude to the server at McDonald's at the other.
Really, an education in human nature is a work in progress for all of us.
//... indications are that the plaintiff is not minded to let him off even for an eight figure sum, so she may force him into court anyway.//
The danger with that, Andy, is that even if the court finds in her favour, if she is awarded less than the offered settlement, she will not have her costs met. And we all know hoe much the fees of m'learned friends can eat into one's compo!
The danger with that, Andy, is that even if the court finds in her favour, if she is awarded less than the offered settlement, she will not have her costs met. And we all know hoe much the fees of m'learned friends can eat into one's compo!
NJ - // /... indications are that the plaintiff is not minded to let him off even for an eight figure sum, so she may force him into court anyway.//
The danger with that, Andy, is that even if the court finds in her favour, if she is awarded less than the offered settlement, she will not have her costs met. And we all know hoe much the fees of m'learned friends can eat into one's compo! //
As always, a good point.
She may decide to settle and take the money.
The worst for her is that people think she is a gold digger, and a lot think that already - especially on here.
But long after the furore has died down, she can live in peace and anonymity on the other side of the world, spared from the horrors of a trial in the full glare of the media.
Andrew meanwhile will never have that luxury, so all ways up, he is going to lose.
The danger with that, Andy, is that even if the court finds in her favour, if she is awarded less than the offered settlement, she will not have her costs met. And we all know hoe much the fees of m'learned friends can eat into one's compo! //
As always, a good point.
She may decide to settle and take the money.
The worst for her is that people think she is a gold digger, and a lot think that already - especially on here.
But long after the furore has died down, she can live in peace and anonymity on the other side of the world, spared from the horrors of a trial in the full glare of the media.
Andrew meanwhile will never have that luxury, so all ways up, he is going to lose.
Yes. He'll lose 'whatever', I think. He's already lost by the publicity, his delaying and dodging tactics, that dreadful interview etc.. (Why was he allowed to do that by the way ?- or was his hubris so dazzling?)
The one and only person I know, who has had a very lowly, vague association with him (office worker for a firm sponsoring him) met him and was revolted by his personality and attitude - this was some years ago, by the way.
I know that the Queen is reported to have treated him as her favourite child. I am sorry for her, because she must feel that she has failed in some way. He must be using her money to fight this and she will no doubt have to fund any settlement. Yet I have to wonder why he is as he is when Anne, for instance, is so grounded and Charles has turned out OK..
The one and only person I know, who has had a very lowly, vague association with him (office worker for a firm sponsoring him) met him and was revolted by his personality and attitude - this was some years ago, by the way.
I know that the Queen is reported to have treated him as her favourite child. I am sorry for her, because she must feel that she has failed in some way. He must be using her money to fight this and she will no doubt have to fund any settlement. Yet I have to wonder why he is as he is when Anne, for instance, is so grounded and Charles has turned out OK..
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV74 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles86 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles111 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles117 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles130 mins ago
