ChatterBank0 min ago
Now There’s A Surprise !
Answers
Prince Andrew is an arrogant buffoon and always has been, and on balance I suspect he probably did shag Giuffre, so he's paid her off to make the court case go away, and he will now forever be tainted. But... What happened to Giuffre wanting her day in court and it not being about money? Surely the fact that American civil cases are generally settled on the steps of...
07:59 Wed 16th Feb 2022
Let's leave aside the polarised positions that various debates about this situation have created - she's a money-grubbing chancer / he's a privileged idiot, and ever permutation in between.
And lets consider the reasons why this settlement has been reached.
Allowing for the fact that we have absolutely no idea of the evidence that may or not be forthcoming from either side, my assessment of the situation is this.
Ms Giuffre's lawyers may have said to her - You can have your highly desired day in court, and expose Prince Andrew as a liar and an abuser, and hopefully win, no guarantees, and be awarded twelve million pounds. His side will then appeal, and you may see the settlement in twenty years time when they have run out of excuses not to pay.
Or, you can avoid the horrible trauma of a court case, see him humiliated and tainted for ever, and get twelve million pounds within thirty days, guarenteed.
Which would you go for?
And from the prince's side -
You have dodged, and avoided, and looked utterly shifty and immoral throughout this process. You have added to that by blatant victim shaming and a refusal to acknowledge the abuses carried out by your friends. If this goes to trial, her lawyers will eat you for breakfast and your family will be marked for ever by the scandal. If she wins, and its extremely likely that she will based on the evidence, she may be awarded hundreds of millions by the court. Or you can pay twelve million now, and the court case stops. Which would you go for?
That is a possible example of how they arrived at the settlement.
And lets consider the reasons why this settlement has been reached.
Allowing for the fact that we have absolutely no idea of the evidence that may or not be forthcoming from either side, my assessment of the situation is this.
Ms Giuffre's lawyers may have said to her - You can have your highly desired day in court, and expose Prince Andrew as a liar and an abuser, and hopefully win, no guarantees, and be awarded twelve million pounds. His side will then appeal, and you may see the settlement in twenty years time when they have run out of excuses not to pay.
Or, you can avoid the horrible trauma of a court case, see him humiliated and tainted for ever, and get twelve million pounds within thirty days, guarenteed.
Which would you go for?
And from the prince's side -
You have dodged, and avoided, and looked utterly shifty and immoral throughout this process. You have added to that by blatant victim shaming and a refusal to acknowledge the abuses carried out by your friends. If this goes to trial, her lawyers will eat you for breakfast and your family will be marked for ever by the scandal. If she wins, and its extremely likely that she will based on the evidence, she may be awarded hundreds of millions by the court. Or you can pay twelve million now, and the court case stops. Which would you go for?
That is a possible example of how they arrived at the settlement.
/Or is the actual truth is that it was about money all along?
If anybody truly believes the settlement is just a donation to a charity and she isn't trousering a shed load herself (possibly more than the donation even), I have some magic beans to sell if anybody is interested./
Totally agree.
I think Andrew was and still is totally a waste of space.
I think Giuffre at 17 was not being abused by him. She was paid well! Basically she's making a fortune. She's making the most she can out of all this.
If anybody truly believes the settlement is just a donation to a charity and she isn't trousering a shed load herself (possibly more than the donation even), I have some magic beans to sell if anybody is interested./
Totally agree.
I think Andrew was and still is totally a waste of space.
I think Giuffre at 17 was not being abused by him. She was paid well! Basically she's making a fortune. She's making the most she can out of all this.
Of course, the disappearance of the original of 'that' photograph may have played it's part in the settlement being reached. He states that he cannot recall ever meeting her but the snapshot proved otherwise. The fact the original cannot be examined to see if it had been 'doctored' in any way, surely undermines her case just a tad.
I agree with Deskdiary and Lottie, but that aside, the man is an utter fool in more ways than one. I seriously think he must be totally thick. I wonder what would have happened if he'd said at the beginning, 'Yes, I met her, yes I bonked her, we were both single, we were both above the age of consent, and we were both up for it. Then it would have been up to her to prove coercion and abuse - which wouldn’t have been an easy task considering she slept with him on three separate occasions in three separate locations. Just a thought.
I do feel sorry for the Queen too, but its not like Andrew is the only one- he's the latest of a long string of people in that family to bring shame on themselves- Charles, Diana, Camilla, Fergie, Harry, Meghan, Margaret..... So far Her Majesty, Edward, William and Kate have remained mainly scandal-free but the rest of them seem highly dysfunctional. I fear the Queen will be the last monarch that the British people will feel proud of. And hope I'm proved wrong.
Naomi - // I wonder what would have happened if he'd said at the beginning, 'Yes, I met her, yes I bonked her, we were both single, we were both above the age of consent, and we were both up for it. Then it would have been up to her to prove coercion and abuse - which wouldn’t have been an easy task considering she slept with him on three separate occasions in three separate locations. Just a thought. //
It does make you wonder if the constant avoidance and denial was from Andrew's lawyers, or from himself.
That begs the question, and I have referred to it several times, as have others - was he seriously badly advised, or well advised and too arrogant to listen.
Since both you and i can come up with the scenario you have suggested, for free, it does rather suggest that he was advised to simply front up the allegations, but he preferred to try and dodge them, and this is the result.
It does make you wonder if the constant avoidance and denial was from Andrew's lawyers, or from himself.
That begs the question, and I have referred to it several times, as have others - was he seriously badly advised, or well advised and too arrogant to listen.
Since both you and i can come up with the scenario you have suggested, for free, it does rather suggest that he was advised to simply front up the allegations, but he preferred to try and dodge them, and this is the result.
Naomi - // I would imagine he was advised to deny them. //
I think on balance you are probably right, but what they omitted to tell him, and clearly he needs telling because he is as insensitive as he is arrogant, is that he should temper his denial with some sympathy for victims of abuse.
Of course, he didn't do that, and that is part of the reason why he is where he is now - finished.
I think on balance you are probably right, but what they omitted to tell him, and clearly he needs telling because he is as insensitive as he is arrogant, is that he should temper his denial with some sympathy for victims of abuse.
Of course, he didn't do that, and that is part of the reason why he is where he is now - finished.
Ellipsis - // The main advantage to Andy in this deal is that his lawyers have done all the talking for him, and carefully, on paper. He hasn't had to open his mouth and speak his own careless words which probably would have ended in disaster for him. //
Indeed Ellipsis.
I have been saying as much since the earliest days of this story - the FBI said he would not co-operate, his legals said he would co-operate fully.
The difference was, the FBI wanted to interview him in person, and his legals refused for obvious reasons - look what happened when Emily Maitlis got hold of him - and his legals said he would supply a written statement, which obviously they would have supplied.
It looks like he has learned his lesson, not a peep out of him since the Newsnight evisceration, and he should keep it that way.
Why not just let people keep on thinking he has the moral compass of a gnat, instead of opening his mouth and confirming it.
Indeed Ellipsis.
I have been saying as much since the earliest days of this story - the FBI said he would not co-operate, his legals said he would co-operate fully.
The difference was, the FBI wanted to interview him in person, and his legals refused for obvious reasons - look what happened when Emily Maitlis got hold of him - and his legals said he would supply a written statement, which obviously they would have supplied.
It looks like he has learned his lesson, not a peep out of him since the Newsnight evisceration, and he should keep it that way.
Why not just let people keep on thinking he has the moral compass of a gnat, instead of opening his mouth and confirming it.
bednobs - // you appear to be repeating your views ad nauseum too andy, so there's not really any need to moan that others are.
Or is it Ok for you to do so, but when others do they deserve a telling off? //
I posted that as an idea to lead the discussion into a different area.
No-one appears interested in pursuing that line, but I don't think that anyone else has simply repeated their views again, apart from me, ironically, in agreeing with ellipsis's view.
And I certainly didn't 'tell anyone off' - I merely suggested a new angle, nothing more than that.
Or is it Ok for you to do so, but when others do they deserve a telling off? //
I posted that as an idea to lead the discussion into a different area.
No-one appears interested in pursuing that line, but I don't think that anyone else has simply repeated their views again, apart from me, ironically, in agreeing with ellipsis's view.
And I certainly didn't 'tell anyone off' - I merely suggested a new angle, nothing more than that.
Ellipsis, sadly his lawyers haven’t done all his talking for him. Remember the car crash interview on television? I read that he did that on the advice of his daughter, Beatrice, although how true that is is anyone’s guess.
It wouldn’t surprise me if he’s so stupid that he didn’t tell his lawyers the truth either. I think he really thought he could swerve this.
It wouldn’t surprise me if he’s so stupid that he didn’t tell his lawyers the truth either. I think he really thought he could swerve this.
bednobs - // "Pat - Looks like we're not leaving the polarised views out then?
Just repeating them ad nauseum."
the above is what i am referring to.
It's akin to saying "this topic should be left alone, but before it is i'll just have my final say on it" which people seem strangely apt to do //
I have responded to your post - I am not minded to de-rail the thread by pursuing this any further.
Just repeating them ad nauseum."
the above is what i am referring to.
It's akin to saying "this topic should be left alone, but before it is i'll just have my final say on it" which people seem strangely apt to do //
I have responded to your post - I am not minded to de-rail the thread by pursuing this any further.
Latest Posts
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News23 mins ago
News25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
ChatterBank36 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
