Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - you have blood on your hands

PA is damaging the reputation of the RF and in extension of our country. Therefore he needs to be properly sacked off form any and all public appearances in anything resembling official uniform or capacity. He can privately join his family but no public facing occasions. It was wise of the Wales not to be seen with PA this Easter.

A civil case does not find guilt it is about liability for harm and the burden of proof to find someone was harmed is on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. On the balance of probabilities the advice to PA was he would have been found to have caused her harm. That's why they settled.
A individual can not generally prosecute a criminal offence (some circumstances) so when those that could, didn't prosecute PA, the only option was to take a civil case to say he caused her harm. The only sanction for PA is to pay damages if found on balance of probs he caused her harm. He agreed to pay without the case. There was absolutely no benefit from her pursuing the case because all she could get was what was offered but also have to go through the court system.
Paying up doesn't say he was guilty of anything it just says they thought that a court might decide it was probably likely that he harmed her. That's way off proving beyond reasonable doubt he committed a criminal offence. Emphasis on proving.

👏This

BlueSpikeyPearls

The age of sexual consent being 16 is not a loophole in the law FGS!

It's not a question of "defending" PA, but the fact is she was over the age of consent so no crime was committed if they did have sex.

Sleazy certainly but not a criminal offence.

Absolutely agree with this
Nice to see some pragmatism is possible

I don’t think at the time this happened anyone would have seen her as a trafficked person - the openness of the situation, the apparent consent and her age of 17. She eventually walked away and was not stopped. Now we have a broader and more nuanced understanding of trafficking and consent, but whilst it was deeply reprehensible to have sex with a 17 yo in these circumstances, I don’t think he is a criminal. It is right that he never has a public role again and he must continue to be disgraced.

It's really not. See my PP.

Not in the eyes of anyone with a bit of intelligence.

Legal settlements are very normal. Some cases are settled on the basis of economics, where the case would cost more to run than to settle. They can also be done on the basis of reputational damage, and in this case, it was coming up to the Jubilee and they didn't want the publicity to overshadow that.

Makes sense to me.

No, the "disinformation" was yours. You wrote, "while the age of consent in the UK is 17 years old..." It isn't; it's 16.

This is not to say I don't agree with your underlying point, however.

No, but not illegal.

Her accusations have never been examined in court, nor criminal charges brought.

His explanation is he never met her. She produced the photograph, though reportedly admitted she no longer had the original and its authenticity has never been tested in court.

However, at very least, given:

• it’s documented (and he admitted) he chose to socialise with people subsequently convicted of appalling sex abuse of minors

• the disastrous Newsnight interview

• the reportedly huge sum handed over to avoid the civil case, of course with no admission of wrongdoing or liability

• the strong public opinion in response

he’d show humility and awareness to keep well away from public appearances with or without the RF. As would they.

He’s still able to live a perfectly comfortable and privileged life. How his family view or treat him behind closed doors is, of course, entirely up to them.

She’s dead. As she said, they both know what happened and only one of them has been telling the truth. But he surely has to accept his reputation is tarnished regardless.

I wonder, as he settled with her personally, if it’s now legally possible for others to pursue him using evidence she shared with them? I guess only if they can demonstrate/claim damages.

YABU to write in a style that makes The Sun sound sedate and level headed.

You clearly have no understanding of how legal settlements come about!

We don't know whether Andrew had sex with her. He seems creepy and maybe he did. As it was never proved in court it's down to personal belief. But I don't think all this can be laid solely at his door. He was the high profile one she chose to sue. But Epstein is the bigger villain, along with Maxwell. Epstein was the one who trafficked her. And there were many other wealthy powerful men who were part of the abuse.

I'm not defending Andrew, he was friends with Epstein and must have known what he was. That was stupid to the point of negligence. But Virginia's trauma isn't only from Andrew. It goes much further. And I think sometimes these threads can read as though if it wasn't for Andrew she'd have been fine.

This ⬆️

Pot kettle.

It is normal actually. That's the nature of legal settlements.

I think it's the David Icke conspiracy theory, isn't it. Some people believe it 🙄

"Lizard"??? What a deeply foolish insult!

I think she had a hell of a lot more on her plate than Prince Andrew. I think that's an ignorant and simplistic stance to take. It has never been proven one way or the other if he slept with her or not, and she must have slept with a fuckton of men other than him anyway. Where is the opprobrium towards them? Why have they all got away with it scot free while he has carried the can?

There was clearly something difficult going on in her personal life too.

And she became very wealthy thanks to him as well.

I have no time for Andrew but you cannot fairly lay this at his door!

I would expect that the 12 million or so pay off would be conditioned by a non disclosure order, most likely a lifetime one

Well the trade envoy details have been sealed for Andrew's lifetime, so why not?

Typical RF ... deflect, spin, lie, and if that's not enough cover the whole thing up

Disgusting. 'Better class' yeah right. She's a very ambassador for her class.

Cant defame the dead so expect a lot of negative stories leaked from the palace and Andrew is worming his way back into the core royals.

I see.

Well LVH can say whatever she wants privately, and she can say whatever she wants publicly too, it's a free country.

But it comes across as incredibly crass, haughty, and removed from reality. I think if she felt pushed into making a seemingly supportive statement to show she was onside with PA, there were lesser cruel ways of saying it. Many on this thread support him whilst still acknowledging that what has happened is unfortunate. That said, I can imagine the social pressures on one are hard at that level of society and maybe I myself would be desperately denying that PA was anything but a true gent if I had had the misfortune to date him.