Oh Prince Andrew is getting SUED by Virginia Robert's

[LaurieFairyCake]

That will be interesting

@KidneyBeans

Members of the RF meet all sorts of people. They're not friends with them just because they laugh and are friendly.

True.

Probably makes the fact that PA WAS friends with JE even more interesting
It was a choice to hang out with a paedophile. Not a royal duty

Bugger. Just did a reply and it got lost!! This is not as eloquent as my first post but you'll get the gist!!

So...
On this we definitely agree. As I understand it, PA was warned to cut ties with Epstein after his prosecution in 2008. But he decided not to in order to demonstrate his loyalty to friends. (Some might say he wanted to carry on with the women Epstein provided, I think its more likely for financial reasons. But who knows?)

To me his actions show a) massive bad judgement; but more importantly b) a total lack of morality on not standing up to someone convicted of procuring a child prostitute. And he said Epstein had said what had happened wasn't true, but it was easy enough for PA to have found out the details behind that plea deal. He showed as much empathy then to that poor child as he did during his interview to the trafficked young women. None.

Good article, Roussette. Quite right about the photo - it's not what it says about VR, but the others involved.

I'd be ashamed to call myself a woman if I held views like some of you seem to.
I'd be ashamed to call myself human.
But you carry on jumping to the defence of the wounded white guys against the money-grabbing lying definitely-not-children whore women who are trying to ruin them.

I absolutely agree KidneyBeans

(And totally understand why they have moved away from such a toxic life)

Bugger. Just did a reply and it got lost!! This is not as eloquent as my first post but you'll get the gist!!

Umm you posted that same post 15 minutes ago
Dunno if MN is glitchy tonight though
It didn't post my response earlier

@OhWhyNot

I absolutely agree KidneyBeans

(And totally understand why they have moved away from such a toxic life)

Yeah it's almost like there might be some senior business/press connections trying to cover up this sordid saga. Can't imagine why

MN has gremlins tonight, loading sooo slow

Anyone who thinks things like Saville/Epstein etc are isolated incidents should read about Marc Detroux.

These men are well connected and influential financially and politically.

Sadly I think because of this PA will never face justice. It's simply not how the world works.

LolaSmiles

I also don't understand the need of some posters to try and make VR at fault.

It is clear from what we know that VR was trafficked.

Either these posters believe that PA was such an entitled prick that he thought that everyone wanted to sleep with him (it is possible footballers seem to think this) or he knew and didn't care.

@lljkk

I hope VR loses. Badly. Because I'm tired of Guilty until proven Innocent attitudes.

i don't care what happens to PA otherwise, btw.

I Wonder when this thread will go poof.

What if it IS true? Would you still hope that a VICTIM loses, then? What if you are unwittingly hoping a victim loses? Would you be happy with that on your conscience?

That post was to @lljkk

@KidneyBeans

Basically: I didn't call you a misogynist - but I do wonder why you'd describe another woman as 'angry' and aggressive' when by your own admission 'we're just 'two women debating'
Unless you just like calling other people names?

You wrote....
"Or is that misogynist code for 'woman engaging in debate and questions" I think anyone reading that will take it that you're saying I'm being misogynistic. You brought up women debating and that me saying you were being aggressive was misogynistic code for women debating. I'm happy to debate, and was doing so quite politely with two other posters until you (quite reasonably) challenged what I had said. But your tone was aggressive. Maybe you didn't mean it, but that's how it reads.

"VR brought a complaint to the Met police - it wasn't pursued by the police or CPS - that's why it wasn't thrown out by a judge, so thanks for 'enlightening me' but i'm good thanks."

Sorry, that was my fault. I didn't consider that you'd be thinking so parochially. But it's good that you now know what's gone on internationally.

"I don't presume to know why she's brought her case now but it seems sensible to do so before the SOL expires."

You don't need to make a presumption on why she's suing now. Her lawyers have confirmed that it's because of the SoL closing this month.

What I'm struggling with is why it seems to bother you so much? Why do you care when a survivor of trafficking chooses to bring her case and why do you presume to know the evidence better than the lawyers bringing it? Just seems an odd thing to get het up about confused

I'll repeat what I said in my very first post on this thread. If he's broken the law, she should win. If he's not broken the law, he should win. I'm not het up about her suing. I was chatting with another poster about that and other things when you decided to ask a load of questions. One of the questions you asked was about her suing him. I answered your question. You then asked why I was talking about it So much! It seems a bit much to ask me a question on a subject, so I answer the question on the subject and then you berate me for talking about the subject!! If you don't want me to talk about it, don't ask me about it.

I think this is enough now. I'm struggling moving back and forth between our VERY long posts and I keep losing bits of mytext.Very frustrating. I have found you a bit aggressive to be honest and accusing me of calling you names is bizarre. But I have enjoyed debating points with you. And it's always interesting to have your pown erspective cchallenged.You've made me think about things. So I thank you for that. Happy to debate issues, but let's keep them short! Lol.

@KidneyBeans

Bugger. Just did a reply and it got lost!! This is not as eloquent as my first post but you'll get the gist!!

Umm you posted that same post 15 minutes ago
Dunno if MN is glitchy tonight though
It didn't post my response earlier

Sorry, yes, I've had a few problems tonight.

I wonder if those on here who think a then 17 year old was just 'after the money' would have the same view of a high school teacher/student relationship?

It's about the adult to teen/child power imbalance, and coercion.

@Mandalay246

This thread is so sad. Women will never be respected, believed or equal, will they?

Are you trying to say that no woman has ever lied, especially when large sums of money are involved? When that stops women probably will be believed, until then, no.

@Mandalay246 The rate of women lying about rape is LESS THAN ONE PERCENT. Less than 1%.

Do you normally go around discounting domestic violence or child sexual abuse because of that less than 1%? Really? You're making excuses to victim-blame.

@Martianworld
Or is that misogynist code for 'woman engaging in debate and questions" I think anyone reading that will take it that you're saying I'm being misogynistic.
well 'anyone' would be wrong. I asked a question because 'aggressive' is a typical misogynist descriptor used to close down women who ask questions people feel uncomfortable answering. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2018/08/28/when-women-are-called-aggressive-at-work/

Interesting that you chose that particular descriptor simply because I asked you two (not loads of) questions. .

You brought up women debating and that me saying you were being aggressive was misogynistic code for women debating. I'm happy to debate, and was doing so quite politely with two other posters until you (quite reasonably) challenged what I had said. But your tone was aggressive. Maybe you didn't mean it, but that's how it reads.

Well you're more talented than me if you can read 'tone' from a written post. Though maybe not as talented as you think since I'm neither aggressive, nor angry, nor parochial or any if the other slurs you're throwing at me.
But sure if name calling makes you feel better crack on.

I have found you a bit aggressive to be honest and accusing me of calling you names is bizarre.
Angry. Aggressive. Parochial
Yeah weird when you've engaged in such 'polite debate'

"VR brought a complaint to the Met police - it wasn't pursued by the police or CPS - that's why it wasn't thrown out by a judge, so thanks for 'enlightening me' but i'm good thanks."

Sorry, that was my fault. I didn't consider that you'd be thinking so parochially. But it's good that you now know what's gone on internationally.

I literally only gave you that information as a direct answer to your question (post at 17.55) you're the one who went off on a random tangent about judges and are now making more passive-aggressive insinuations about my international understanding if the case .

I've literally no idea why you'd expect me to talk about my understanding of the international legal case when I don't think it's relevant to why she's brought her lawsuit now, which is the question you asked and I was answering.but sure - by all means assume you're educating me if it make you feel better.

I was chatting with another poster about that and other things when you decided to ask a load of questions. One of the questions you asked was about her suing him. I answered your question. You then asked why I was talking about it So much! It seems a bit much to ask me a question on a subject, so I answer the question on the subject and then you berate me for talking about the subject!! If you don't want me to talk about it, don't ask me about it.

You're clearly confused. Again.
My first post to you Is at 17.55.

I simply pointed out that your NOTW interview insinuation was factually incorrect as the newspaper did not exist when her allegations were made, and answered your question with information as to why VRG may be suing now.

I didn't ask you 'a load of questions' or interrupt your chat with another poster. I answered your question that wasn't directed at anyone in particular then simply asked you 'Why are you insinuating that it matters when she decided to sue? What is your point?'

Two questions is apparently 'aggressive' 🤷‍♀️

Since then you've gone off on random tangents about judges and international lawsuits (which I didn't ask about), called me names and seem to have re-written my posting history on this thread despite those posts clearly still being there for your reference. Bit worrying that someone who is involved in bringing prosecutions to court is unable to follow a clearly documented series of communications.

I guess you're aiming to match the 'VRG news of the world interview' for factual accuracy

@Martianworld I don't think so because she's saying she's only doing it to hold him to account. If she takes money, it'll look like what all her detractors have accused her of, that she's lying and just doing it for the money. Remember when the families sued Michael Jackson and they took the money? Their credibility was shot.

No, their credibility was NOT shot. How you can claim money shoots people's reputations, I don't know. The families (as many as twenty families are said to have been paid off by Jackson) who Jackson paid off may have had their credibility shot by his fans, but not but normal people who understand why the family/s did it. Their credibility is only shot in the fans' eyes, and the fans will never countenance that Jackson was guilty anyway.

The question is, if you are TRULY innocent you would demand your day in court, why would you pay an extortionist if you are innocent? See, the accused is the one with the most to lose. Their reputation for one. If you were truly innocent and you knew it and could prove it, you wouldn't go to court. THAT is why the court of public opinion deemed Jackson guilty. Because of all the times he paid out of court, rather than defend himself.

With a victim, there is not that same urgency because so many perpetrators get off (as Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson prove), when they clearly guilty. Sometimes money helps victims with therapy, and can often be the ONLY compensation when a guilty verdict is not possible or guaranteed. Going to court is also gruelling for a victim - it is brutal! So, there is reason for a victim not to go to court, but not the same reason or justification for the innocent not to go to court.

This is in a way personal to me. I thought of Michael Jackson when I first started reading this thread. I also thought of my father. My father was sexually abused by a Catholic Priest while he was in an orphanage. He was part of a group action. Luckily he was deemed credible because his testimony was corroborated by other victims, and by his memory of the layout of the orphanage and church. However, he only got (AU) $40 thousand in compensation. Most of which went to lawyers easily. 40 thousand was no where near enough compensation for what he went through as a little boy, and for the trauma and abuse that revealed itself in his later alcoholism and verbal abuse of mum. At least the money was something; the priest was let off because he was 'too old'. Dad died without any legal justice.

The only 'justice' he got, was financial compensation (if you can call that measly amount that).

See, if we injure ourselves at work, we can claim worker's compensation.
If you fall over council roads that are not adequately paved or roadworks that aren't signaged correctly, you can get compensation if you fall over and break something.
If a person hurts or slanders you, defames you or breaks a type of contract, you can claim compensation.

So, may I ask all of you; why is it that the most vulnerable of all; abused CHILDREN, are not allowed compensation? Why is it that when someone in a position of power hurts and/or sexually abuses you, if you dare to ask compensation, you are called a gold digger, a liar, etc?

What is the difference? WHY is there a difference?

Third paragraph should read *you would go to court. Not wouldn't.

@Pixxie7

KidneyBeans@ back with more insults I see. I agree the judicial system is warped and needs to be sorted. No I am not BAME, neither rich or poor. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I am uneducated , I just believe in innocent until proven guilty. As far as reality tv shows they are not all in their twenties some are 16 plus who have very active sex lives.

@Pixxie7 If a man raped you, would you be saying he was 'innocent until proven guilty'?

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. It doesn't apply in general society. It doesn't apply outside the walls of a court.

SamiReed@ what a stupid comment, if I was raped I would know the truth. However in the eyes of the law of course he would be innocent until proven guilty.

@Pixxie7 My point is, how would you feel about people claiming he was 'innocent' until proven guilty, when you knew what he had done to you?

Can you imagine how Virginia feels hearing it?

@Pixxie7 Why would anyone be sceptical of that? So she has sued 3 times to get justice. If you are not victim-blaming, why would you be using that against her?

@SamiReed1

So, may I ask all of you; why is it that the most vulnerable of all; abused CHILDREN, are not allowed compensation? Why is it that when someone in a position of power hurts and/or sexually abuses you, if you dare to ask compensation, you are called a gold digger, a liar, etc?

First of all, I am very sorry about your father. Nothing like that has ever happened to me so I can't begin to understand the long lasting trauma it must cause.

As for suing for comprnsation, I'm sorry, there's been so many posts that I think you've maybe misunderstood what I said. Or maybe I misstated it.

1. I've never said or implied in anyway that she's a gold digger or a liar. In fact, if you read back through my posts, you will see that I said that I believe he slept with her on the balance of probabilities.

1. Anyone that has a case, adult or child, is allowed to sue.

1. Anyone who is suing for compensation is allowed to settle before the case goes to court.

1. This is where you might think we have a difference of opinion. VRG said that she is suing PA because she wants to stand up for all victims. I have no problem with that. But I think that having said that, if she settles before going to court, then she will lose credibility and look like she's more interested in the money. Her detractors will definitely use that against her.

If she wanted to accept a settlement, that's completely her right. Inevitably it would come with strings attached about what she would be allowed to say afterwards. And I've no doubt the Palace would spin it that it was done because they fear the Queen might be summonsed to testify etc etc etc.

If she doesn't settle, and personally I don't she will, she can air everything in court and that will be more cathartic for her and for the people she says she is doing this for. It's unlikely she'll get as much money that way, but I don't think/know that's her motivation.

I dont want to mix this with the Jackson trial, but you have to remember there were 14 charges I think and he was unanimously cleared of all of them. Afterwards a juror was interviewed and he said that the jurors were amazed at how little quality evidence the prosecution presented. A few of the jurors were reunited a few years later to see if they still believed they'd got the verdict right. They said they were under huge pressure to convict from the media; the media cherrypicked bits of evidence rather than show the evidence in the round; and one of the jurors went in convinced she was going to convict, but there just wasn't the evidence there.

That was the Jackson case and I don't want to conflate it with this case. But in cases reported by the media, we don't have all the facts and just because the media present it as an open and shut case, it doesn't mean to say the judge and jury will see it the same way.

BTW does anyone realise that, according to the law applicable in the jurisdiction the lawsuit has been made, the papers have to be served to the "defendant", ie PA, in person.

I very much doubt this case will ever get to Court.