Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

No surprise that the met have stopped. Their investigation into PA.

[prh47bridge]

@CathyorClaire

I'm still intrigued by the sealed 2009 agreement his lawyers got unsealed. They've now been granted a request for it to remain sealed. Are we to assume it's not the silver bullet they thought it might be?

No, they are still arguing that it prevents Giuffre taking action against Andrew. Keeping it sealed simply means that the rest of us won't get to read it.

[Roussette]

I would like to know that too

[CathyorClaire]

I'm still intrigued by the sealed 2009 agreement his lawyers got unsealed. They've now been granted a request for it to remain sealed. Are we to assume it's not the silver bullet they thought it might be?

[CathyorClaire]

Charles voluntarily pays income tax on the income he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall

Less amounts he considers to be official expenditure.

I'd like to pay tax on that basis. I expect most of us would.

he was questioned remotely in the UK

Link?

[ManifestingWisdom]

@Roussette

Totally agree with all you say.
I think he's pushed himself into a very sticky corner with this defence
There are very few of us who would want to be judged on our behaviour and actions at age 17.
He's judging her at age17 when she was being coerced and manipulated by a couple of 40 something year olds who trawled schools and trailer parks to recruit vulnerable girls. He's victim blaming

Absolutely agree with this. I hope that it backfires horribly for him.

[upinaballoon]

@ManifestingWisdom

Dod he accuse VG of procuring girls for JE?

Wow. Is he more vile or more stupid?

I don't want to be shouted at for not remembering where I have read these things but I have googled JE and GM and VG over the last few weeks and I am going to start carefully with the words IF ANY OF IT IS TRUE, because I think some of it was in an American newspaper report. That doesn't mean I don't believe the basic scenario. It means I'm trying to be careful with my words. IF ANY OF IT IS TRUE GM rode round with the chauffeur looking for likely girls for JE. He apparently wanted lots of them. I don't know whether or not he would only have them under-age or if 19 was ok as long as they looked young. If he trafficked them on to other people I have no idea if any of the other people wanted them under-age or not. I don't know if under-age gave anyone except JE some sort of extra buzz. Whichever of those things it was that I read it in there is definitely the suggestion that JE and GM got the young girls to look for other young girls. Who was more likely to know a pretty teenager who was a bit hard-up for money -- GM in her social circles, or the girls they had already procured? I don't think this is a sudden idea. It looks as if PA's lawyers have decided to use it now.

[Roussette]

Totally agree with all you say.
I think he's pushed himself into a very sticky corner with this defence
There are very few of us who would want to be judged on our behaviour and actions at age 17.
He's judging her at age17 when she was being coerced and manipulated by a couple of 40 something year olds who trawled schools and trailer parks to recruit vulnerable girls. He's victim blaming

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Thanks for the C&P Roussette
As you might expect, I'm less interested in what the media's got to say - even The Times - than the actual content of the submission, and Andrew's telling the truth (never a safe assumption) I still think they're taking a hell of a risk

Granted it's usual for the defence to attempt to trash a plaintiff, but after all it's not Giuffre who the civil suit's been brought against, and I can't quite see that chucking mud in the hope something sticks will help someone like Andrew

Of course, IF it turned out that Giuffre's merely slinging accusations in the hope of a payout I'd be the first to agree the book should be chucked at her, but we simply can't know which way round it is yet (and may never do)

And my last thought about court time being spent which could better be used on real offenders is that Andrew could have brought this to a close much sooner if he'd chosen a different path

[ManifestingWisdom]

Dod he accuse VG of procuring girls for JE?

Wow. Is he more vile or more stupid?

[Roussette]

Yes indeed @Puzzledandpissedoff

Here's the article....

Prince Andrew has sought to turn the tables on the woman accusing him of teenage rape by claiming that she was involved in the “wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse”.

In a controversial attempt to prove his innocence, lawyers for the Duke of York have painted Virginia Giuffre as an alleged criminal who worked to procure underage “slutty girls” for Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile billionaire.

They also indicate that by making false allegations against the prince and using up court time, Giuffre is allowing real predators to get away with their crimes.

Andrew’s decision to come out fighting marks a significant change in his legal strategy, but potentially leaves him open to claims of “victim-blaming” from women’s rights groups.

Giuffre, who is also known by her maiden name, Virginia Roberts, has accused the prince in a civil lawsuit in New York of “rape in the first degree” and sexual assault on three occasions when she was 17.

The attacks are alleged to have taken place in 2001 in London, New York and on Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little St James.

Giuffre, now 38, is seeking unspecified “punitive damages” that could run into millions of pounds.

In a legal response filed late on Friday, Andrew, 61, sought to get the “baseless” claims thrown out of court for multiple reasons.

One of the sections is headed: “Giuffre’s role in Epstein’s criminal enterprise”.

It alleges Giuffre was involved in the procurement of underage girls for Epstein, the American financier who killed himself in 2019 while awaiting trial for child sex offences.

The court papers quote Crystal Figueroa, the sister of one of Giuffre’s ex-boyfriends, who claims she was asked by Andrew’s accuser for help in recruiting minors: “She [Giuffre] would say to me, ‘Do you know any girls who are kind of slutty?’”

The court filing continues: “It is a striking feature of this case that while lurid allegations are made against Prince Andrew by Giuffre, the only party to this claim whose conduct has involved the wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse is Giuffre herself, including while she was an adult.”

The prince’s US-based lawyer, Andrew Brettler, suggests Giuffre’s modus operandi may allow genuine paedophiles to escape justice.

“Giuffre’s pattern of filing a series of lawsuits against numerous high-profile individuals should no longer be tolerated, as it continues to irreparably harm many innocent people and diverts already limited judicial resources from the adjudication of meritorious claims asserted against those who have actually perpetrated sexual offences against minors,” the document states.

Giuffre’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley claimed yesterday: “If Virginia Giuffre had stood silent in the face of outrageous statements like those Prince Andrew routinely churns out — his motion to dismiss the litigation being no exception — the decades-long sex-trafficking ring his friend Jeffrey Epstein operated and he participated in would have never been exposed.

“On the subject of money, let’s be clear: the only party to this litigation using money to his benefit is Prince Andrew.”

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

The Times article's behind a paywall, Roussette, but according to the Mirror (god help us ) The court filing adds: “While lurid allegations are made against Prince Andrew by Giuffre, the only party to this claim whose conduct has involved the wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse is Giuffre herself"

Note the "only party" ... so if that's right, there's no involvement by Ghislaine or whoever else and it's all down to Giuffre herself

Seems to me that's a hell of a risk they're taking there ...

[Roussette]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-accuses-virginia-giuffre-of-procuring-slutty-girls-for-sexual-abuse-by-epstein-9zlbk8dwt

Prince Andrew accuses Virginia Giuffre of ‘procuring slutty girls for sexual abuse by Epstein’

Interesting. First of all... he had no recollection apart from Woking Pizza place. Can't remember her, can't explain the picture, didn't sleep with her.
Now he's accusing her of procuring girls and by this logic he knew about the procuring but did nothing, and carried on his JE friendship despite this.

[Essexmum321]

Ah, that makes sense thank you - Maxwell paid Giuffre millions when Giuffre sued her for calling Giuffre a liar for the PA and other allegations, maybe PA will settle.

[prh47bridge]

@Essexmum321

So he's said that he didn't do anything, but the sealed document protects him from being sued? seems a bit contradictory.

Not contradictory at all.

His lawyers say the sealed documents (an agreement between Giuffre and Epstein) prevent her taking action regardless of the merit or otherwise of her claims. If true, this would have been intended, in part, to stop her making baseless allegations against random celebrities in Epstein's circle in order to extract payment from them. There is nothing contradictory in saying that this document means she can't sue him whilst also saying her allegations are untrue.

Note that I am not saying her allegations are baseless.

[Essexmum321]

So he's said that he didn't do anything, but the sealed document protects him from being sued? seems a bit contradictory.

[Duckrace]

I have always thought he was guilty after that tv interview.

[Roussette]

No one has said he is guilty, apart from being guilty of being an entitled arse.

But he hasn't been questioned.

He's consulted with lawyers who he's employing over here and US based ones too. Is that what you mean by questioning?

[tickingthebox73]

@Roussette

He absolutely has been questioned

Who by?

Great bit of victim blaming by you there.

I am finding myself increasingly annoyed that people are unable to understand the law....

He is an smug, self satisfied, annoying git, but that still doesn't make him guilty.

[Roussette]

He absolutely has been questioned

Who by?

Great bit of victim blaming by you there.

[tickingthebox73]

@IrishMel

His face looks distorted into a grey evil mess.. Can see the nastiness on his sweaty face. Shocking he has avoided being questioned. If it was anyone else things would be different. Royal Family, think on the name what is royal about so much of the behaviour

What a load of tripe.

Do people have no critical thinking anymore, just because you read it in a newspaper doesn't mean its true.

He absolutely has been questioned, just not in the USA - this he "avoided" - he was questioned remotely in the UK. Nothing is being pursued. It only now a civil suit by a woman who failed to write any of this in her "tell all" book....but has conveniently now remembered it, and who settled (for money) the previous case rather than pursuing justice.

[Viviennemary]

His face was distorted into a grey evil mess. No fans of Andrew here. But are you writing a script for a hammer house of horror film.

[IrishMel]

His face looks distorted into a grey evil mess.. Can see the nastiness on his sweaty face. Shocking he has avoided being questioned. If it was anyone else things would be different. Royal Family, think on the name what is royal about so much of the behaviour

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

I don't read the Guardian, prh47bridge - or the Mail, come to that - which is why I stuck with the basic fact of the Queen's veto rather than the rubbish that sometimes gets written about it

I roll my eyes, though, when folk insist the Queen has no more powers around the law than anyone else

[prh47bridge]

you talk like they are doing us a big favour by paying any tax.

Not at all. Simply setting out the facts.

the Queen can veto what doesn't suit the Duchy or her personal interests under "Queen's Consent"

Whilst this is an anachronism and should go, please don't believe everything you read in the Guardian about this. Their articles have been poorly researched and a number of their assertions about the way it has been used are the opposite of the truth.

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Voluntarily = when forced by public opinion

Indeed

We may well ask why it was only agreed on a voluntary basis, but then perhaps we're lucky (?) to get anything at all, considering that even with the law the Queen can veto what doesn't suit the Duchy or her personal interests under "Queen's Consent"