Why does everyone love the queen, when she paid off Andrew’s victims?

[Lovefromjuliaxo]

Just on the back of Huw Edwards sentencing, I remember he was the one to announce the passing of the queen. Cue everyone crying, saying how wonderful she was etc. But I can’t get on board with respecting a woman who basically paid to keep her son out of prison. Why does everyone still adore her? And why did Andrew’s victim take the money instead of getting him punished, even if it was just a suspended like Edwards?

**edited for spelling

So, Prince Andrew is innocent?

Innocent of knowing that she was trafficked? Well, Virginia didn't want to take that punt in a court of law, did she? That's why she took that payoff. I guess the evidence just wasn't there to support it.

Fuck off

Because Prince Andrew had sex with a woman above the age of consent, and while he clearly did something wrong, it's not on the same level as involving children in sex acts.

And at least the woman involved in Prince Andrew's case had her story heard and she was compensated. Huw Edwards' victims will get fuck all.

Your father was disgusting for sleeping with much younger girls. But if they were over the age of consent, it wasn't illegal. Abusing you was illegal because you were his daughter; if you weren't related to him, his behaviour would not be illegal, even though many people would agree it was immoral.

Andrew is disgusting for sleeping with much younger girls. I think everyone agrees that he is a revolting pig of a man. However, there is no evidence that he did anything illegal. That doesn't mean that he didn't do anything illegal, it just means there doesn't appear to be any proof. I personally support the idea of a staggered age of consent as I don't think it is right for a much older man to sleep with a teenager. But at present an 80 year old could sleep with a 16 year old and providing she can't prove HE KNEW she was not willing, it is entirely legal.

It's a bit more complex that Virginia Giuffre simply deciding to "take a punt", but then you know that fine and well.

As I've already explained, civil claims proceed on the basis that both parties will attempt to settle before trial, if at all reasonable. That is what happened. If Virginia had refused to settle, the judge would have penalised her for refusing a reasonable offer to settle.

You don't understand how the civil court works, basically.

@rumblegrumble Andrew is disgusting for sleeping with much younger girls.

That's not the issue. There is nothing wrong with a man or woman of any age having sex with another man or women of any age, so long as both people are above the age of consent.

The issue is that the woman involved was a victim of sex trafficking, not her age.

However, there is no evidence that he did anything illegal.

There is evidence that he lied during the Emily Maitlis interview. If he had not done anything illegal, then he would not have lied.

He has done something illegal, regardless of what you say.

Why are you still arguing? What is your point in still arguing?

Evidence then please?

Equally there’s no way the Royals would have paid that much if he was innocent.

Tbf she wouldn't be still arguing if you weren't arguing back! 😆

Nonsense. It was pure damage limitation. Guilty or not guilty - I assume his family were convinced that he was not guilty? I don't know?) the Queen wanted to avoid the damage to the RF that a rehashing of all of the allegations would have meant.

Plus mud sticks.

The Queen/royal family and government protection of her paedophile uncle - Lord Mountbatten is sickening. Lord Mountbatten is often said to be Charles favourite uncle. Young boys were taken from a children's home in Belfast to ‘parties’ down the South of Ireland for Mountbatten and his cronies. I read an article about one of these boys. He ran away from the children’s home and was apprehended in Liverpool and sent back. He jumped off the ship/disappeared on the return journey. I often wonder about the young local boy that was with Mountbatten when his boat was blown up.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12372489/Mountbatten-biographer-says-Government-spied-450-000-battle-personal-diary-royal-inspired-King-Charles-perversion-young-boys.html

I argue back when there is a point to be made.

Well she clearly thinks she has a point to be made as well.

There's been rumours about all of this for years, but surely if there was evidence, it would have come to light in the intervening years? No fan of Mountbatten either but I prefer facts to speculation.

BTW he wasn't the Queen's uncle but a distant cousin.

Depends on where he had sex with her. In the UK - no crime committed (unless he knew she was trafficked/not consenting).

In the US, on Paedo Island (which she also alleges happened) - crime.

There was no possibility of Andrew ever being tried in a criminal court - the Queen would not allow it in the UK, and she would not have allowed him to be extradited to the US for a trial there (he has repeatedly refused to even speak to the police, which is not an option for us mere mortals). VG has been making these allegations for literal decades, remember. So a civil case was the best she was going to get.

@Runnerinthenight Evidence then please?

Sure. He said he was able to recall the exact date on which he visited a Pizza Express from decades ago.

That in itself isn't an issue. People can recall dates like that if they're able to link it to a different memorable or important date.

Though he didn't do that. Instead, he said he remembered the exact date on which he visited the Pizza Express solely because it was unusual for him to visit such a place.

People do unusual things all the time. That does not give them the ability to remember the exact dates on which those events happened.

Therefore, he is a liar.

How do you know he didn't keep a diary?

Presumably he had had to go back over any records he had in an attempt to generate an alibi.

I don't know if he was lying or not?

Think the only ones are kate & what's his name

How can you patronise @RogueFemale like that after you’ve said something as nonsensical as Virginia must have been happy because she was smiling in the picture?

That is such a ridiculous thing to say and shows you have zero understanding of how grooming and coercion work.

Andrew's ALLEGED victims

She did it to save the British monarchy a trial which would have been embarrassing and damaging whether PA won or lost.
It was a CIVIL case- he wasn't going to go to jail

Quite - she doesn't seem to understand that her not liking something doesn't make it illegal 😂😂 In fairness, she does seem to have given up trying to argue whatever point she thought she had and decided to just tell me to go away. Not sure how I can explain basic law any more simplistically so I'll give up and go to bed!

@Saschka In the US, on Paedo Island (which she also alleges happened) - crime.

It is also claimed that he had sex with her in New York, which would be legal as the age of consent in New York is 17.