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

God, another one who doesn't understand civil vs criminal trials. At least read the thread, it's been explained so many times.

Virginia sued him, for damages, in a civil court. If the trial was completed the only possible outcomes were that damages were paid, or damages were not paid. If she wanted a public hearing of the evidence and some retribution, that was the only option available to her.

She had no say on whether a criminal trial would be pursued, that's out of her hands and the only way he could ever be called 'convicted', 'guilty' a 'felon' or any of the other terms people are conflating with civil liability in this thread.

Anyone who loves the royals in this day and age is embarrassing and pathetic imo

How rude. Firstly, try reading properly. I said, ‘Not ALL’ of us loved the Queen and not ‘ALL’ of us love the RF; that still leaves room for plenty to love them. Secondly, support for the RF in general has been in steady (and in the last 10y quite rapid) decline. At the last official poll taken last Autumn it stood at 54%. Of course, these things fluctuate slightly but overall it’s a downward trend. The only substantial support for the monarchy now lies with Boomers and older and even among them it’s declining. As such, it’s easy to see that the media skews our perception as this is never reflected in it.

They were arrested during both events. It is in very poor taste but not illegal. As a country we sank to new lows with that one

The Queen didn't pay to keep Andrew out of prison. It was a civil case not a criminal one. Whatever you think of Andrew and the Queen, get your facts right.

sleeping with a 17 year old does not mean you are a paedo

The Queen did not “keep him out of prison” - it was a civil case, so he wouldn’t have gone to prison. It was simply a case of how much he’d have to pay.

I think she just wanted it to be over.

It was a civil case; so I do not think Andrew would have gone to prison.
It would have been a settlement.
There was technically no criminal activity.
My understanding is that both sides wanted to go to court. It was pressure from the RF that caused him to settle.
Andrew's team asked for the original photograph (not sure if this would have been a negative, or a digital one with the meta data). Ms Guiffre's team could not supply it. As soon as I read that I knew they would settle.
Technically, we do not know how much was paid. The 12m is a guess. Again, I understand the late Queen loaned him the money, which was repaid after Andrew sold his swiss chalet.

In a civil court the legal conclusion - if she won - would have been money. There was always a risk she would lose and be liable to pay costs. Settling is safer.

Criminal prosecutions take place in criminal courts and are brought by the prosecuting authority (usually the state). If the prosecution succeed then the accused is fouund guilty and receives a sentence. This may include an element of victim compensation but not always. The compensation would usually be nothing like the damages a civil court would award. The victim can't choose to settle for money as case management decisions are made by the prosecution.

This was a civil suit, not a criminal prosecution.

I firmly believe that people should be treated as innocent unless they are found guilty or admit the crime regardless of their wealth.

In the case of PA this was allegedly a 17year old which is not against the law. It was reported he was under pressure to settle out by his family - which was not an admission of guilt.

She's from California and the legal is 18

She was trafficked in to have sex with him that's against the law.

Given the Falklands conflict was over 40 years ago and we’re drifting into querying PA’s record in the same maybe it’s worth pointing out that absolutely anybody who was in the task force in 82 who got anywhere near the Islands was at significant risk, especially those serving on and or flying off the carriers, and there was no protection or magic bunker available - even, for a Royal, even if kept below decks.

The Argentine Air Force and the air arm of their navy were very keen to sink the likes of Invincible, indeed the Atlantic Conveyor got sunk with loss of life because it was misidentified on radar as a carrier by the Argentine pilots on the day.

It’s also maybe worth pointing out that one of the largest losses UK Special Forces suffered during the campaign was in a helicopter accident (caused by a birdstrike) when attempting what looked like a simple hop transferring between two vessels…so even if PA had been kept way back from the front line just hovering aft of the carriers to help act as a radar decoy (which some rumours have is all he did when “at work”) he was at risk.

I’ve very had a very brief encounter with PA, way back..he’s not my cup of tea at all and deserves all the …..that gets thrown at him these days but like many many others he was objectively very much in harms way during the Falklands Campaign.

The infamous photo was taken in London. That was the same night that VG said she had sex with PA. She was 17, so although morally questionable it is not against the law.

Yes it is but PA only committed a crime if he knew that she was trafficked, which is harder to prove.

Do you honestly believe that JE went to prison for trafficking? I'm not a conspiracy theorist but this whole thing stinks

My god, I've seen PA defended a lot on MN but never Epstein. That's a first.

I presume the poster who said this hasn't read, or listened to any of the victims' statements of what happened.
"I have spent the past 17 years in my own prison for what Jeffrey and all the coconspirators did to me. I was raped repeatedly; I was raped three times a day sometimes. And I was not the only girl of that Island, there was a constant stream of girls being raped over and over and over again,"

Perhaps read some of their victim statements. Some were actually imprisoned on his island. He raped a pair of 13 year old twins. Girls as young as 12 were coerced, trafficked and raped.

There's nothing like supporting a rapist, sex trafficking monster is there....

Shocking

The royal family think they are better than everyone else, and act accordingly. Surely that's not a mystery?

Well Virginia Giuffre wanted to be "paid off".

I don't agree with your assumption that the family were convinced he was not guilty. The Queen stripping him of titles and status, disinheriting him, and his various appearances or not appearances at public events, as the only royal of his generation and previous status standing rows back, not in uniform or just plain not there very much suggests that he was in disgrace with his own family.

I believe the family do not believe he is guilty. However, the public was outraged (quite rightly) with his behaviour and the Queen had no choice but to force him back into the shadows. Let us remember that after the carcrash interview, she publicly supported him by going on a horse ride with him, then church. She made it quite clear where her loyalties lay... with her son. She didn't have to publicly parade around with him, she could've let the dust settle

@4andup
In the U.K. the age of consent is 16 , if anything happened here it would be legal.

Nah, I don't think that's the Queen's style. If she'd have thought he was innocent she'd have paid and he'd have probably laid low for a while or even taken a bit of a step back in duties.

I believe that him being stripped of everything was way above and beyond what they could have "gotten away with" if they'd just been trying to satisfy and quell the general public's opinions of him.

No. Not with a trafficked person. Age is irrelevant if you're trafficked

But I think I'm right in saying for Prince Andrew to have committed a crime he would need to know that she was trafficked, and VG's lawyers would have to prove that he knew.

@BustingBaoBun
It is not proven that this was trafficking. My view regardless of wealth or status it is innocent until proved guilty.